In the news

What are you on about?

You're pissed, or stupid, or both. Anyone who wants to read Bill's article can still do so, so you've achieved precisely fuck all. Well done.

sorry jamie not you, h20 is gutless

you've achieved precisely fuck all

im hoping i have shut you up about that court case etc

Are you Charlie's mum?

I've been talking about it the entire way through the case, and will likely continue, because it interests me.

hopefully you will stop bigging yourself up by pretending to be a lawyer and just give it a rest

Never pretended to be a lawyer. Studied it, went into journalism, have said as much.

Edit. Why am I feeding the troll? Gah.

g'night

Judge Juices!

Oh gods, so good.

A good article in the Guardian today. If you don't have time to read it, the conclusion is 'no.'

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2017/aug/29/is-the-uk-really-menaced-by-reckless-cyclists?CMP=share_btn_tw

In 99% of cases where the articles headline is a question, the answer is no.

This increases to 100% if the 'article' is on the Daily Mail.

Some perspective on the challenges faced by the Houston emergency services right now.

1 Attachment

It's rained for about 10 minutes yesterday in Abbruzzo and the Italian locals looked more fearful than Texans. Can't fathom the level of flooding there.

Also is salad fingers just cfina? Cos there's so much agro that now I want to talk more about the case and post more links to articles about the case.

Did anyone mention the case yet?

To give it further perspective / comparison, the M25 is 117 miles in length.

Is there even anything they can do when it's that big an area and with so many people? If that happened in London I sort of feel we'd all be fucked.

There is no sub judice now. You can say or print what you like. The young 'man' has been convicted and the case is no longer active. To quote the Channel 4 Producers' Handbook (my addition of an apostrophe) http://www.channel4.com/producers-handbook/media-law/contempt-and-reporting-legal-proceedings/contempt-or-sub-judice-rules

Once a person has been acquitted or sentenced, or the proceedings come to an end in some other way, proceedings cease to be 'active' and there is much more scope for commenting on the proceedings and the convicted person and publishing material which it was not possible to disseminate before or during the trial. In practice, once a defendant has been convicted, even if they have not been sentenced (sometimes sentencing is delayed), the media treats the proceedings as no longer 'active'. This is because sentencing in the Crown Court is carried out by professional judges who the law deems will not easily be prejudiced by media reports.

Hello @sausagefingers

See above post

Grass!

Not a topic that we could claim an 'enjoyable read', but very level-headed and well written narrative. Will check out more of your blog in the future.

He kept spouting "but sub judice" again and again with no clue about what it means or when it applies. And when it was explained just got abusive and then asked me to finger his sausage - a weird late night meltdown.

Thanks for handbook link. I was being a bit flippant as salad fingers was so heavy handed on the keyboard, but good to see the text and explanation.

However, as discussed for dozens of pages here, the whole question of subjudice is moot. Since the mass media narrative read as so heavily biased whilst the case was active salad fingers should have piped up two years ago.

I know I'm just pulling your leg. Not stretching your saveloy.