Grendel
Well-Known Member
It’s hardly lots of words. It’s really an interpretation of the contempt of court act where statements made in the public could influence a trial.What do you suggest as a reliable source of news and fact checking for an issue like this? A straight answer would be good. If this one is nonsense, assume you can point to one that isn't.
Edit: please FFS can the pointless licence fee sh*te stay out of this thread, see also 'BBC bias!'. jfc
It’s worth noting that Jonathan Hall QC - who is the independent reviewer of terrorism laws apparently - has said that information can be revealed and that hiding behind the legislation is not an excuse for silence.
I would also in this consider the case of Chris Kaba. It has been establish Kaba - a violent thug - was legitimately killed by a police officer when he presented a clear and present danger when trying to escape when asked to exit the car.
In 2022 when this occurred several prominent figures including the London Major and senior Labour MPs sent messages asking for justice for Chris Kaba. This surely in itself is prejudicial under the Act? It suggests the policeman - who was proved to be entirely innocent - was in fact culpable and could influence a jury.
I’m ever so sorry once again if it’s a lot of words for you to digest but perhaps comment on the points made rather than glossing over them next time,