Merseyrail Martin Zee case - Not Guilty verdict reached

[Tetchytyke]

you stated your opinion of what the Echo reported

Yes, I stated my opinion of what the Liverpool Echo reported.

I make no comment as to whether their reports are accurate, inaccurate, or other.

 

[HowardGWR]

But the case is already being reported in real time on the internet anyway.

The reporter will not give an opinion on what he is reporting. I have read the reports and there is an essential difference. Do be careful I implore you.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Agreed. This should be locked until case is concluded. Put a sticky on the link to the case and nothing else.

We do not often agree, but I am 100% with you on that matter.

 

[HowardGWR]

Yes, I stated my opinion of what the Liverpool Echo reported.

I make no comment as to whether their reports are accurate, inaccurate, or other.

Yes you did and that you cannot understand that is unfortunate. Your choice, I will contribute no more hoping you will see it. I only tried to be helpful.

 

[Moonshot]

The reporter will not give an opinion on what he is reporting. I have read the reports and there is an essential difference. Do be careful I implore you.

But this forum is full of opinions anyway, I would have thought that was the idea for a forum if I m honest.

 

[Moonshot]

Legal

Your contributions must not defame any person or organisation.
Your contributions must be consistent with relevant conditions, laws and byelaws.


I ve just had a quick look at Forum T and Cs as above, As far as i am aware, there is no law or byelaw that says a ongoing court case cannot be reported on a general discussion forum. This case is of course very relevant to the actual rail staff who are members on here.

 

[AlterEgo]

Legal

Your contributions must not defame any person or organisation.
Your contributions must be consistent with relevant conditions, laws and byelaws.


I ve just had a quick look at Forum T and Cs as above, As far as i am aware, there is no or byelaw that says a ongoing court case cannot be reported on a general discussion forum. This case is of course very relevant to the actual rail staff who are members on here.

There are actual, real-world laws about contempt of court when discussing, in public, "opinion-forming" comments.

We should tread a fine line. I have since limited my postings (in public at least) to reporting facts and correcting inaccuracies posted by other members, using the Echo as a live source.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Yes you did and that you cannot understand that is unfortunate.

I can understand where you are coming from, I just don't agree that commenting on the journalism of the Liverpool Echo will interfere with the trial. I make no comment as to the accuracy of their reporting nor, for that matter, the accuracy of what the witness may or may not have stated.

The jury, of course, shouldn't be reading this anyway.

I've retracted it so it doesn't turn into an argument.

 

[Moonshot]

I can understand where you are coming from, I just don't agree that commenting on the journalism of the Liverpool Echo will interfere with the trial. I make no comment as to the accuracy of their reporting nor, for that matter, the accuracy of what the witness may or may not have stated.

The jury, of course, shouldn't be reading this anyway.

I've retracted it so it doesn't turn into an argument.

isnt there a disclaimer presented to the jury before a case starts? I certainly remember being told something about that when I did jury service...albeit in the days before the world wide web.

 

[Gareth]

This thread is comical. Pretty much in-a-nutshell why I don't post on internet forums as much as I once did.

 

[HH]

That's a very large Doner Kebab that Martin Zee has.

(Am I allowed to say that?)

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd be wanting something stronger than a Doner Kebab were I him.

 

[SA_900]

There is next to no risk of contempt of court. Jurors would find themselves in hot water if found reading the commentary. If the court felt the material hosted here was prejudicial they would issue an advisory and it could be dealt with.

 

[HH]

Merseyrail call at 67 stations according to Wikipedia. Is it too much to expect that the person in charge of Guard's standards, who has 12 years experience, is familiar with all stations?

I'd want to in that position.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't work on't railway, but I don't know trivial stats about my employer. What would be the point? I know how to do my job.

 

[HH]

I don't work on't railway, but I don't know trivial stats about my employer. What would be the point? I know how to do my job.

You misunderstand me. When I say familiar I mean, "aware of the layouts and the safety hazards, from a personal visit".

 

[gimmea50anyday]

my management can only assess me and sign me off as competent on a route (or indeed traction) with which they are competent themselves. They can however carry out training on routes I may not sign but they still have to have that route competency

 

[AlterEgo]

From Echo:

The court will now be adjourned until around 11:30 tomorrow where we’re expecting to conclude the prosecution’s case.

 

[HH]

my management can only assess me and sign me off as competent on a route (or indeed traction) with which they are competent themselves. They can however carry out training on routes I may not sign but they still have to have that route competency

Precisely. This why I am puzzled by Mr Mitchell's evidence.

 

[40129]

The 313s aren't the original though - the original passenger control of doors on the 313s was a handle on the door which was pulled. After a few incidents of doors being opened on the move this was removed and full control of all doors was put with the driver / guard.

It was only much later (sometime in the 90s IIRC) that passenger control in terms of button opening was fitted to the 313s.

That makes sense as I don't recall seeing them when I used cl-313s on the Moorgate route (late-80s) or North London (late-90s)

Do the cl-315s still have the annoying feature whereby the door won't close unless you continually hold the button in?

 

[Bletchleyite]

The 508s also appear (or at least used pre-refurb) to have blanked over panels on the doors where those handles could go. Those panels are missing on 507s.

 

[michael74]

I doubt anyone is going to be done for contempt considering the court reporter can't get the basic facts right, at least twice he has started the pieces with "Neil Fitzgibbons, prosecuting". As I read it he is the defence counsel. The usual high standards from the Echo.......

 

[Smethwickian]

Legal

Your contributions must not defame any person or organisation.
Your contributions must be consistent with relevant conditions, laws and byelaws.


I ve just had a quick look at Forum T and Cs as above, As far as i am aware, there is no law or byelaw that says a ongoing court case cannot be reported on a general discussion forum. This case is of course very relevant to the actual rail staff who are members on here.

I refer you to my earlier post, Moonshot. As I made it clear - as a journalist of 29 years' local and regional newspaper experience - there most definitely ARE laws against much of the speculation, insinuation and accusation which has been thrown around during this thread's life. A newspaper or other publication including this website only has defence for a fair, accurate and contemperaneous report of proceedings and nothing else - not speculation, rumour, gossip or opinion.

 

[Moonshot]

I refer you to my earlier post, Moonshot. As I made it clear - as a journalist of 29 years' local and regional newspaper experience - there most definitely ARE laws against much of the speculation, insinuation and accusation which has been thrown around during this thread's life. A newspaper or other publication including this website only has defence for a fair, accurate and contemperaneous report of proceedings and nothing else - not speculation, rumour, gossip or opinion.

In your opinion , has anyone broken a law on this thread ?

 

[yorkie]

Just a reminder from our Forum Rules:

"...if any content causes you concern, please alert us to it, by reporting (

) it"

The report button appears at the bottom-left of each post.

Can I also ask that you let us know what part of the post is causing concern, and what rule(s) or law(s) you think are being broken, as this makes it much easier for us to investigate.

Please do not state such concerns, or send requests or messages to moderators on a discussion thread. This should be done using the reporting system only.

There can be no expectation of any moderation actions taking place if it hasn't been reported to us (the number of posts made every day is well into 4 figures and - unless someone is on moderation - they are not checked before appearing). If you want to chase up a report, feel free to contact us via PM or by using the Contact form (at the bottom of every page) but, again, not in discussion threads please.

Thank you.

 

[lejog]

In your opinion , has anyone broken a law on this thread ?

Yep, you did in post #4, agreeing with the commentary made in post#3. Commentary and speculation have been continuous ever since in this thread and previous threads.

Newspapers wouldn't publish reports of court hearings containing the kind of commentary in #3. Publishing on the internet is covered by exactly the same laws.

Of course, the risk of being found in contempt is low and the main risk is borne by the forum publishers, not the poster. On a forum I moderate we are under strict instructions from the forum owner to delete such posts immediately, as he doesn't fancy even a small risk of paying say a £10k fine, just so people can indulge in such speculation concerning ongoing court cases. Moderators here are free to take whatever view they wish and rely on whatever rules they want to rely on.

 

[Moonshot]

Yep, you did in post #4, agreeing with the commentary made in post#3. Commentary and speculation have been continuous ever since in this thread and previous threads.

Newspapers wouldn't get with reports of court hearings containing that kind of commentary in #3. Publishing on the internet is covered by exactly the same laws.

Of course, the risk of being found in contempt is low and the main risk is borne by the forum publishers, not the poster. On a forum I moderate we are under strict instructions from the forum owner to delete such posts immediately, as he doesn't fancy even a small risk of paying say a £10k fine, just so people can indulge in such speculation concerning ongoing court cases. Moderators here are free to take whatever view they wish and rely on whatever rules they want to rely on.

In which case, pretty much most of us on this thread would ( imo ) be also contravening the forum rules which I highlighted earlier. Personally I dont see anything wrong in the content,

 

[Moonshot]

Not sure myself

 

[lejog]

In which case, pretty much most of us on this thread would ( imo ) be also contravening the forum rules which I highlighted earlier. Personally I dont see anything wrong in the content,

Possibly, there are also a fair number of knowledgeable people pointing out potential problems. Its not a matter of whether you see anything wrong in the content it's what the law says. Have you ever seen such commentary as that in post #3, reported in a newspaper during the course of a trial? Of course not. If not you are dodgy grounds publishing such material on the internet. Lack of knowledge of the law is not a valid defence.

 

[Martin66]

Here is the link to today's report in the Liverpool Echo:
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/merseyrail-guard-fifth-day-trial-12738754

Zee called as a witness

Zee, 33, is now being called to the stand as a witness.

Neil Fitzgibbon, defending, will question him before he is cross-examined by Rebecca Smith, prosecuting.