the freeman gets tossed, the defendants get dumber

[bmxninja357]

The pair walked out of Manchester Magistrates’ Court after their representative and self-professed ‘freeman on the land’ was escorted out of the building by police for recording in court.

The couple said they would not return to the courtroom without him, forcing magistrates to find them both guilty.

The chairman of the bench said: “Both parents have voluntarily absented themselves from proceedings and as a result the bench has not had the opportunity to hear any defence at all.”

read the whole stinker: http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... g-10015269

peace,
ninj

[YiamCross]

I must say I do question this ban on recording in courts. Maybe videos should be banned but when you can buy a transcription of what's been said, if not cheaply, why not just cut out the middle man. Maybe that's the key, keeping the transcription companies in business.

An interesting note on that point. A court transcript has to be signed off by the judge hearing the case and he can order it to be ammended. I find that worrying.

[ArthurWankspittle]

I must say I do question this ban on recording in courts. Maybe videos should be banned but when you can buy a transcription of what's been said, if not cheaply, why not just cut out the middle man. Maybe that's the key, keeping the transcription companies in business.

There are pluses and minuses. Having a video of the witness you are wanting to intimidate must be useful. I think it may be a bit old fashioned but it works and is applied consistently.

An interesting note on that point. A court transcript has to be signed off by the judge hearing the case and he can order it to be ammended. I find that worrying.

I think that's more for him to make sure defendants and witnesses are kept anonymous in cases where they should be, like child witnesses and defendants.

[littleFred]

The mother comments on one of the articles about the situation:

Our council fund this school it's the highest funded school in Manchester, they have the audacity to try n grab more money out of us this isn't law it's a manmade rule made up by a corrupt official as they know the people of Britain are that soft they can bleed them dry, they met their match pickin on us I totally refuse I will not be one of britains foot soldiers brain washed by a corrupt council everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and mine is go and catch a real criminal

(My underlining.)

Do we know who their representative and self-professed ‘freeman on the land’ was?

[Pox]

The pair walked out of Manchester Magistrates’ Court after their representative and self-professed ‘freeman on the land’ was escorted out of the building by police for recording in court.

The couple said they would not return to the courtroom without him, forcing magistrates to find them both guilty.

The chairman of the bench said: “Both parents have voluntarily absented themselves from proceedings and as a result the bench has not had the opportunity to hear any defence at all.”

read the whole stinker: http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... g-10015269

peace,
ninj

So that's a win then?

Seems the family took part in a 'documentary' called People Like Us.
Never watched it myself and find the title could be subject to interpretation -

People LIKE us - sorry but on a cursory glance, I don't LIKE you.

People like US - no, you are NOT like me.

Anyway, here is a link to what the 'documentary' is supposed to be about

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_ ... TV_series)

This 'family' is just another example of those who seek 'stardom' in the form of a mention in the Manchester Evening News! And are really hoping that they can get their own 'reality show' (for a fee, obviously).

To be blunt, just trailer trash

[NYGman]

I must say I do question this ban on recording in courts. Maybe videos should be banned but when you can buy a transcription of what's been said, if not cheaply, why not just cut out the middle man. Maybe that's the key, keeping the transcription companies in business.

An interesting note on that point. A court transcript has to be signed off by the judge hearing the case and he can order it to be ammended. I find that worrying.

On the issue of court recording, if allowed, it should be only by the court, and with the courts consent and approval of the recording prior to release. An audio or video record can be edited or altered, which could change the meaning or intent of what was said. Selective editing, or even intentional manipulation of an audio or video record would not be good. The court keeps a record via a transcript, but even that can miss something, or omit a key word. This is why the court probably is required to approve and allowed to amend, to ensure the transcript is an accurate record of the hearing.

Imagine if they recorded the trial, and only released the bits that they liked, would this not present a false impression for the viewer/listener? A bit like Tom Crawford reading only paragraph 91, where the judge admonished B&B for not understanding how a number was calculated but omitting 92, where he says that the error is irrelevant, and does Tom no good.

I do believe more courts should record and release their own recordings, or allow a neutral party (News organization) to record, as long as the court approves the recording before release, to ensure it has not be altered, or alternatively, broadcast it live. This is related to audio only, Video is a whole other matter

[YiamCross]

I must say I do question this ban on recording in courts. Maybe videos should be banned but when you can buy a transcription of what's been said, if not cheaply, why not just cut out the middle man. Maybe that's the key, keeping the transcription companies in business.

There are pluses and minuses. Having a video of the witness you are wanting to intimidate must be useful. I think it may be a bit old fashioned but it works and is applied consistently.

I agree, which is why I think video is going too far.

An interesting note on that point. A court transcript has to be signed off by the judge hearing the case and he can order it to be ammended. I find that worrying.

I think that's more for him to make sure defendants and witnesses are kept anonymous in cases where they should be, like child witnesses and defendants.

If only that were so. I have knowledge of at least one case where CPS claim not to have said something where the defence had accurate notes showing they did and the judge upheld the CPS. It is worrying when there's the opportunity for what anyone would consider to be a genuine abuse of process. It works both ways, of course, it would make it impossible for any of this corrupt courts crap to flourish and for courruption to creep in.

[NG3]

Actually in the court of appeal the ban on video recording was lifted a couple of years ago, and that position has been extended to the crown court, but only under permission and under extremely tight rules and conditions.

[Pox]

On the issue of court recording, if allowed, it should be only by the court, and with the courts consent and approval of the recording prior to release. An audio or video record can be edited or altered, which could change the meaning or intent of what was said. Selective editing, or even intentional manipulation of an audio or video record would not be good. The court keeps a record via a transcript, but even that can miss something, or omit a key word. This is why the court probably is required to approve and allowed to amend, to ensure the transcript is an accurate record of the hearing.

Imagine if they recorded the trial, and only released the bits that they liked, would this not present a false impression for the viewer/listener? A bit like Tom Crawford reading only paragraph 91, where the judge admonished B&B for not understanding how a number was calculated but omitting 92, where he says that the error is irrelevant, and does Tom no good.

I do believe more courts should record and release their own recordings, or allow a neutral party (News organization) to record, as long as the court approves the recording before release, to ensure it has not be altered, or alternatively, broadcast it live. This is related to audio only, Video is a whole other matter

I agree that courts should approve records before release for the reasons that you say and for the sake of transparency should be released by an independent body.

Not sure why you say video recordings shouldn't be released?

The cost of obtaining a written transcript is far too expensive in my view and should be free to any who requests it.

[bmxninja357]

Any luck figuring out who was representing them in court? I can't find anything and have no facebook.

If someone does I would check groups in thier area and anything to do with the wishy washy laundry.

The laundromats name itself may be a copyright violation as the name of the owner (and Chinese stereotype) of the laundry on family guy is Mr.Wishy-washy

Peace
Ninj

[NYGman]

I agree that courts should approve records before release for the reasons that you say and for the sake of transparency should be released by an independent body.

Not sure why you say video recordings shouldn't be released?

The cost of obtaining a written transcript is far too expensive in my view and should be free to any who requests it.

I would be fine with video at the appeals level, however in the initial case, video taping a witness may be problematic for many reasons. I just think video should be more restrictive than audio. I didn't mean to infer that videos should not be allowed in all cases, in all courts, I just think there should be more restrictions on video recording over audio recording.

[Pox]

I agree that courts should approve records before release for the reasons that you say and for the sake of transparency should be released by an independent body.

Not sure why you say video recordings shouldn't be released?

The cost of obtaining a written transcript is far too expensive in my view and should be free to any who requests it.

I would be fine with video at the appeals level, however in the initial case, video taping a witness may be problematic for many reasons. I just think video should be more restrictive than audio. I didn't mean to infer that videos should not be allowed in all cases, in all courts, I just think there should be more restrictions on video recording over audio recording.

So what are the reasons that you are against video recordings at the first instance?

I'm not saying that I disagree with you and I also have some unease which I can't put my finger on.

Equally so, I can see reasons why it should be allowed.

I repeat that the cost of acquiring a transcript is far too expensive and not justified. How much does a photocopy cost, for goodness sake?

[YiamCross]

...

So what are the reasons that you are against video recordings at the first instance?

I'm not saying that I disagree with you and I also have some unease which I can't put my finger on.

Have a look on facebook and see how videos are edited, shared and used to intimidate. It's all very well having someone in court who can recognise you but having your video testimony plastered all over the internet would be very offputting for many people. It's hard enough to get someone to testify in court as it is.

I repeat that the cost of acquiring a transcript is far too expensive and not justified. How much does a photocopy cost, for goodness sake?

It's not a photocopy. The court sends an audio recording to a company which transcribes it word by word. As far as i can tell no written record is made unles a transcript is requested. An hour and a half for the Crawford's case is, and I can only guess until the final bill comes in, will cost about £200. Any contributions gratefully accepted.

[IDIOT]

I must say I do question this ban on recording in courts. Maybe videos should be banned but when you can buy a transcription of what's been said, if not cheaply, why not just cut out the middle man. Maybe that's the key, keeping the transcription companies in business.

It is said that courts are open for the purpose of justice to be seen to be done. So why not let amateur journos in with cameras given the rationale of openness? One reason I can imagine the don't give free reign as yet is to do with post production editing because anything these days can be edited in favour of one party. Just like the press can print whatever they like I suppose. Works both ways.

Time will hopefully come one day where all public court hearings are live streamed to the internet unedited.

[IDIOT]

I must say I do question this ban on recording in courts. Maybe videos should be banned but when you can buy a transcription of what's been said, if not cheaply, why not just cut out the middle man. Maybe that's the key, keeping the transcription companies in business.

An interesting note on that point. A court transcript has to be signed off by the judge hearing the case and he can order it to be ammended. I find that worrying.

On the issue of court recording, if allowed, it should be only by the court, and with the courts consent and approval of the recording prior to release. An audio or video record can be edited or altered, which could change the meaning or intent of what was said. Selective editing, or even intentional manipulation of an audio or video record would not be good. The court keeps a record via a transcript, but even that can miss something, or omit a key word. This is why the court probably is required to approve and allowed to amend, to ensure the transcript is an accurate record of the hearing.

Imagine if they recorded the trial, and only released the bits that they liked, would this not present a false impression for the viewer/listener? A bit like Tom Crawford reading only paragraph 91, where the judge admonished B&B for not understanding how a number was calculated but omitting 92, where he says that the error is irrelevant, and does Tom no good.

I do believe more courts should record and release their own recordings, or allow a neutral party (News organization) to record, as long as the court approves the recording before release, to ensure it has not be altered, or alternatively, broadcast it live. This is related to audio only, Video is a whole other matter

Great comment, I read this after I posted what I just put up. I think it's a question of them embracing the technology to move forward.

I do have a cynical side to the concept. This technology would cost money and they'd claim the cost from the 'criminals' they prosecute. This is on top of the cost they are already adding to prosecution cases.

It stinks that if you are found guilty these days you have to contribute towards the costs of the prosecution yet if you are found innocent or their case against you is withdrawn last minute you have to make a claim to get your expenses back and you can only get 30% back. What's good for the goose and all that...

[longdog]

So the girl was bullied as a result of being paraded in public on TV for morons (As is all TV if you ask me... Wouldn't have one in the house) by parents who are obviously morons and that's the school's fault... Yeah... Right. Pull the other one.

[littleFred]

I was once the main witness for the prosecution in a rather nasty case. It was quite terrifying enough. If I thought a video of my testimony would be available to the defendants and associates forever more, I wouldn't have done it, and the guilty wouldn't have gone to prison.

[bmxninja357]

Well in this particular case recording was not allowed. That is all we need to know about it.

It got a freeman on the land tossed.

Anyone manage to figure out who the aforementioned freeman is?


Peace,
Ninj

[Skeleton]

My children have long since flown the nest, but back in the day we went on family holiday's during, bizarrely enough, school holiday periods. If they were unable to attend school due to a family commitment we communicated with the school, gave them the reason and their was never ever a problem.
This rule was bought in though because of attention seeking nobodies like this family who are well aware of the rule, but willingly disregard it, and are then ignorant enough not to communicate the reason to the school. Then we get the usual, blame the system, corrupt, not my fault nonsense. You and I will pay their "fine," they will not work, and that will all be our fault as well, The work issue also begs the question how could they afford to go to Turkey? Oh i forgot dole bludgers are "Entitled" to holidays the same as everyone else.

[FatGambit]

The trick with schools nowadays is not to ask for permission, just notify them.

When I did that, the head came back to me saying she could not approve my request, so I replied that she must be mistaken as I was not asking for her permission, she also rattled on about children are entitled to an education blah blah and by denying them that I would be damaging his long term prospects, so I responded that if she was seriously trying to justify to me that my son missing a few days at the end of the year where they normally play games and watch movies in class would ruins his life, then there is something wrong with the way they teach them and we will seriously consider home education upon return. I then got a one liner back saying thank you for notifying us enjoy your break, never heard another peep about it.

As you can tell I am no fan of state education, my son (and the rest of the class) got a detention last week on their second day for not having the right colored pen for French, even though nobody at the new School had told anybody the requirements, it was still our fault.