Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Mail and Guardian agree shocker!

Posts: 18,981
Thanks: 2,069
Fixes: 298
Registered: ‎11-01-2008

Mail and Guardian agree shocker!

Does seem quite chilling

Customer / Moderator / If it helped click the thumb / If it fixed it click 'This fixed my problem'

Posts: 5,724
Thanks: 122
Fixes: 2
Registered: ‎11-02-2013

Re: Mail and Guardian agree shocker!

the real problem though is that in certain circumstances such "secret" proceedings are actually required in order to prevent public uprising, if they wanted to try 2 Islamic preachers for inciting terrorism and provide video evidence of the alleged crime then whilst not something actually new the recording technology or techniques might require to remain secret and as such the entire proceeding be closed to the public (so that other would be criminals don't know how its done) in the past such matters were indeed done in secrecy (no jury was told where the footage came from and the defendants went allowed to see it ) yet nobody screamed about it, 5 years ago when the ability to keep anything secret at trial was removed a new law was required to reinstate that ability, and until the media stops pushing civil unrest as its primary agenda (to topple the government) it should be banned from making inflammatory reports about aspects of trials.
I dare say the trial of the marine wouldn't of been publicised (because that was totally abnormal) if it wasn't for the pressure to televise the Lee Rigby killers trial, and yet both should of been done in secret by a military tribunal (as both were technically war crimes) and the death penalty handed out on guilty sentences being returned .....
the media has been over reporting criminal trials for the last few years and perhaps this is a healthy return to previous times when the general public only heard about the case after it was over ......
just because your paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you