Court orders BBC not to air documentary on 2011 riots

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Koschei, Jul 18, 2012.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Court order prevents BBC from broadcasting film about riots | UK news |

    Apparently a judge has ordered the BBC not to broadcast a documentary about last year's riots. He's also banned the BBC and media from disclosing the court in which the censorship order was made, the judge's name and the details or nature of the order.

    Seeing as we all saw what happened pretty much live (some more so than others) I can't imagine what it is that he's trying to hide. Has anyone got any more info?
  2. What?!? No film??!

    Let's riot!!
  3. Why not, my running shoes are starting to look a bit dusty and I could do with a new telly.
  4. Sixty

    Sixty LE Moderator Book Reviewer
    1. ARRSE Cyclists and Triathletes

    There was a report yesterday (also in the Graun) that the BBC were considering an appeal but nothing further reported today. Frankly, it's a bit disturbing if actors voicing transcripts of real interviews is now beyond the pale.
  5. Why conceal the court and the judge? Open justice seems to be becoming a thing of the past.
    • Like Like x 3
  6. Be careful, criticism of the system could lead to a 3 O'clock knock.
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Interesting. I would imagine that the producers have interviewed some of the rioters to get their side of the story. Possibly this might be regarded as being overly sympathetic to criminals if not tantamount to possibly inciting further naughtiness.

    It wouldn't have anything to do with revealing overly robust Police tactics as from what I saw... there weren't any.
    Possibly there may have been some mention of tear gas, baton rounds and water canons. The police vehicles used to deploy the baton rounds were known to the press. Maybe the producers were over egging this pudding.

    There was a docco crew filming us in Hackney just after a BBC truck got attacked - a fleeing rioter/looter was tripped up and kicked in the chops by a naughty cameraman. (They had been threatening us earlier). I'll never see it on the box now - shame.

    In short the judge was probably not happy with the possible glorification of mindless aggro...

    or maybe he just thought it was a shite bit of TV.
  8. The riots happened because a chain of events led a group of people to realise they could get away with it. Other people saw them getting away with it and joined in.

    Certain people just can't accept that, and feel the need to point fingers whilst presenting the case of the poor downtrodden rioters who were responding to some terrible but difficult-to-pinpoint injustice. The rioters themselves will no doubt spout the same, now that the excuse has been handed to them.

    I've no idea why the judge made his decision, but I imagine it would have to do with the above. Glorifying what went on (particularly if it would stand a chance of stirring things up just before the Olympics) would probably not go down well.
    • Like Like x 2
  9. Unfortunately, we are not informed of the identity of the applicant, whether it is the Home Office, the Metropolitan Police or some other organ of the state. Neither are we informed of the arguments used or the the basis upon which the judge has made his decision. It will not appear in the law reports unless it establishes some new point of law.

    It does appear, however, that it is a temporary injection since the BBC Press alludes to an intention to screen it at a later date.
  10. And I cannot see how this can be regarded as anything but moral cowardice on the part of the judge. As other have stated, much of the riots were seen live on TV. What is so important that a judge should feel compelled to impose such draconian restrictions?

    Frankly, if a judge is too gutless to let people know the decisions he makes and his reasons for doing so - he shouldn't be in the job.:roll:
  11. The linked article now says
    which is rather different. Has the Guardian been forced to change it?
  12. Fear not!

    Any more recreational looting in Hackney, Tottenham and Stratford and G4S will be on hand to deal with it....
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Given their vetting procedures, a significant percentage of rioters would probably be wearing G4S uniforms...;-)
    • Like Like x 1
  14. I do not think it is a case of judicial gutlessness. Injunctions may be obtained at country court level which is fairly junior in the hierarchy of the court system. Cases are not generally reported unless they involve some form of precedent, or the press has been present and been allowed to report without restriction. Judges do not issue injunctions simply because an applicant has asked for one. The judge has to hear argument on both sides before he arrives at a decision. It is for the applicant to satisfy the court that some form of harm will result if an injection is not put in place and that the harm contemplated is a real possibility and not simply a speculative assertion that it could exist. If the judge decides in favour of the applicant, the injunction will only be issued for the minimum period proportionate to the threat complained of. It is for the applicant to return to the court and provide a pretty good reason why it should be extended beyond the period the judge deems necessary.
  15. Mr_Fingerz

    Mr_Fingerz LE Book Reviewer

    [Disclaimer/] I have no knowledge of, or interest in, the protagonists in this court case [\Disclaimer]

    I am willing to lay a small bet (very small in the current economic climate) that the Judge making the order was Mr Justice Eady. David Eady - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The court will note that this is mere speculation (informed speculation given the His Hononour's past history, but speculation none the less).

    I fully expect the higher court to bounce this judgement all over the playground.