Legalities

[french frank]

Among our team of hosts, we're lucky enough to have a media lawyer specialising in what people like us running online forums must be careful about.

On a recent matter here, he first suggested the possibility of having a general thread discussing matters relating to convicted offenders, and particularly anything that might be relevant/of interest to members here, but he finally concluded:

"I tend to think that even though [… ] is right that it's a legitimate issue, in practical terms on this Forum it would be too dangerous, due to the tendency of a lot of people inevitably talk without complete knowledge of the facts or the law, and the need for constant surveillance..."

As a result, a ruling is now being made that discussion relating to topical criminal matters (this occurs on the classical boards too!) is not to be allowed. As the programme in question will be repeated (I assume) on Sunday, I shall remove 'extraneous matter' to clear the way for further choral discussion. And recommend that individuals with strong feelings about any music included should write to the relevant DoM

[Pabmusic]

Among our team of hosts, we're lucky enough to have a media lawyer specialising in what people like us running online forums must be careful about.

On a recent matter here, he first suggested the possibility of having a general thread discussing matters relating to convicted offenders, and particularly anything that might be relevant/of interest to members here, but he finally concluded:

"I tend to think that even though [… ] is right that it's a legitimate issue, in practical terms on this Forum it would be too dangerous, due to the tendency of a lot of people to talk through their hats and the need for constant surveillance..."

As a result, a ruling is now being made that discussion relating to topical criminal matters (this occurs on the classical boards too!) is not to be allowed. As the programme in question will be repeated (I assume) on Sunday, I shall remove 'extraneous matter' to clear the way for further choral discussion. And recommend that individuals with strong feelings about any music included should write to the relevant DoM

Here's my problem.

I have absolutely no idea what this is about, nor which criminal matters are 'topical' - let alone why they might be accompanied with music and repeated next Sunday. It's all extremely intriguing...

But I can't ask what it's all about now, because that would (I'd say) amount to 'discussion' of the issue.

Whatever it may be...

[french frank]

This is actually on The Choir board, but the announcement might just as well be on the general forum, since members' interest in discussing such matters as crop up from time to time in several contexts seems inexhaustible. To the extent that there is a 'public interest' aspect in airing such matters, I'm happy that the onus for that should rest with the newspapers, who can accomplish it more efficiently than we can.

I see I was a little hasty in posting the announcement, and our adviser suggested that his shorthand 'talking through their hats' should be expanded to 'inevitably talk without complete knowledge of the facts or the law'. I have so amended.

Here's my problem.

I have absolutely no idea what this is about, nor which criminal matters are 'topical' - let alone why they might be accompanied with music and repeated next Sunday. It's all extremely intriguing...

But I can't ask what it's all about now, because that would (I'd say) amount to 'discussion' of the issue.

Whatever it may be...

[Pabmusic]

This is actually on The Choir board, but the announcement might just as well be on the general forum, since members' interest in discussing such matters as crop up from time to time in several contexts seems inexhaustible. To the extent that there is a 'public interest' aspect in airing such matters, I'm happy that the onus for that should rest with the newspapers, who can accomplish it more efficiently than we can...

Thanks, FF.

...Our adviser suggested that his shorthand 'talking through their hats' should be expanded to 'inevitably talk without complete knowledge of the facts or the law'...

Priceless!

[teamsaint]

Does " topical " mean cases that have not yet had a verdict?

[Barbirollians]

I am a little baffled by reference to " topical" cases too . Once a person has been convicted of a crime and sentenced it cannot be defamatory to refer to this as fact .

On the other hand , quite plainly it is inappropriate to speculate on the guilt or otherwise of a person who is facing charges or has been arrested or indeed who has not been arrested or charged at all .

There is a significant difficulty with a prohibition if you have no idea what is being prohibited as our august media lawyer would no doubt agree.

[french frank]

I am a little baffled by reference to " topical" cases too . Once a person has been convicted of a crime and sentenced it cannot be defamatory to refer to this as fact .

It can still be seriously defamatory (if the person is still alive) if what is said misrepresents the legal facts. No moderator can prevent people saying things which they may have imagined to be true, but which aren't.

The forum isn't going to run the risk since we don't have any form of professional, full-time moderators. If 'topical' presents a problem, let's say during the lifetime of the convicted person, about which there is seldom any dispute. Such matters as do arise in connection with the raison d'être of the forum are, for the reasons explained, still deemed potentially risky.

[Nick Armstrong]

our adviser suggested that his shorthand 'talking through their hats' should be expanded to 'inevitably talk without complete knowledge of the facts or the law'. I have so amended.

As my profile pic proves, I also have a hat through which I find it amusing to talk sometimes!

[Serial_Apologist]

As my profile pic proves, I also have a hat through which I find it amusing to talk sometimes!

Keep up the Hattie Jokes!

[Nick Armstrong]

I am a little baffled by reference to " topical" cases too . Once a person has been convicted of a crime and sentenced it cannot be defamatory to refer to this as fact .

You assume complete accuracy from all posters. If that were the case, true, there would be little problem, theoretically.

Sometimes though, people refer to the conviction wrongly (as happened with a post overnight); or they may mis-state the name or get the wrong person; or there may be a prohibition on referring to a 'topical conviction' publicly because it prejudices the trial of another accused involved in the same set of facts (and it's not always a good guide that the 'media' report it - they get it wrong, and get fined thousands of pounds. It's called contempt of court and it's a strict liability offence).

These complications, coupled with the references to 'bafflement' and similar above, highlight imho why in general the area of criminal convictions, and the rights and wrongs associated with them, just must as a practical reality be avoided on a Forum such as this (for the reasons FF states above). Yes they are important matters of principle - and there are plenty of alternative places to debate them.

[french frank]

As my profile pic proves, I also have a hat through which I find it amusing to talk sometimes!

I have noticed the frequency with which you are wont to muffle your tones by using your headgear as a form of megaphone, Mr Rumpole <tssskk>, though on the subject of the law I will not offer my 3-week NCTJ course on Essential Law for Journalists as the rival of your compendious … comprehensive and frequently … com-pla-CEN-tious ('oooohh' from audience) advice on that subject.

[Nick Armstrong]

Keep up the Hattie Jokes!

Time for your enema, Mr Apologist!

[Serial_Apologist]

Time for your enema, Mr Apologist!

The enema within - Mrs Thatcher.

[Barbirollians]

I am not baffled by the law Ii have done many an injunction and committal hearing but am rather baffled at what FF was seeking to prohibit - was it discussion of the relevance of any offending history as to whether a person should continue in a musical career of more generally .

1 A collateral challenge by a defamation action to a criminal conviction cannot take place .

2 as for defamation for getting an offence wrong there is undoubtedly a possibility that could arise . If , however, two significant offences are involved of a similar character it is very doubtful that anyone would advise an action on the basis that there is little damage to a very low reputation albeit I can see why that is a risk - then again surely that could be addressed by a poster expressing their opinion generally in relation to the general nature of the offending rather than the specific offence

3 I am rather doubtful of the topical conviction point - the usual course is that the court prohibits publication until the trials of all the other defendants is concluded .. Contempt risks self- evidently do arise in respect of ongoing proceedings but I have not seen any evidence of X is clearly guilty posts on here .

[french frank]

Well, Barbirollians, I really can't see why matters which are so peripheral to the forum should be discussed in the same gossipy way that other 'Platform 3' type topics are. People are - almost of necessity - talking about matters about which they have no relevant knowledge themselves.

I suggest we leave it to Mr Lebrecht's blog to follow these matters up, which he has in the past been quite diligent about.