Posted on 05/23/2011 4:49:43 PM PDT by naturalman1975
Britain has the law of prejudice as far as criminal trials are concerned. The press are not allowed to make comment that may prejudice the rights of the accused.
Personally I am the vast majority of British people support that law.
...I agree...the nanny state is acting like the fire-suppression strategy followed by the US Forest Service in our western states: it preserved the status quo of pretty forests for many years, but it also allowed fuel in the form of dead trees to build up to dangerous levels. When fires did happen, they quickly burned out of control and did a lot of damage.
Thanks for the “legality” clarification on the “no comments” rule.
I’m not sure I totally agree with it, though I understand the desire to not create a lynch-mob atmosphere. Still it wouldn’t be difficult for a newspaper to “prejudice” a case by simply emphasizing certain facts over others. If one wanted to be purist about it, the words in the headline, “gang”, “horrific” could be construed as prejudicial.
By the way, do you happen to know if the religion course is still being taught (including muslim girls)? That after all is the real target of this attack.
1—Its more a law to stop columnists and editorials prejudicing the trial.
2—Yes, I have checked the website of the school and RE is still being taught and the course looks at and ‘questions’ aspects of all religions.
Five men jailed for terms of 5,5,4,4 and 2 years.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.