Bearman 9 Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 (edited) Thought it be better to post this in Rangers Chat for the convenience of all Bears... Social media users have been warned they may be prosecuted for contempt of court if they make prejudicial comments about the Rangers court case. The Crown Office issued the statement just a day after former owners Charles Green, Craig Whyte and ex-administrator David Whitehouse appeared at Glasgow Sheriff Court. They have been charged in connection with the acquisition of Rangers assets in 2012. In a tweet, the Crown Office said: "Please note that the Rangers case remains live under Contempt of Court Act and nothing should be published that might prejudice the case." A key part of the contempt law is preventing the publication of material which could influence a jury and jeopardise the chances of an accused receiving a fair trial. Those found guilty of contempt of court may be sent to prison. http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/13645273.Crown_Office_makes_Twitter_warning_over_comments_on_Rangers_court_case/? Edited September 3, 2015 by Bearman 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,363 Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 Cool. Wonder whether someone's chased the BTC chap and certain other leakers down to their dwelling ... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,200 Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 This is why the other thread (and others like it) have to remain closed. I understand that's a bit frustrating and that other Rangers forums are permitting all kinds of discussion but when all these different cases go ahead I don't want this forum to be the source of any conflict. I appreciate everyone's support on this and apologise for the inconvenience. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhunter 0 Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 (edited) there are sound files/ pdf documents, emails , hours of discussions dating back years already online that could "prejudice" the case. Edited September 4, 2015 by jhunter 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tannochsidebear 2,322 Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 please please please give me jury duty that week!! I can say for certain that I dont read the papers and therefore are unaware of prejudicial ramblings contained therein. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 This is why the other thread (and others like it) have to remain closed. I understand that's a bit frustrating and that other Rangers forums are permitting all kinds of discussion but when all these different cases go ahead I don't want this forum to be the source of any conflict. I appreciate everyone's support on this and apologise for the inconvenience. Those other forums allowing discussion will have the RFC fanbase absolutely LIVID if their "freedom of speech" stance results in charges being dropped or these guys getting off on a technicality due to prejudice and a lack of fair trial..... It makes little sense to allow discussion on a topic which we have done to death. Far better to now sit back, let the legal process takes its due course and then revel in the positive result (hopefully). 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 This is why the other thread (and others like it) have to remain closed. I understand that's a bit frustrating and that other Rangers forums are permitting all kinds of discussion but when all these different cases go ahead I don't want this forum to be the source of any conflict. I appreciate everyone's support on this and apologise for the inconvenience. Those other forums allowing discussion will have the RFC fanbase absolutely LIVID if their "freedom of speech" stance results in charges being dropped or these guys getting off on a technicality due to prejudice and a lack of fair trial..... It makes little sense to allow discussion on a topic which we have done to death. Far better to now sit back, let the legal process takes its due course and then revel in the positive result (hopefully). 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
compo 6,327 Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 lets let the law take care of the case but it does not give me hope when I see people walking away from serious charges like six murders and no charges 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,857 Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 (edited) Those other forums allowing discussion will have the RFC fanbase absolutely LIVID if their "freedom of speech" stance results in charges being dropped or these guys getting off on a technicality due to prejudice and a lack of fair trial..... It makes little sense to allow discussion on a topic which we have done to death. Far better to now sit back, let the legal process takes its due course and then revel in the positive result (hopefully). I'd agree that messageboards are unwise to pretty much give posters free reign to post what they like on an 'active case'. A "freedom of speech stance" doesn't really cover it as where it crosses the line, it's potentially contempt of court and whatever else that it may or may not lead to. After so many hours and words dedicated towards 'the struggle', it's perverse that a site like FF seems ok with supplying defence lawyers with mulitple screen grabs. Maybe it looks for the increased traffic that this will have provided but after the Crown Office warning, it certainly doesn't seem as if it was on good legal advice. Personally, I think there are several reasons why a panel of judges should be considered instead of the normal jury, as per the Lockerbie case. 1. Public nature of case and the high profile and unbalanced public comment on it over a number of years within both traditional and social media. 2. Difficulty of forming a jury. Demographics and 'divisions' predominately in the West of Scotland, taking into account points made in #1. If you were the lawyer of CW, you could make a good case that given his clients widespread and unbalanced media coverage over a number of years that to find a 12 or 15 man jury who were impartial and thought of him as 'innocent' when the trial started. 3. Length of trial. Could be a long one. 4. Complexity of case material over long trial. Edited September 6, 2015 by buster. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 I'd agree that messageboards are unwise to pretty much give posters free reign to post what they like on an 'active case'. A "freedom of speech stance" doesn't really cover it as where it crosses the line, it's potentially contempt of court and whatever else that it may or may not lead to. After so many hours and words dedicated towards 'the struggle', it's perverse that a site like FF seems ok with supplying defence lawyers with mulitple screen grabs. Maybe it looks for the increased traffic that this will have provided but after the Crown Office warning, it certainly doesn't seem as if it was on good legal advice. Personally, I think there are several reasons why a panel of judges should be considered instead of the normal jury, as per the Lockerbie case. 1. Public nature of case and the high profile and unbalanced public comment on it over a number of years within both traditional and social media. 2. Difficulty of forming a jury. Demographics and 'divisions' predominately in the West of Scotland, taking into account points made in #1. If you were the lawyer of CW, you could make a good case that given his clients widespread and unbalanced media coverage over a number of years that to find a 12 or 15 man jury who were impartial and thought of him as 'innocent' when the trial started. 3. Length of trial. Could be a long one. 4. Complexity of case material over long trial. Re number 4 Fraud cases are not easy cases to prosecute and as far as I'm aware do not have a good success rate. What was the last big fraud case in Scotland and how did it turn out ? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.