That's quite logical and sensible.If there needs to be one I would suggest having a locked thread with mods only posting summaries of the day's events from the BBC or other news organisations.
Good ideaIf there needs to be one I would suggest having a locked thread with mods only posting summaries of the day's events from the BBC or other news organisations.
Seeing as his name is now made public, what's the difference between this and the Giggs trial?If there needs to be one I would suggest having a locked thread with mods only posting summaries of the day's events from the BBC or other news organisations.
Broadly speaking none. Both are covered by contempt laws and this site and Niall are open to contempt proceedings if people say the wrong thing, even inadvertently.Seeing as his name is now made public, what's the difference between this and the Giggs trial?
None. Compromising either or both is possible so we are creating read only threads for both until the trials are over.Seeing as his name is now made public, what's the difference between this and the Giggs trial?
Exactly. Now done. Good idea @FrostyBroadly speaking none. Both are covered by contempt laws and this site and Niall are open to contempt proceedings if people say the wrong thing, even inadvertently.
The approach taken to Mason Greenwood should be adopted in my view.
Factual updates are fine. Given most jurors admit to googling their trials and doing research (both of which it is illegal to do) the less people say before the verdict the better.
Just curious, does this mean any sort of commentary/analysis on a UK based trial is not encouraged by any UK based forum/publication? The Rooney-Vardy trial seemed to be fair game on here; does the subject matter make a difference?Broadly speaking none. Both are covered by contempt laws and this site and Niall are open to contempt proceedings if people say the wrong thing, even inadvertently.
The approach taken to Mason Greenwood should be adopted in my view.
Factual updates are fine. Given most jurors admit to googling their trials and doing research (both of which it is illegal to do) the less people say before the verdict the better.
In short, yes.Just curious, does this mean any sort of commentary/analysis on a UK based trial is not encouraged by any UK based forum/publication? The Rooney-Vardy trial seemed to be fair game on here; does the subject matter make a difference?
Just curious, does this mean any sort of commentary/analysis on a UK based trial is not encouraged by any UK based forum/publication? The Rooney-Vardy trial seemed to be fair game on here; does the subject matter make a difference?
Also, the Vardy case didn't have a jury - ruling was decided by the judge only.In short, yes.
The Vardy case was a civil case. Civil contempt generally only applies to the parties in the specific case, whereas criminal contempt applies to anyone. Criminal contempt has greater penalties, and England and Wales has very strict restrictions and rules over what can and cannot be reported on or said about a criminal case during investigation and during the trial.
Good summaryIn short, yes.
The Vardy case was a civil case. Civil contempt generally only applies to the parties in the specific case, whereas criminal contempt applies to anyone. Criminal contempt has greater penalties, and England and Wales has very strict restrictions and rules over what can and cannot be reported on or said about a criminal case during investigation and during the trial.
