Went to public viewing gallery at Leeds Crown Court yesterday

[Pawf]

Who said anything about names and pictures? It's called jigsaw identification. If someone finds out the name of the guy who is on trial then they can find out who the rape victims are by looking who is his daughter, sister and neice...

[GommeInc]

Who said anything about names and pictures? It's called jigsaw identification. If someone finds out the name of the guy who is on trial then they can find out who the rape victims are by looking who is his daughter, sister and neice...

You do know you can get this information freely by just going straight to the Crown Courts? It's not illegal... If it was they wouldn't have a "public gallery" and let the public know what happens... You said it yourself, there is no mention of names, thus it's not illegal.

[FlyingJesus]

Who said anything about names and pictures? It's called jigsaw identification. If someone finds out the name of the guy who is on trial then they can find out who the rape victims are by looking who is his daughter, sister and neice...

Because there has obv only been 1 rape trial ever right

[Pawf]

You can be sarcastic if you want. The fact remains that it is illegal to publish anything which may identify a rape victim. Simple law. Thread reported.

[GommeInc]

You can be sarcastic if you want. The fact remains that it is illegal to publish anything which may identify a rape victim. Simple law. Thread reported.

Where are these snippets of identifiable pieces of information? I would also like to see your sources for turning a good thread into a pointless thread because you do not appear to understand how public galleries and the legal system works...

[Pawf]

The fact that thread starter said who the guy had raped. Once you know his name you can find out who the relatives are. It's OK to know it. Just not to publish it. Why is that so hard to understand? My source? Call it a degree in Journalism with pretty much the entire last year spent specialising in Law and Propaganda.

[Janet Snakehole]

Stuff like that is just unforgivable. It's disgusting. I hope he gets life, I really do.

[Pawf]

Lol, would anyone like to own up to the negative "stop being so arogant" rep? Not being arrogant, just making a point which is true.

[GommeInc]

The fact that thread starter said who the guy had raped. Once you know his name you can find out who the relatives are. It's OK to know it. Just not to publish it. Why is that so hard to understand? My source? Call it a degree in Journalism with pretty much the entire last year spent specialising in Law and Propaganda.

Yet his name doesn't appear to of been published... You do know it is legal to discuss court cases? There are different laws regarding journalism. Journalism is literally following the case and publishing explicit details for a wide audience which is illegal, especially if names are involved - broadcasting laws follow the same sort of rules too. Law firms publish cases they have been involved in, usually in Regina v. someone (date) format, and you can find out the details by looking over the case notes in the same way we are doing now, you could literally find out who someone has raped by age, gender, location and relation. IF it was illegal, law degrees would cease to exist because you couldn't cite court cases.

[Pawf]

As I said before, it's jigsaw identification. I'm not even going to bother to read all of that because I know it's irrelevant. This is a source of news for some people. Therefore it is subject to the same rules. And so it is illegal to identify rape victims. End of. Off to work, talk later x