Page 1 of 1

Fliming in court

PostPosted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 1:51 pm
by jonathan01n

What "laws" did he broke, why he warrent in jail for a month, who is the injured party, who is making a claim?
Is CJA 1925 common law or statute


Only corrupted organization want to hide their business by prohibit fliming

Other videos banned by this coporation
:no: :no: :no: :geek:

Re: Fliming in court

PostPosted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 4:25 pm
by cassandra
I see a number of things here:
1. The 'law' was passed in 1925. It was unnecessary before then because there were no film cameras. It is an example of the law keeping pace with the world as it changes.

2.Why have it?
To protect honest witnesses for one thing. Would you give evidence against a strong, violent criminal gang such as the Krays or the Richardson torture gang under the lights of public broadcast where any member not on trial would see you? You'd be worried about a knock on the door later. Some court sessions are held in camera for such reasons. There are also those falsely accused of say, paedophilia or rape and, as innocents, they are entitled to privacy if they choose it. Also the victims in such cases – they should have a say in the matter.
I do agree that some cases could be freely televised. Not family matters, obviously, but there are other common interest matters that could be aired.

3. Who was harmed?
The British public was harmed in the sense that a law, introduced by those who speak on their behalf in high matters of state, was broken. All public crime is crime against the people, which is why in matters of private suit in a tort case involving a criminal matter the maxim
“Public good before private benefit ” is invoked and we are obliged to report a criminal tort to the police and await the outcome before we may make suit for damages. In the abstract philosophical and judicial sense, all crime harms all the people.

4. Knowing the 'law', why was our Welshman foolish enough to broadcast under his own name and face? Ego? A challenge to the state? Low IQ? Hmm, I wonder.

5. Challenging the court is futile and foolish. Like challenging a cop on the street over the Road Traffic Act. The Interpretations Act requires all such officials to take judicial notice of all statutes. The judge can no more break the law than Taff could. If you want change then you must lobby for it and get it changed at source. There is no point in asking a constable to break his oath and commit perjury and pervert the course of justice, or ask a judge to do the same and ignore the law they are both sworn to serve. Wakey wakey, boys and girls. It aint gonna happen. When those guys break the law it is for their own reasons and their own personal gain. You don't count.

6. The one who grassed him up was acting under the common law obligation that all men are obliged to uphold the law, report crime and, if necessary or practical, arrest the offender(s) in the absence of a constable. I dare say that the grass in the case would be just as offended were the law to be changed to permit filming and that filming was somehow prevented unlawfully. Just a guess, because that member of the public was probably not personally harmed by the filming and because many of us are like that.
It's been said that if a man lies to you in a small thing he will lie to you in a big one. If a man steals a small thing he will steal a big thing. This may or may not be true but, by reasonable extension, we could argue that if a man breaks a small llaw he will break a greater one.

7. He looks a bit of a handful – a really scary looking geezer!

Re: Fliming in court

PostPosted: Sun Apr 09, 2017 1:30 pm
by iamani
Hi jonathan01n

Completely agree, should be filmed subject to the wishes of the 'accused' and any vulnerable witnesses. One of my first posts suggested this and my opinion hasn't changed.

Thanks for the links.