I think we should be should be careful about discussing the Leeds case, its possible outcome and so on as it's subjudice. This would be much more important if this site were linked to a news or media site but nonetheless, we should be careful. Sorry....

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2001

Answers

Why? I'm not on the jury.

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2001

I thought this was an open discussion forum?? Why can't we discuss it? It is newsworthy all over the papers and being discussed in much more detail than this by people closer to the case. Doug's what are the legal ramifications?

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2001

Because debate on the matter may affect the defendants getting a fair trial - juries go home, you know. English legal principle to protect the integrity of trials.

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2001

You can relate the facts of the case. The problem is that debate and opinion on the defendants and the possible outcome may affect the integrity of the trial. Juries go home and read newspapers and look at football-related Internet sites and there's the danger that their final finding may be influenced by opinions they've heard outside the court room.

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2001

In such a high profile case, the jury would be instructed NOT to read any newspaper account of the hearing or watch TV News etc. But it's always wise to be careful. It's Sod's Law that one member of the jury is prob an exiled Geordie who likes to catch up with news of the Toon on his favourite BBS...

Even so, heard of a juror last week who went straight down his local on the first night of the trial, discussed all the evidence with his mates and asked them if they thought the bloke was guilty!

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2001

I understand that the major football sites have been instructed to remove any debate about it. Although I didn't hear it from the horse's mouth.

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2001

aah never hord or saw nowt me!! To be honest I have no idea wot you're aaaall takin' aboot.

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2001

You mean if we continue to debate and discuss it on here, the b@st@rds might get away with it? Hush my gob..................

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2001

I think your words of caution are very wise Dougal. I've picked some views on the trial from one or two people who may have had access to inside information, and for that reason have avoided discussing the matter on a public forum.
Possibly a tad over-cautious, but when the charges include GBH I don't believe we can be too careful, simply prudent.

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2001

Sorry, but I disagree. I think that we have a perfect right to discuss the case. I mean, for Chrisssakes, we ain't talking a multiple murder here!

In a 'free' country like ours we can and should have a discussion about a case. Why do you think trials are not behind closed doors? Anyone can go to any trial, subject to space, and it would be ignorant in the extreme to think the 'spectators' in the courtroom would not chat to people afterwards. I am not talking about the law here Dougal, I am aware of the legalities, I am talking common sense and human nature.

I see nothing wrong with this chat of ours, I for one will be the first to stand up and cheer if they prove to be innocent, but I doubt it very much. We will see. And if you think that the newspapers - especially the redtops- are reporting fairly and honestly then look at the headlines from the past few days. If I can discuss this with workmates, then why can't I do it on a PRIVATE site?

The only exception I would make is if - as above - someone has inside knowledge. Otherwise get real, let's have no taboo subjects. Say what we feel subject only to the feelings and common decency of others on the site.

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2001

I'm with Nick on this. As long as it is pure speculation, or what has been read in the press, then I can't see the problem. If however, Al K Hol has some inside information, then he's right to keep it close to his chest.

The only other thing I guess that has to be watched for is a potential libel (this is written, innit??).

Dougal - perhaps you can enlighten me as to why it can't be discussed.

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2001

Hey gang, go ahead - nobody's censoring anything - and frankly I don't give a fig what you do. If you don't want to accept a lawyers genuinely-offered advice, then suit yersels. Your choice.

BTW, I fully accept that my position is rather different to speculating on public information. I wish I'd kept my gob shut.

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2001

Clarky - it's a free world, as far as I'm concerned. If I am contravening the law, then I will (try to) hold back. I just wanna know where we stand regarding debating a topic. This ine just happens to be football. The next could be paedophilia, rape or whatever. Ignore the fact that the cnuts people involved are Leeds players.

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2001

It's the jury who can't discuss it. We can.

-- Anonymous, February 15, 2001

Hahahaha.....

-- Anonymous, February 15, 2001

Oh for goodness sakes...

-- Anonymous, February 15, 2001

It's an interesting one. Is it actually illegal to voice opinions on a court case? I understand how it can hamper a fair trial, so there probably are laws, especially for the media. I assume, Dougal, that you're implying this BBS could be deemed to be media. Presumably there can't be any laws about people discussing things about a case in a pub, say...

-- Anonymous, February 15, 2001

Bollox. What a load of alarmist shite. Of course it's not subjudice. Chat away folks, and why not add a bit of rumour, gossip and make-believe (and if any of the jury are looking in, the b*stards are guilty.)

-- Anonymous, February 15, 2001

Bollox yerself - it's sub judice by definition.

Of course you can comment on it all you want and nobody can stop you. However, the more that you do, the more you run the risk that some people who might or might not be guilty will never complete their trial, because it will be stopped. If you want to minimise the risk of that happening, don't comment.

I feel strongly about this because it (sort of) happened in a case I was involved with, the end result being that somebody who I will always be convinced was guilty as hell of some very unpleasant acts got off pretty well scot free.

-- Anonymous, February 15, 2001

Right - Dr Bill, but I still say bollox. I find it so hard to believe thet this and any other trial that causes one word of written debate is forever knackered, if this type of public discussion can be defined as subjudicial.

This BBS is bar-room stuff, full of meaningless opinions spouted by idiots like me that carry no weight or influence.

Should I really believe that if anyone wants to get this trial stopped then they need look no further than the Leeds message boards which are right now red hot?

-- Anonymous, February 15, 2001

Did certain people really have to be so rude about this?

-- Anonymous, February 15, 2001