This is a football message board, not a court of law. Can’t understand why you’re getting so worked up defending Joey Barton of all people. Whilst your passion for due process is admirable, this isn’t a criminal trial. There are no consequences for Barton based on what people say here.
Essentially, this is a thread where people are rightly pointing out that in light of Barton’s extensive list of previous it’s highly likely that he was at fault in this case. The fact that you appear incredulous at such a suggestion is rather odd to be perfectly honest.
I have not condemned not defended Barton
Why? Because like everyone else on this board I did not witness the alleged incident and am therefore not in any position to reach a conclusion over what happened yesterday.
As for consequences...I would remind you and others of the Contempt of Court Act as there is allegedly a police investigation and a named subject. You could find yourself committing a contempt of court by some of the comments people gave made on here
This is a football message board, not a court of law. Can’t understand why you’re getting so worked up defending Joey Barton of all people. Whilst your passion for due process is admirable, this isn’t a criminal trial. There are no consequences for Barton based on what people say here.
Essentially, this is a thread where people are rightly pointing out that in light of Barton’s extensive list of previous it’s highly likely that he was at fault in this case. The fact that you appear incredulous at such a suggestion is rather odd to be perfectly honest.
I have not condemned not defended Barton
Why? Because like everyone else on this board I did not witness the alleged incident and am therefore not in any position to reach a conclusion over what happened yesterday.
As for consequences...I would remind you and others of the Contempt of Court Act as there is allegedly a police investigation and a named subject. You could find yourself committing a contempt of court by some of the comments people gave made on here
@ Spen,
just to clarify: Nobody posting on this thread would be liable to prosecution for 'contempt of court'. No court has yet made any stipulation about the alleged incident so, therefore, nobody here can be 'in contempt' of any such stipulation.
Here are the three most common grounds for contempt:
Contempt "in the face of the court" (not to be taken literally; the judge does not need to see it, provided it took place within the court precincts or relates to a case currently before that court);
Disobedience of a court order; and
Breaches of undertakings to the court.
None of these apply to the alleged Barton incident.
This is a football message board, not a court of law. Can’t understand why you’re getting so worked up defending Joey Barton of all people. Whilst your passion for due process is admirable, this isn’t a criminal trial. There are no consequences for Barton based on what people say here.
Essentially, this is a thread where people are rightly pointing out that in light of Barton’s extensive list of previous it’s highly likely that he was at fault in this case. The fact that you appear incredulous at such a suggestion is rather odd to be perfectly honest.
I have not condemned not defended Barton
Why? Because like everyone else on this board I did not witness the alleged incident and am therefore not in any position to reach a conclusion over what happened yesterday.
As for consequences...I would remind you and others of the Contempt of Court Act as there is allegedly a police investigation and a named subject. You could find yourself committing a contempt of court by some of the comments people gave made on here
@ Spen,
just to clarify: Nobody posting on this thread would be liable to prosecution for 'contempt of court'. No court has yet made any stipulation about the alleged incident so, therefore, nobody here can be 'in contempt' of any such stipulation.
Here are the three most common grounds for contempt:
Contempt "in the face of the court" (not to be taken literally; the judge does not need to see it, provided it took place within the court precincts or relates to a case currently before that court);
Disobedience of a court order; and
Breaches of undertakings to the court.
None of these apply to the alleged Barton incident.
Ok Fatbaz, have it your way
But your half assed Google search is no defence to a change when it is not a contempt in the face of court I am referring to. Perhaps you will write to the government and advise them that their guidance on the judiciary website is also wrong because your half assed Google search on a different offence says so
I will, indeed 'have it my way'. I am right and you are wrong.
Just to repeat: The Barton incident has not been before a court. Therefore no judge could have made a stipulation or prohibition about what is said or written about it. That being so, nothing posted on this thread renders its author liable to prosecution under any 'contempt of court' law as you claim.
You are in a hole. You'd be well advised to stop digging.
I will, indeed 'have it my way'. I am right and you are wrong.
Just to repeat: The Barton incident has not been before a court. Therefore no judge could have made a stipulation or prohibition about what is said or written about it. That being so, nothing posted on this thread renders its author liable to prosecution under any 'contempt of court' law as you claim.
You are in a hole. You'd be well advised to stop digging.
That is why the Government publish guidance on their website about what can be reported when there is an active investigation with a named suspect.
Its also why the Contempt of Court Act make it a criminal offence to report or publish comments on aspects of allegations, but despite this, you seem to be Tommy Robinson and deny the existence of laws despite the fact they exist
Cases do not have to be before a court before the restrictions kick in.
I will, indeed 'have it my way'. I am right and you are wrong.
Just to repeat: The Barton incident has not been before a court. Therefore no judge could have made a stipulation or prohibition about what is said or written about it. That being so, nothing posted on this thread renders its author liable to prosecution under any 'contempt of court' law as you claim.
You are in a hole. You'd be well advised to stop digging.
That is why the Government publish guidance on their website about what can be reported when there is an active investigation with a named suspect.
Its also why the Contempt of Court Act make it a criminal offence to report or publish comments on aspects of allegations, but despite this, you seem to be Tommy Robinson and deny the existence of laws despite the fact they exist
Cases do not have to be before a court before the restrictions kick in.
If anything I write here about Joey Barton means that I end up in court then so be it, I’ll get my best suit and tie ready.
For the record: Barton is a mean thug and I reckon he’s entirely guilty of all charges relating to the offence yesterday. Officers, take me away.
Contempt of court
‘Contempt of court’ happens when someone risks unfairly influencing a court case. It may stop somebody from getting a fair trial and can affect a trial’s outcome.
Contempt of court includes:
disobeying or ignoring a court order
taking photos or shouting out in court
refusing to answer the court’s questions if you’re called as a witness
publicly commenting on a court case, for example on social media or online news articles
If you’re found to be in contempt of court, you could go to prison for up to 2 years, get a fine, or both.
Publicly commenting on a court case
You might be in contempt of court if you speak publicly or post on social media.
For example, you should not:
say whether you think a person is guilty or innocent
refer to someone’s previous convictions
name someone the judge has allowed to be anonymous, even if you did not know this
name victims, witnesses and offenders under 18
name sex crime victims
share any evidence or facts about a case that the judge has said cannot be made public
I'm sure you'll agree that ALL of this advice pertains to cases that are before a court. Speaking or writing about allegations, before a case is heard, is NOT an offence under the 'Contempt Of Court' laws. Barton hasn't even been charged with an offence yet so no court has made any prohibition or injunction about his 'case'.
Nothing written on this thread renders its author liable to prosecution under the 'Contempt Of Court Act'.
I'm afraid that you are wrong. A simple acknowledgement of that fact would be very much appreciated.
Contempt of court
‘Contempt of court’ happens when someone risks unfairly influencing a court case. It may stop somebody from getting a fair trial and can affect a trial’s outcome.
Contempt of court includes:
disobeying or ignoring a court order
taking photos or shouting out in court
refusing to answer the court’s questions if you’re called as a witness
publicly commenting on a court case, for example on social media or online news articles
If you’re found to be in contempt of court, you could go to prison for up to 2 years, get a fine, or both.
Publicly commenting on a court case
You might be in contempt of court if you speak publicly or post on social media.
For example, you should not:
say whether you think a person is guilty or innocent
refer to someone’s previous convictions
name someone the judge has allowed to be anonymous, even if you did not know this
name victims, witnesses and offenders under 18
name sex crime victims
share any evidence or facts about a case that the judge has said cannot be made public
I'm sure you'll agree that ALL of this advice pertains to cases that are before a court. Speaking or writing about allegations, before a case is heard, is NOT an offence under the 'Contempt Of Court' laws. Barton hasn't even been charged with an offence yet so no court has made any prohibition or injunction about his 'case'.
Nothing written on this thread renders its author liable to prosecution under the 'Contempt Of Court Act'.
I'm afraid that you are wrong. A simple acknowledgement of that fact would be very much appreciated.
So you confirm there are restrictions on what can be reported. Which is my point.
What you are wrong about is when reporting restrictions commence. They commence long before anyone appears in court. They commence when proceedings are "active"
The Contempt of Court Acts 1981 provides the definition of what is active
Contempt of court
‘Contempt of court’ happens when someone risks unfairly influencing a court case. It may stop somebody from getting a fair trial and can affect a trial’s outcome.
Contempt of court includes:
disobeying or ignoring a court order
taking photos or shouting out in court
refusing to answer the court’s questions if you’re called as a witness
publicly commenting on a court case, for example on social media or online news articles
If you’re found to be in contempt of court, you could go to prison for up to 2 years, get a fine, or both.
Publicly commenting on a court case
You might be in contempt of court if you speak publicly or post on social media.
For example, you should not:
say whether you think a person is guilty or innocent
refer to someone’s previous convictions
name someone the judge has allowed to be anonymous, even if you did not know this
name victims, witnesses and offenders under 18
name sex crime victims
share any evidence or facts about a case that the judge has said cannot be made public
I'm sure you'll agree that ALL of this advice pertains to cases that are before a court. Speaking or writing about allegations, before a case is heard, is NOT an offence under the 'Contempt Of Court' laws. Barton hasn't even been charged with an offence yet so no court has made any prohibition or injunction about his 'case'.
Nothing written on this thread renders its author liable to prosecution under the 'Contempt Of Court Act'.
I'm afraid that you are wrong. A simple acknowledgement of that fact would be very much appreciated.
So you confirm there are restrictions on what can be reported. Which is my point.
What you are wrong about is when reporting restrictions commence. They commence long before anyone appears in court. They commence when proceedings are "active"
The Contempt of Court Acts 1981 provides the definition of what is active
As mentioned previously, if saying anything about Barton gets me in trouble then so be it.
I’ll go on record again as saying that Joey Barton is a nasty thug and I suspect that he is entirely guilty of the offence mentioned on Saturday. Hope he gets nicked for it.
The idea that speaking negatively of Joey Barton on a Leyton Orient message board is somehow breaking the law or is contempt of court is utterly laughable and I’ll repeat my allegations about him until the cows come home.
