Pretty sure it doesn’t ruin your day or have any impact on it though? Could always roll out the ‘99.5% chance it doesn’t cause any issues, but let’s do something about it anyway’ line…..
Certainly not, and I acknowledged your right to remove even potentially compromising threads at the outset. With the greatest respect to Fearless Tyke though, Crown Court clerks are not legally qualified, unlike magistrates' courts clerks (now called 'legal advisers'). I believe at least two of the contributors to the original thread are barristers, and expressed no concerns.
Correct, I wasn’t and am not. Never professed to be, but always best to err on the side of caution though.
No disrespect intended to your clearly extensive experience though, Fearless. Anyway, best leave it there or Loko will have a similar thread to worry about!
It definitely needed to be taken down. 'Substantial risk of serious prejudice' has been running through my head since yesterday.
I daresay the bulk of the jury will know of/heard of Barton beforehand, seeing the bloke has made sensational headlines for his behaviour in the past? I'm pretty much sure that some jurors will also discuss him with friends on occasion. It's the nature if the beast, so to speak. Plus there's huggings of forums putting in their own two penneth too! Mad old world, methinks.
Does a link exist to where the detail was being made public? Ie the reporting on the trial such as the quoting we had in the original thread. At least we can all nosey off that instead rather than discussing here Edit: It's ok. Found it. Bristol paper. Seems to be reporting each day, rather than one continuous report.
Statement from the trial. Barnsley performance analyst intern Nathan Kirby told the jury that he saw Barton run past him and shoulder-barge Mr Stendel. Just saying.
not ar$ed either way like, but not sure what's been said that's 'more than enough to get the trial stopped if anybody stumbles upon it'. from what I can gather, people are commenting on public domain facts on the case. unless anyone commenting on the thread is a juror on the case - which would definitely be enough to dismiss the trial - not sure what the issue is.
If a juror came on here during the trial to read things would it bit be the member of the jury who is committing an offence by trying to seek out public opinion and 'evidence' outside of the courtroom?
Jurors would be in contempt of court I believe as they are told not to research anything to do with the case whilst it is ongoing. Looking on here would be definitely frowned upon.