tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post3596920865019127352..comments2024-03-28T09:08:50.733+00:00Comments on Law and Lawyers: The Twitter Joke judgment consideredObiterJhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04544226917595022902noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post-30476014510425077922012-08-05T17:41:12.151+01:002012-08-05T17:41:12.151+01:00You're missing the point. You aren't distr...You're missing the point. You aren't distressed by those things. What about your (hypothetical) mother or sister, who are (and the threatener knows it)?Ed (not Bystander)noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post-83180709642144280192012-08-04T22:45:26.684+01:002012-08-04T22:45:26.684+01:00Threats are one thing, Ed, but personally, I do no...Threats are one thing, Ed, but personally, I do not care about insults or swear words. <br /><br />I'm also not concerned about speech/written offences towards my religious group. I don't want to see extra penalties for "religiously aggravated" insults. <br /><br />I would like to see minor speech offence laws repealed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post-36454927269879244222012-07-31T18:11:58.296+01:002012-07-31T18:11:58.296+01:00Have a bit of a think about the offence of which M...Have a bit of a think about the offence of which Mr Chambers was convicted: sending a "menacing" communication via a public electronic communications network. Still think it's "a mere technical offence"? If someone sent threatening texts or emails to your mother or sister, what would you think then?Ed (not Bystander)noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post-17422742524101826752012-07-31T16:13:27.931+01:002012-07-31T16:13:27.931+01:00@ PaintingWithNumbers - thank you for the comment....@ PaintingWithNumbers - thank you for the comment. A jury was not possible here since the offence in the Communications Act 2003 s127 may only be tried "summarily" - that is, in the Magistrates' Court. Nevertheless, has a jury been permissible, I suspect that they would have acquitted Mr Chambers.<br /><br />Justice of the Peace and Bystander have commented on the use of District Judges sitting in the Magistrates' Court and taking trials alone. This is a growing trend and there has been a recent advertisement for 16 more District Judges (Magistrates' Courts). I suspect that this trend will continue.<br /><br />I discussed Magistrates in a series <a href="http://obiterj.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/explaining-our-law-and-legal-system-no5.html" rel="nofollow">Explaining the Law</a>. The government's recent White Paper - <a href="http://obiterj.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/swift-and-sure-has-flashman-come-up.html" rel="nofollow">Swift and Sure</a> - is putting forward some further work which Magistrates (JPs) might do.ObiterJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04544226917595022902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post-39813704000288876332012-07-31T12:24:11.870+01:002012-07-31T12:24:11.870+01:00A helpful analysis and description. Thankyou.
A g...A helpful analysis and description. Thankyou.<br /><br />A general point from me, a mere layman: <br /><br />It has taken 4 court cases to determine Paul Chamber's guilt or innocence. He was found guilty initially of a "crime" that few people, including himself, did not believe he had committed. In so far as the crime existed, it was a mere technical offence, one that seemed to have little to do with a natural sense of morality possessed by most people. And yet, Paul's life was scarred by the prosecution. Surely, it can not be right that so much time, effort and resource should have been expended on determining whether Paul had in fact committed a crime? It suggest it would have been more efficient to have left it to a jury to determine Paul's guilt. This way, at least Paul's behaviour would have been judged against common standards of morality and sense.<br /><br />I fear there may be an increasing tendency for Parliament to outlaw so many harmless or victimless activities that ordinary people may engage in during their daily lives. Normal people accept murder, rape and robbery, etc as being wrong and the same people support(even demand?) attempts by Parliament to legislate on these matters. But sending a badly phrased Tweet containing swear words? Or causing offence? Or annoyance? The list of similarly inane "crimes" will get longer I fear.PaintingWithNumbershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04626024525506054863noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post-47504261099725051232012-07-29T22:29:34.208+01:002012-07-29T22:29:34.208+01:00The best chance to stop he nonsense in its tracks ...The best chance to stop he nonsense in its tracks was at the Crown Court when a judge sat with two JPs, but sadly they did not do so. A goodly number of my colleagues are pretty web-savvy, but I fear that most are not, and simply wouldn't have been able to put it in context.Bystander https://www.blogger.com/profile/10211688955428527960noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post-77231724357472607652012-07-29T11:36:15.944+01:002012-07-29T11:36:15.944+01:00"However, it is a summary only case and there..."However, it is a summary only case and therefore was tried by a District Judge in the Magistrates' Court."<br /><br />It is yet another example of the iniquity of single judges sitting in magistrates` courts. There appears on the surface an impression that some cases are cherry picked to avoid a bench of lay magistrates.The Justice of the Peacehttp://thejusticeofthepeace.blog.co.uknoreply@blogger.com