BBC, ITN and Sky send letter to PM asking for Camaras in Court.

[TVC_H4U]

Tweet

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/inte...-cameras-court

The letter co-signed by the BBC, ITN and Sky that was sent to the three main party leaders and parliamentarians, calling for the lifting of the ban on cameras in courtrooms.

--

I am conflicting on this as I am very nosey and want to know whats gong on, on the other side I see that it coul conflict with due process and increase the amount of Show Trials. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Show_trial

Good or Bad? Yey or Nay?

[curt_jugg]

Yeah, we're all nosy, if we're honest. But on the whole I think it's a bad thing.

[meandbertie]

I love watching trials. It used to be possible to watch live trials from the USA if you subscribed to Court TV which was latterly taken over by CNN, however, so far as I can tell they no longer show live trials which worked out fine with our time zones (speaking personally).

I happen to know a little bit about the process. Whether you live in Scotland, England, Ireland or Wales - members of the public are free to sit in the public gallery on any trial, therefore it follows (my logic) that they should be streamed live - particularly the high profile cases. I can't wait for the day when this is done in our own courts. Let's face it, there would be no need to see or hear a witness giving his/her name for tv purposes, although if you personally attended a trial you would be able to. I think with a few legal tweeks, there would be no harm in viewing on tv.

I didn't miss a single day of evidence in the Conrad Murray trial which I watched on the net. Also the famous OJ trial as these were high profile cases they were streamed live - let's face it these had world wide interest for whatever reason.

Can't wait for this to happen personally. We should be rid in the 21st century of these old fuddy duddy rules about covering live trials - remember the furore when it was proposed to allow cameras into parliament, although somewhat different. It did them no harm.

[TVC_H4U]

Cameras in courts bill set to make the Queen's Speech
‎http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story....code=49022&c=1

They say it will be on the summing up and verdicts only, so not watching evidence and such... The nosey bit in me is still all for this, the sceptic in me says their will be more Show Trials.

[tacoben]

I think it is a bad idea. It is basically saying money can be made out of crime as long as your a not directly the criminal. So it is o.k. to show on television the court proceedings of a robbery and make money out of other peoples misfortune. It is also gives the criminal notoriety.

Yes, we would find it interesting but the fact that the BBC and Sky are interested should make it quite clear it is the wrong decision. Both companies are broadcasting criminals who are happy to mis-lead the general public for financial gain. Both companies purely think of the profit they can make from easy television.

I am sit on my fuddy duddy fence as I think this does more harm than good. Plus it has a double standard as famous criminals who can actually be quite informative into the workings of there mind are prevented from publishing even if they make no money from it. Ian Brady actually did get published through some legalistic's but Denis Nielson's manuscript has not. However it is perfectly fine for the police involved in the murder cases to write countless accounts of the same thing with large chunks of important evidence missing and make a nice little retirement fund for themselves.

So some little children get kidnapped and murdered, people go to prison and the police make themselves some money.

In the same there is a victim of a crime, a criminal and the BBC and Sky making money from it.

[JasonFWard]

... the fact that the BBC and Sky are interested should make it quite clear it is the wrong decision. ... Both companies purely think of the profit they can make from easy television.

Given the BBC is a not for profit organisation your argument here is specious.

However, on the main topic here, the only court cases I would support cameras being involved in are civil cases as often these are of technical interest to many in a certain field and would not be lending of themselves to show trials. Criminal trials however should never have any pressure on the lawyers/barristers etc to put on a good show, lawyers/barristers and the whole criminal system needs to focus on the law, the alleged act and the guilt or innocence of the accused.

[37408]

i'd go mad if a hearing of mine went on youtube...arnt we humiliated enough with community payback and court lists in papers with our addresses published without some numpty catching it on cam for his chav mates to poke fun at and record personal info like addresses and stuff...its annoying as it is with anyone being able to sit in courtroom hearing YOUR demise and putting your back up before they are up. all we need is same chav attending court just to film people demise and pop it up on net thinking its funny.

[tacoben]

I think you are right both Sky and BBC act like Chavs why let them into court. Both are very irresponsible with the information they are given and letting them selectively show a one sided point of view could cause all sorts of micro-aggressive media behaviour. It is unnecessary and our lives will hardly be improved by this.

[37408]

sky are really like chav's...in town (they dont hassle me now as i told them to bugger off) they leap out infront of you trying to sell TV and broadband, i just told them to bugger off and thats the polite way for it ive said on here and i said i have decent TV, its called TVC.
but i wasnt ONLY on about sky, bbc and THOSE numptys...this could have an affect with that law completely so real chavs and ANYone can sit there with phones and what not recording it ...its not a game its a persons life, and that person whos up in court may have not been at total fault as i know with my appearances due to my very short fuse with what people have put me through. media do enough damage at times destroying innocent people without making it worse with cameras all over the place.
A story on my local rag was written on me, but to my astonishment they were actually with me on it stating that "mr blah blah blahhhh was at the end of his tether with the onging issues with neighbours that had gone on for years"..which was comleatly opposite to what usually ends up being put in papers, especially in courts..as i said though its bad enough with that without cams all over.

[TVC_Admin]

From my own perspective as a lawyer, I am totally opposed to televising court proceedings. I fail to see how televising the process would be of any benefit to the accused (who is, after all, innocent until otherwise determined by the court) or help to improve the whole (and already convoluted) judicial process.

Whilst I accept that many people find the legal system self serving and deliberately obscure (and I have to agree on both these points) the processes in place in modern day Britain are very far removed from those days when you had to be fluent in Latin to understand what was being said, and bear very little in common with the US show trials that we see on television. Generally, the most newsworthy cases make the headlines after they have been heard, and that is only right if we are going to try avoid trial by media.

It goes against the grain morally (and legally) that people who have sucessfully protested their innocence in court, walk out a free person and then find themselves judged differently by employers and neighbours and then by a general society - all of whom who may not have understood the due process of law being applied or have only been shown selective extracts from a trial on their televisions. There is enough of this already, people accused of crimes often have their names plastered over the news and suffer destroyed lives as a consequence, but seldom see their innocence proclaimed with such ardour.

Another case of the broadcasters trying to get access to content that costs them absolutely nothing to acquire so that they can bolster their jaded production schedules.

~ Dan