Missing boat - Holly - NOW FOUND!

[fender]

Well this is very confusing.

 

I would very much like to know just exactly how a loose affiliation of people speculating on an internet forum as to the ins & outs of an intriguing string of events as one might do propping up at the bar - could in any way jeopardize a court case?

 

 

Its certainly different - on the internet it is cast in stone more or less what people shouldnt really be saying, and if anything was deleted there would probably be some way that the deleted information could be recovered - for example through it having been cached by search engines.

 

So many more people take notice of the internet now. For all we know the police might have been looking at this forum for any possible information that could have led to the whereabouts of Holly.

 

Another thing I fear is that if people see us running this obtuse kind of media circus NEXT TIME a boat goes missing, we may lose a lot of respect. Just remember that we helped to find two boats that were stolen recently, and we were serious, yet successful at helping to trace these boats. It is sad that this Holly thread hasnt exactly endeared us with a continued reputation that we can be proud of.

 

Other than that, I think Jon should perhaps give any views he might have.

Edited April 24, 2007 by fender

[Chris J W]

Sub Judice = Whilst a court case is under consideration. Proceedings are sub-Judice and details cannot be disclosed.

 

The issue here is that something written here, in public, as speculation/opinion could be take as fact by a casual reader who then goes on to be on a jury, or taken as fact by the press is then read by a juror. Yes, it's all a bit unlikely, but possible, and the intention of the law is to try and ensure that the case is not predudiced for either party.

 

To give a bit of a dilberately exgerated example ...

 

Poster A : Shame to see such a classic spoit by bolting an elephant on the roof

Poster B : Yeah. Should have stuck to the original baboon. Still, "A" I could imagine you replacing it and restoring.

Poster A : Could do, but you can't get the baboons these days. I'd just leave it flat.

 

Sun Headline : "Boat Ruined says Boat Expert"

 

 

Hope that makes sense ....

 

 

 

 

[edit for the bit about predudice]

Edited April 24, 2007 by Chris J W

[mayalld]

Important request:

 

There has been much discussion about Mr King and his intentions, mental state etc. Now that Mr King has been charged to court, this discussion MUST stop because the case is Sub judice. Any such discussion will be removed from the forum

 

Ah well, I suppose I better wander off and do my discussing of the subject in a forum where free speech reigns.

[Chris J W]

Ah well, I suppose I better wander off and do my discussing of the subject in a forum where free speech reigns.

 

The intention of "Sub Judice" is to try and ensure that the case is not predudiced for either party, so not really a "Free Speech" issue. Technically you can't even talk about it in the pub! But, yes, I see where you're coming from!

Edited April 24, 2007 by Chris J W

[Supermalc]

I'd just like to say well done to all who actually HELPED in the recovery of the boat.

 

It is also very heartening to hear of a company who try to offer an excellent service, with the customer foremost in mind.

 

Maybe a few more would like to try to follow their example.

[adam1uk]

Ah well, I suppose I better wander off and do my discussing of the subject in a forum where free speech reigns.

 

It's got nothing to do with free speech, it's the law. There are strict rules on what the media can say about cases once a case becomes active (usually when an arrest is made). Unfortunately, the internet is a form of media. So I think your idea is a good one: if you want to discuss the subject, best do it elsewhere.

[Theo]

It's got nothing to do with free speech, it's the law. There are strict rules on what the media can say about cases once a case becomes active (usually when an arrest is made). Unfortunately, the internet is a form of media. So I think your idea is a good one: if you want to discuss the subject, best do it elsewhere.

 

And a very sensible law too. I would not want a case in which I was accused being prejudiced by idle chatter.

 

Nick

Edited April 24, 2007 by Theo

[kawaton]

Ah well, I suppose I better wander off and do my discussing of the subject in a forum where free speech reigns.

 

bye then

 

It's got nothing to do with free speech, it's the law.

 

And with Jon being a copper himself.......

Edited April 24, 2007 by kawaton

[carlt]

Ah well, I suppose I better wander off and do my discussing of the subject in a forum where free speech reigns.

There is no infringement of free speech. You are perfectly free to set up your own forum, or join another. Jon hasn't gagged you. He is justifiably wary of breaking the law. Something I think you've criticised others for, elsewhere on this forum.

 

It's like if you and I were to write letters to the newspapers. mine would probably be printed by the Guardian and yours the Daily Mail. Neither newspaper has infringed our right to freedom of speech, they have just exercised their editorial right to decide what is included in their publication.

 

If Jon doesn't want a debate on the relaive merits of black cats versus tabbies then that's up to him and he is free to remove the thread (should anyone start one). It's his forum.

 

edited because of an "i before e" crisis, now resolved.

Edited April 24, 2007 by carlt

[Audi Fan]

Thanks for the photo's, hopefully Holly wont take too long to repaint & refit

 

More importantly I hope the insurance company compensate you for all the company's losses over this time.

They rarely take into consideration the time and effort put in while you would otherwise have been earning money.

[Knotty]

After being away for a few days just spent a great period of time sifiting though all the posts!

 

Glad you found Holly, and shes homeward bound to soon. I was quite excited when I saw she had been found

 

On another note, I expect Mr Kings family are relieved to hear he is alive, as I am to whatever has happened/whatever he has done.

 

I expect Holly is now one famous canal boat!

[buccaneer]

I know some people want to close this tread but if possible I would like to see pictures of the lift out, the journey home,the renovations and the final return to the water as a holiday boat.

 

I feel this would be a good conclusion for the boat Holly,the rest of the story will have to wait.

[kawaton]

I know some people want to close this tread but if possible I would like to see pictures of the lift out, the journey home,the renovations and the final return to the water as a holiday boat.

 

I feel this would be a good conclusion for the boat Holly,the rest of the story will have to wait.

 

Agreed!!! Theres more to come

 

Dont see the need to close it tbh....especially as Jon has stated that he will edit/remove where appropiate.

[gaggle]

i would like to see the progress of the case , what court will he appear at.

what are the charges to be and is he pleading guilty.

all this will probably be reported in the press and will be a matter of public interest , great interest omongst boaters i would imagine.

the mayor of sefton who was in court on charges relating to benefit fraud was discussed widely on one forum site with no comebacks regarding sub-judicy, i have heard it suggested that some from said forum took pictures of the mayor attending a liverpool match of great importance and sent them to the press asking the question "should the lord mayor be attending such a high pressure game while suffering serious health problems".

the benefit was invalidity benefit so it had bearing on the case that he attended the match and it was of public concern/ interest.

if facts only are discussed and innocent until proved guilty is kept in mind, it should be fair game

[Bullfrog]

Dont see the need to close it tbh....especially as Jon has stated that he will edit/remove where appropiate.

 

Yeah, but Jon is not editing in real time, and by the time he gets to it damage may have already been done, so please be careful.

Edited April 24, 2007 by Bullfrog

[Sir Nibble]

Say what you like, free speach is a basic right. The problem comes about when you PUBLISH anything which may be prejudicial. Anything posted on this site is published.

[Jon]

Let me clarify the issues here.

 

The members of this forum have put in great effort in an attempt to locate this boat out the goodness of their heart. That is something very major for the forum and something we can all be proud of and rightly so. It would also be a great shame to now ban any posts in relation to Holly on this forum as I'm sure we all want to know what happens. I don't see the problem with keeping people up to date with progress, or talking about what is already set in stone above (ie the pictures).

 

The problem starts when we start to second guess the motive, intentions and reasoning behind what has happenend. While it is very unlikely, do we really want Trish and people at Middlewich to have the case thrown out because of what has posted on here? With that in mind, that is why I have said that posts relating to Mr King will be removed, as we don't want to be responsible for any extra problems. It's as simple as that.

 

The free speech argument has been had before. This is a private forum, and you have agreed to go along with its rules. If you don't like the rules then you don't have to post.

 

I hope this clears things up.

 

Jon

[Theo]

Let me clarify the issues here.

 

The members of this forum have put in great effort in an attempt to locate this boat out the goodness of their heart. That is something very major for the forum and something we can all be proud of and rightly so. It would also be a great shame to now ban any posts in relation to Holly on this forum as I'm sure we all want to know what happens. I don't see the problem with keeping people up to date with progress, or talking about what is already set in stone above (ie the pictures).

 

The problem starts when we start to second guess the motive, intentions and reasoning behind what has happenend. While it is very unlikely, do we really want Trish and people at Middlewich to have the case thrown out because of what has posted on here? With that in mind, that is why I have said that posts relating to Mr King will be removed, as we don't want to be responsible for any extra problems. It's as simple as that.

 

The free speech argument has been had before. This is a private forum, and you have agreed to go along with its rules. If you don't like the rules then you don't have to post.

 

I hope this clears things up.

 

Jon

 

Couldn't be clearer, Jon. As always, you have my full support.

 

Nick

Edited April 24, 2007 by Theo

[Supermalc]

This is a private forum, and you have agreed to go along with its rules. If you don't like the rules then you don't have to post.

 

Jon

 

Jon has raised a very important point. Instead of arguing with someone if you don't agree with their statement, or opinion, post on another topic......or forum.

 

It's a bit like the people who are offended by what they see/hear on tv. Switch it off. I'm never offended, but am saddened that the use of this valuable tool has been used in such a way as to be instrumental in the sad society we now live in.

 

By all means have a lively discussion; that's what ideas are born from, even post 'silly' ideas, but Fuzzy put it as well as any.......on this forum if you say 'good morning' half of them check their watch. Just be pleased they have had the decency to say hello, rather than be pedantic.

[davem399]

I do hope that all the publicity regarding Holly's "abduction" has a positive result for Middlewich NB in terms of a flurry of bookings.

 

Dave

[lymmranger]

I wonder if the people incapable of understanding the word "rules" and the phrase "sub judice" are the same people who subsequently complain at the appalling lack of justice in this country?

 

Are they also the same people who "tar and feather" the bloke down the road, just because he looks a bit odd (if you know what I mean)

 

Come on folks..........

 

Let the courts decide and then comment!!!!!

[kawaton]

Yeah, but Jon is not editing in real time, and by the time he gets to it damage may have already been done,

 

Closing will not solve that problem.....whos to stop someone/anyone starting up a new thread.....

anyways......i don't think its up for debate. Thread stays open.

Just need people to think before they "add" cus they are wasting their own time and Jons/mods

Edited April 24, 2007 by kawaton

[Janet S]

The free speech argument has been had before. This is a private forum, and you have agreed to go along with its rules. If you don't like the rules then you don't have to post.

 

Well said Jon.

 

I do hope however that we can keep this topic open, as I feel there is still a lot that is of interest to many of us. I hope everyone will be mindful of possible repercussions and be thoughtful before they post.

 

Janet

[mayalld]

It's got nothing to do with free speech, it's the law. There are strict rules on what the media can say about cases once a case becomes active (usually when an arrest is made). Unfortunately, the internet is a form of media. So I think your idea is a good one: if you want to discuss the subject, best do it elsewhere.

I will do.

 

There are still corners of the net where you can say what you please unmoderated.

 

And with Jon being a copper himself.......

 

Coppers are seldom that well versed in the law.

 

The free speech argument has been had before. This is a private forum, and you have agreed to go along with its rules. If you don't like the rules then you don't have to post.

I have no argument with you on this. You have a perfect right to stipulate what may and may not be discussed here.

 

It will make bog all difference to what gets discussed on the net, because there are forums where nobody can moderate.

 

i would like to see the progress of the case , what court will he appear at.

what are the charges to be and is he pleading guilty.

all this will probably be reported in the press and will be a matter of public interest , great interest omongst boaters i would imagine.

the mayor of sefton who was in court on charges relating to benefit fraud was discussed widely on one forum site with no comebacks regarding sub-judicy, i have heard it suggested that some from said forum took pictures of the mayor attending a liverpool match of great importance and sent them to the press asking the question "should the lord mayor be attending such a high pressure game while suffering serious health problems".

the benefit was invalidity benefit so it had bearing on the case that he attended the match and it was of public concern/ interest.

if facts only are discussed and innocent until proved guilty is kept in mind, it should be fair game

A very fair comment.

 

Anybody who had read this forum in the days before Holly was found would in any case have to declare it if called as a juror, and would be excused.

[Freetochat]

Ah well, I suppose I better wander off and do my discussing of the subject in a forum where free speech reigns.

 

With free speech comes responsibility, not an opportunity to say what you wish to the detriment of others!