I offer you Deep Throat. Took over thirty years for his identity to be published and, even then, it seems possible that it would not have become public within the lifetimes of those who could confirm from personal knowledge.
Brexit, for once some facts.
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
Farage and Robinson compete for similar audiences. I stumbled on this piece about Farage but by and large, still applicable.
They call him Nigel, and he arrived as a friend.
You can smell the nostalgia on them. You are never too far from mention of the forthcoming anniversary of D-day, the wonders of the Commonwealth or the golden era of British fishing. “We’re a proud nation,” one woman told me. “We’re a fighting nation. We will not be humiliated.”
Whatever else they are, they are not racist. This point is declarative, not discursive – a statement made in response to a question that has not been asked and a point that has not been made. They insist on their own decency and persecution. “Britain’s over, manners are over,” one man told Farage. “If I say I don’t like foreigners coming over here and taking all the jobs, I’ll be arrested,” he said, before not being arrested.
...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/26/farage-extinction-rebellion-brexit-party-climate-protesters-politics
Last edited:
Farage and Robinson are not a product of rising right. They are a product of this government not fullfilling rrsults of referendum. Had we left, as promised in Tory and Labour manifestos and verbally time and time again, there would have been no remergence of Farage. Dont really see TR as a threat at all, and for that matter neither is Farage. Both would simlply be minor has beens had government behaved properly. As it is they are gathering support from the disenfranchised and let down. There are plenty to go at despite the impression this thread gives.
Fingers, fingers, again and again you do the same thing... You see the surface not the volume.
But first a correction. Contrary to what I stated there is an actual offence of contempt of court, and it exists in both Jurisdictions...and why would it not,? both are based on 800 years of common law .
Jurists in both countries are continuously looking over the practices in both countries, and indeed the other Common Law countries like Canada or New Zealand for best practice and occasionally using precedence s established elsewhere.
This type of conviction for Contempt would typically be for reporting or commenting on matters" sub judice", or refusing to comply with formal court orders. It would involve prosecution and defense and has stipulated penalties. The principle of double jeopardy would apply in this case.
Your knowledge of double jeopardy is equally simplistic. If you have been found guilty of being drunk and disorderly last Wednesday, ,you can also be found guilty of being Drunk and disorderly on Thursday.. a new offence. .
Similarly if a journalist refused to answer on Monday, and was held over to the Tuesday sitting, and refused to answer on Tuesday,that would be a new contempt
There are particular exemptions for journalists, but this privilege is not absolute.
You are right, MPs on all sides have shown very poor leadership and displayed contempt for the electorate. They fail to act properly when instances of theft, payed employment by rogue firms and offences against the official secrets act are disclosed. They award themselves large pay rises whilst imposing pay cuts on the most vulnerable. They have performed inadequately in Brexit negotiations. They are frittering away the extra time granted by the EU to get our **** together. They are putting themselves ahead of what is necessary for the good of the U.K.
All of this is fuel for Tommy Robinson & Nigel Farage. It’s shameful.
I'm not disputing that. That wasn't what I was saying. I am fully aware you can be arrested for d and d on separate occasions. Who isn't?
If the judge keeps said jounalist in court for contempt and brings them back he can of course hold him/her in jail but once he has sentenced him/her thats it.
The guy just likes to type waffle. I daresay he is like it in real life and just loves the sound of his own voice.
He added nothing no one didn't know and in fact spouted nonsense when he said journalists were somehow exempt from the law.
Just blarney.
I suppose the question is:
If a journalist refuses to disclose to a court the identity of his informant, and by so doing he is held to be in contempt of court and sentenced, can he then be brought back before the court after the sentence has been served, and asked the same question again regarding the identity of his informant? And if he still refuses to name him, sentenced again? A sort of never ending cycle of questions and prison until he eventually breaks?
I don’t know the answer to that, but it doesn’t sound like something English law would allow.
Maybe I wasn't clear enough.
1. A journalist can be held in contempt of court for not naming his source.
2. He can be sent down and made to name his source after a night in the cells. He still refuses.
3 He is sent down again.
4. At some point the judge will say ok you have broken the law. I sentence you to x months. It's usually months.
5. Anytime he has already spent in the cells is taken off the judges sentence.
6. He is released. He has served his sentence and under double jeopardy laws he cannot be tried for the same crime again. (Unless as discussed murder)
7. Much back slapping and champagne and a job for life.
8. The End.
Despite your opposite view there are even more remain voters who have a great deal to be annoyed about than this thread makes you believe.
You have only yourself to blame for whatever happens, we blame you for not seeing it coming.
We didn't vote for this disaster, it isn't of our making, but we are forced to share it against our will, and seemingly no one in authority gives a damn about us.
Therefore we have no sympathy for the very people who created the problem.
Maybe no minister was guilty of leaking.
It might have been their bugged Huawei phones transmitting the cabinet discussion.
.
Let's face it the government's just got the hump because some one let it slip who might be supplying some of our communications equipment. It's hardly a state secret the engineers and technicians fitting the stuff will be well aware who's built it, they'll have diagrams worksheets and all sorts of written data relating to the gear they will be working with does that mean slapping a DSMA notice on everyone involved in setting up these networks ?
This government didn't want the US and other countries finding out too soon as they all have issues of their own with China and as usual the tail is wagging the dog. This story will drag on and on but at the end of the day it's all a non issue and the price you pay for non investment.
This government didn't want the US and other countries finding out too soon as they all have issues of their own with China and as usual the tail is wagging the dog. This story will drag on and on but at the end of the day it's all a non issue and the price you pay for non investment.
did you watch BBCQT last night? It was more lively than usual.
Still, this scene may have backfired on John Rhys Davies.
Still, this scene may have backfired on John Rhys Davies.
Yes and no.
1 agreed
2 agreed
3 agreed
4 no. .. he needs to be indicted, book of evidence new trial, new judge. The current UK law is fine of 2k5, or 1 month.
5. Possibly
6. Agreed .. but if the case comes up again and he again refuses, its a new offence
7 possible and probable.
8. Hopefully
And perhaps you might correct your error where you claimed that I stated Journalists were above the law.....
"Contempt of Court Act 1981 (CCA 1981). Section 10 provides that in a free and democratic society there is a need to protect journalists’ sources and presumes in favour of those journalists wishing to do so. There are however exceptions to this presumption where disclosure of the information will be deemed necessary. These are:
in the interests of justice;
in the interests of national security;
for the prevention of disorder or crime;
In the interests of justice.
Whether disclosure of a journalistic source will be deemed to be in the interest of justice is dependent on the facts of the case. Courts are reluctant to establish that disclosure is in the interest of justice and will usually only do so where vital public or individual interest are at stake."
Last edited:
This is iconic
British Bigot : There are some foreigners that are coming over here and taking our jobs, yeah, and they’re not even working
Reporter: "How can they take our jobs if they're not working?"
British Bigot : BECAUSE THEY DO IT, THEY DO IT. THEY DO IT.
Why are you arguing?
You are simply wrong. It's boring. You're boring. You are too arrogant to argue with. For instance.
''In any case where a court has power to commit a person to prison for contempt of court and (apart from this provision) no limitation applies to the period of committal, the committal shall (without prejudice to the power of the court to order his earlier discharge) be for a fixed term, and that term shall not on any occasion exceed two years in the case of committal by a superior court, or one month in the case of committal by an inferior court. ''
I got the quote. And this is the last time I make any effort for you to show you anything, it can be more than one month. You are a wikipedia, 6th form debater.
How do I know what happens to journos so intimately? It happened to a colleague of mine and he got 6 months. He didn't serve that much but that was his sentence. Why am I bothering explaining anything to you? You know everything.
For instance you said.
There are particular exemptions for journalists, but this privilege is not absolute
What does that even me? It's blarney and nonsense. You have been found out. Let it go. Your knowledge of UK contempt law is less than even the most tiresome pub bore.
Mmmm I can just smell all the home produced curry, ghoulash, wurstel & enchiladas from the stalls...