The Old Git Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 As far as I know I don't think London is offshore. It's in an island off the shores of mainland europe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThieBane Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 Whatever the implications, it's clear that Roly has been stitched up. We should start a fund to help pay the fees. It's the least that anyone who read manxman.com could do - and it's the least that anyone who cares about free speech in the Isle of Man can do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loaf Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 Michael Kerruish said "He was not and is not a journalist", and frankly I tend to agree with him. Even the Guardian that, for the most part, is on his side couldn't even bring itself to call him a journalist. A poet, maybe, a lampoonist, possibly, but never a journalist. As such, I don't believe this is really an issue of free speech, in the sense of serious investigative journalism being silenced. This was a website simply throwing merde in whatever direction it felt like, and the man behind it finally got his comeuppance. It's funny how many people have registered lately purely to post to the Roly related threads. I wonder if any of them are his "sources"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happy camper Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 Michael Kerruish said "He was not and is not a journalist", and frankly I tend to agree with him. Even the Guardian that, for the most part, is on his side couldn't even bring itself to call him a journalist. A poet, maybe, a lampoonist, possibly, but never a journalist. As such, I don't believe this is really an issue of free speech, in the sense of serious investigative journalism being silenced. This was a website simply throwing merde in whatever direction it felt like, and the man behind it finally got his comeuppance. It's funny how many people have registered lately purely to post to the Roly related threads. I wonder if any of them are his "sources"? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well said, Loaf. Agree with every word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Upstream Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 Whatever the implications, it's clear that Roly has been stitched up. We should start a fund to help pay the fees. It's the least that anyone who read manxman.com could do - and it's the least that anyone who cares about free speech in the Isle of Man can do. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Legalities aside. I thoroughly enjoy The Headlines Again and Sulby Fringe of which Roly plays a not inconsiderable part. I for one would be happy to contribute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mission Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 I wasn't too sure about the Anton Piller order myself so I did a quick google and came up with some links which may help clarify things (or not) for the rest of you:- Link 1. Link 2. Link 3. There's a lot more links and if you add +"UK" or +"Isle of Man" you might get different results I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geo Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 Michael Kerruish said "He was not and is not a journalist", and frankly I tend to agree with him. Even the Guardian that, for the most part, is on his side couldn't even bring itself to call him a journalist. A poet, maybe, a lampoonist, possibly, but never a journalist. As such, I don't believe this is really an issue of free speech, in the sense of serious investigative journalism being silenced. This was a website simply throwing merde in whatever direction it felt like, and the man behind it finally got his comeuppance. It's funny how many people have registered lately purely to post to the Roly related threads. I wonder if any of them are his "sources"? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well said, Loaf. Agree with every word. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Agree totally Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 I agree that compliance with a court order is important, and failure to compy should be taken seriously. The part I've got issue with is the fact that the order was served in the first place. From the little I know about that kind of order, it's a last resort style thing that's very powerful but rarely used unless in cases where its pretty much a dead cert that there's evidence and it's in the possetion of the defendant who's likely to bin it. Sounds to me like there was after all no evidence in the gear that was confescated, so was the anton pillar really necessary in the first place? The issue of that order is the thing that worries me the most about this, and because that part was done in such secrecy it's hard to know the justification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted November 14, 2004 Share Posted November 14, 2004 It is nice and easy, the court says you have do something, you do it or go to jail. The disclosure of information (when ordered by the courts is paramount to a just legal system) Had this case been about a less popular subject and the Anton Piller order have been against 'John Doe the alledged defrauder of old grannies' brought as a private prosecution, the world at large would have been saying 'bang him up for the weekend, that'll make the bugger us where he has hidden poor old Missus Jones's life savings' Try to detach yourself from the subject and have a think about it, before you flame me. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Absolutely no flame involved. I do fully understand that a court must be able to require its legitimate demands to be met – not an issue. What I do not understand, (though I have no doubt it’s somewhere nearby in black and white) is precisely what is Roly charged with in the Manx courts that resulted in him being declared to be in contempt? OK, I know the particular thing that resulted in him being charged with contempt was his refusal to name his sources, but in what case did he refuse? As far as I have seen the libel case is off-Island – or have I made a mistake in that belief? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeyconcrete Posted November 14, 2004 Share Posted November 14, 2004 Possibly it was raised in the Manx Courts because, as numerous legal professionals have pointed out, it is unlikely that act would ever be granted in the UK. As Slim pointed out, the act is for exigent circumstance, where they suspect the evidence will be destroyed and an immediate siezure is necessary - neither of which seem to apply in this case. It'd be interesting to see how a similar case was/is handled in the UK/EU/US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doric Posted November 14, 2004 Share Posted November 14, 2004 There seems to be a lot of questions about all this. You know when something like this hapens in england, the papers love it because they explain it and do diagrams and things. To educate the people who are a bit tangled up (even i am by the way on this one) sso maybe if the manx newspaper could do a proper write up it would save us guessing and wonderingt. I for one would definately like to know exactly what this is all about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mission Posted November 14, 2004 Share Posted November 14, 2004 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeyconcrete Posted November 14, 2004 Share Posted November 14, 2004 Maybe someone who has l337 skillz with paint could diagram the whole affair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mission Posted November 14, 2004 Share Posted November 14, 2004 BING BONG /paging monkey_magic to No jail for Roly but bankrupt thread, monkey_magic to the No jail for Roly but bankrupt thread please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris Posted November 14, 2004 Share Posted November 14, 2004 You do not need a diagram nor a detailed explanation. You just need to incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights into your domestic legislation. This guarantees fundamental freedoms such as freedom of speech and expression. If this was done it could have been relied on in court to prevent such draconian gagging orders being made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.