Good morning one and all.
In the absence of anything approaching credible football I thought it would be nice to share some stuff that we’ve been working on for Hotspur’s Half Hour. Perhaps this might spark your imagination, if so get in touch and we’ll steal your idea faster than you can say, ‘not guilty’.
Pavyluchencko on his way out? Well we hope not. Whilst the same tired transfer tales do the rounds – Newcastle and Sunderland – but it’s all down to Levy & Co to decide what class of loss they are prepared or not to prepared to take on him.
We think he’s a class act who admittedly needs to buck his ideas up, but by same token get more motivation than, ‘run abaht a bit’.
Next up is Mr Kyle Walker. Here is a guy with perhaps not the world at his feet but certainly a huge future. Can he play within himself, be disciplined and make a real name for himself? I hope so.
Both he and Livermore have been given massive opportunities here and need to remember that time is on their side. Footballers that deliver 7/10 + performances every week get routinely picked to play and improve over time. Players who try and smash out a 10/10 showing every week tend to trip up. They get seen – quite rightly – as sporadic. Footballing Halls Of Fame don’t tend to be littered with players who were ‘breathtaking every other full moon.’
Let’s hope he gets defending nailed and then blossoms once he’s done that.
Track contains one grown up swear word.
Last up is Sebastien Bassong. Given his experience he arguably should have done better. Like Pav, he’s sort of fallen into the no man’s land of not being picked, no one in a hurry to lodge a mega bid. That said this tune’s so good, who cares?!
Pav class??????????
Tune for HR.
All together now ‘No income tax, no vat…………’
Sing up Rodders!
:freu
Entertaining as they are I’m a bit of a traditionalist and for me, “Tip Top Tottenham Hotspur” has never been rivalled.
I’m just articulating that thought.
:daumen:
You would think that it would be a lot more costly and time-consuming to police/monitor THE ENTIRE INTERNET, rather than simply instructing the jurors not to seek the sort of information that might cloud their judgement, and then policing/monitoring the online activity of this handful of people in stead.
(Just so that it is quite clear, this is a general musing regarding English jurisprudence and law enforcement protocol. It does not relate to any specific legal case; past, present or future.)
(Just so that it is quite clear, this is a general musing regarding English jurisprudence and law enforcement protocol. It does not relate to any specific legal case; past, present or future.)
Beautifully put.
Yes but the hypothetically contemptuous / defamatory* act is committed by the ‘publisher’, not the ‘consumer’ of such information.
*i.e. does not concern the jury/ors; If publication could cause someone to be shunned by their ‘right thinking’ peers then slander/libelous, particularly if later found to be incorrect.
I don’t for a second doubt that this is both the intention and de facto application of the law as it stands today.
My point is, isn’t it a bit silly? Spending huge resources and stifling freedom of expression for millions, in order to avoid maybe influencing a small handful of people.
Wouldn’t it be a lot better to make it the juror’s responsibility to remain unbiased, and avoid information and situations which might do just that? We already place a great deal of trust in the integrity of jurors. This would hardly change that. And as I said above, it would be a hell of a lot easier to police.
We don’t want a situation where jurors are viewed with suspicion, so think of it in stead as due diligence on the part/behalf of the juciary, that they are monitored (simultaneously cutting expenses for the communal purse).
Just sayin’.
*judiciary
:cop: Police State :cop:
In a recent case a juror was given 16 months for contempt of court after searching the net for the accused’s previous and passing on said information to other jurors who quickly dobbed her in. She was a Uni lecturer so should have known better. Lost her job and was fined into the bargain. Clearly they were sending out a clear message to jurors.
@Los Lorenzo
Just heard of a case where a juror was sentenced to six months and a mistrial declared because the juror looked up the accused on the internet and then reported what she had found to her fellow jurors.
On the whole, on the issue of fair trials-v-free speech, I would much rather have the British model than see some of the outrageous behaviour that the Americans indulge in such as the “perp walk” in high profile cases. On the other hand, I also think it’s incredible that judges will issue gagging orders that cannot be enforced outside of the UK.
Apart from the “super injunctions”, I recall the case of Tiger Woods, where it was announced he had been granted an injunction in the UK, but not the reasons. It took me about two minutes to find the full story on a US site, and there were dozens of comments about how stupid does a judge have to be to grant an injunction gagging people that could only be applied in the UK, while they could find the details on US sites?
Any juror who is influenced by a handfull of nutty Tottingham supporters on an blog shouldn’t be on a jury. They are privy to tons of information in the courthouse whilst we just get tit-bits via corporate media sources- and then express an opinion.
As for the Uni Lecturer, wasn’t she correct in determining whether the accused in her particular case did have previous?
Surely in a ‘democracy’, that is her right and only she can make a judgement call on the information she has processed.
The most revealing aspect of that case was the fact that she was grassed up by others on the jury. What a sad indictment of ‘our’ society!
I cannot agree with anything you have just written>
The jurors are clearly instructed that they have to base their evidence on the case put before them. She not only want and sought out her own evidence, but she then told the other jurors what she had found. Once this happened, the jurors were legally obliged to tell the judge.
However, the key issue here, is how can a man get a fair trial if he is not aware of the evidence against him and is not allowed to respond to the evidence. That is what the actions of this juror led to. One other issue to consider, is the reason why the jurors are only allowed to consider the evidence put before them, is that evidence that cannot be challenged can be wrong. If I was to start looking up Harry Hotspur on the web, how do I know that it is this HH rather than a descendant of the Duke of Northumberland that I am reading about. Even if it is the correct person, how do I know that what I have read is correct.
This is the reason that they have Judges and rules of evidence.
Finally, lets assume that the bloke was genuinely guilty. Once the story got out, he would certainly be cleared on appeal on grounds that he did not get a fair trial meaning that the stupidity of the juror led to a guilty man being freed.
Yet on Sky Sports News there are hourly updates, and every newspaper giving their own version of events, the Sun for example is supposedly read by millions (contradiction in terms), but will print it’s own version of events in tomorrows edition!, would that not ‘influence’ any juror?
Murdoch media outlets seem to be exempt from the same kind of pressure applied to our very own H-H……….i wonder why?
It was not so much a case of what HH wrote, as some of the posts that followed with people speculating about the reported facts or whether HMRC were being reasonable or unreasonable. That’s my suspicion.
The earlier intervention about the docs gleaned from an American website was a bit pointless in my view, because they were still available on the American site. I noticed that after the links had been removed from here, they were still available on a Gooner site weeks later.
Money.
What about car number plates, do they still make them? I’d like Ros13 47 please
Newspapers are allowed to report the facts of the case as told in court. They are not allowed to add opinion or speculate on the evidence. It follows that if this is all the newspaper does, there can be no chance of influencing the jury because the news report should be exactly what the jury has already heard.
It’s when you get people speculating or putting their own spin on matters, that there is the danger of the jury being influenced.
My general point is that it is up to an individual, regardless of what a Judge dictates by hiding behind legal technicalities, to form an opinion based on the evidence that is presented to them in a court of law/and or otherwise. As many a prevoius case has shown, not everything presented in a court room is sacrosant, let alone based on any kind of truth.
You would like to think that a juror could differentiate from what is allowed to be presented in a court of law (at the Judge’s discretion-they are not God), and what is written on a Spurs blog!
As far as the Uni Lecturer is concerned, the Judge in that particular case determined that previous convictions of the accused were not relevant to the case in hand. Well, why not let the jury decide whether it is relevant or not? Isn’t that the purpose of them being there? For her to be jailed for actually taking an active interest in the case (whereas most jurors could’t give a shit) is deplorable.
I’m just sick and tired of a priveliged elite (most of whom still live in the 19th century), treating ordinary folk in this country like illiterate buffoons who can’t understand basic English!
I have a feeling we may have to agree to disagree on this subject, Dub!
I can understand your resentment on some points, but it has always been the case, that unless there are exceptional circumstances, a defendant’s previous record (if any) is not disclosed because it is likely to prejudice the jury.
In the days when we had the “sus” laws, the defendants always had previous convictions. This led to a situation where if the defendant was to accuse the police of “fitting up”, the Police were then allowed to reveal his record to the magistrate. Invariably, this led to a conviction.
The day they start deciding cases on the basis of previous records, is the day that they might as well do away with jury trials, because all those with records must be guilty, and those without must be innocent.
But they do Dub, by highlighted some ‘facts’ and hiding those that don’t quite suit their politics, a little like those West End productions, who say “It’s the first among equals”, when the critic actually wrote ” For a pathetic performance, it’s the first among equals” You only had to read between the lines on the post to see those that pronounced HR guilty ‘by the way he looked’ without listening to or taking into account the full facts, which have still to put forward I may add.
Surely previous incidents/convictions are only relevant if they are similar/identical to what the defendant is being accused of now?
If the prosecution want to use that past evidence to get a conviction, so be it. It is up to the Defence to persuade the jury that it is not relevant.
The same also applies to people who have no prior convictions whatsover.
Let all ‘relevant’ information be available to the jury and then let them make their own minds up; after hearing both sides of the story.
As for the ‘sus’ laws, let’s thank the stars that discriminatory police powers aren’t in vogue today, eh? :whistle:
@Essex
I think you are talking about some very idiotic posts on here. I know there are those who have already decided on guilt or innocence even before the case came to court, in exactly the same way that some people already see fit to blame HMRC. As the case unfolded, we kept being bombarded with plenty of opinions. I don’t suppose those who were in the wrong will be repeating their posts when this matter is concluded.
In the US, many jurors are paid $5 a day for their services regardless of their lost wages. Consequently, one of the comments made about defendants in the US, is that they are going to be judged by somebody who was stupid to get out of jury duty. I think that we have found a US jury pool amongst us here.
Seriously though as I pointed out in my first post to Billy L, the jury system can only have a chance of working properly as long as it follows the judges instructions.
@ Billy, that’s why I got a little arsey about some of the comments posted about the integrity of HR as the guy has no previous whatsoever merely inference and supposition, and of course his appearance and accent.
I’d love to know why he and Storey were sacked by WHUFC, but after researching and even ‘reading between the lines’ on the Hammers own web sites I couldn’t discover anything other than football related reasons for it. Incidentally I didn’t want his appointment in the first place because of the ‘baggage’ he bought with him or for his personality, but to be fair, on his ability to manage a football club such as ours, he’s done a brilliant job nevertheless,and, as stated before I will wait until the verdict before I cast aspersions
I agree with you, Ian.
My feelings towards Twitchy seem to be based on a Love/Hate relationship.
………and of course let’s wait until the verdict comes through before casting aspertions about the fella on the basis of his personal financial transactions.
Of course, regardless of the verdict, he will be catigated by some anyway, on non-football related issues!
Sorry Billy, meant to add as an aside, much of his ‘public’ image has been flouted by his own desire to whore it ‘large’ using the very media that’s now castigating him, Whereas we on HH, all detest the press (C’mon guys, you know we do) so in many way’s he’s now reaping what’s been previously sown, I guess?
Well, if you decide to be a media whore don’t be surprised when they decide to flip you over and give your ass a good spanking!
Twitchy ain’t the first, and he certainly won’t be the last they f*ck over.
I’d like to think that a huge lesson in both accounting and media studies could result in some promising A Level results this coming term ;-)
I’ve been reliably informed that Media Studies and Accountancy courses are available in the clink! :sideways:
Le ‘otspur ‘arry nil points.