Re: COURT 14 - Mr Justice Tugendhat - 10.30am tomorrow, Tuesday 5 February

by nobodythereeither 05.02.13 13:32

Silly question, but I'm presuming that as the public are admitted to the court there is no kind of ban on relaying what is happening/what has happened?

I'm a bit perplexed that so far there doesn't seem to have been any news.

Even if tweeting/emailing/texting isn't allowed in the courtroom itself (and I've no idea if it is) I would have hoped that someone might have communicated something during the lunch break? I assume they break for lunch??

I'm really really hoping that no news is good news .....

by EJW 05.02.13 13:39

nobodythereeither wrote:Silly question, but I'm presuming that as the public are admitted to the court there is no kind of ban on relaying what is happening/what has happened?

I'm a bit perplexed that so far there doesn't seem to have been any news.

Even if tweeting/emailing/texting isn't allowed in the courtroom itself (and I've no idea if it is) I would have hoped that someone might have communicated something during the lunch break? I assume they break for lunch??

I'm really really hoping that no news is good news .....

I was thinking the same thing, no news on twitter or on here?? I'm a bit puzzled. COURT 14 - Mr Justice Tugendhat - 10.30am tomorrow, Tuesday 5 February - Page 6 172348

COURT 14 - Mr Justice Tugendhat - 10.30am tomorrow, Tuesday 5 February - Page 6 172348

by sombrero 05.02.13 13:39

The case has started because I have a friend in Court today and I just got a very brief messsage. I was hoping for some updates but my guess is that you cant text or email from the court.

by Spaniel 05.02.13 13:45

nobodythereeither wrote:Silly question, but I'm presuming that as the public are admitted to the court there is no kind of ban on relaying what is happening/what has happened?

I'm a bit perplexed that so far there doesn't seem to have been any news.

Even if tweeting/emailing/texting isn't allowed in the courtroom itself (and I've no idea if it is) I would have hoped that someone might have communicated something during the lunch break? I assume they break for lunch??

I'm really really hoping that no news is good news .....

Judge calls to adjourn when there's a natural break in proceedings. He wouldn't cut into the middle of say an opening argument with a call for lunch.

by nobodythereeither 05.02.13 13:48

Spaniel wrote:
nobodythereeither wrote:Silly question, but I'm presuming that as the public are admitted to the court there is no kind of ban on relaying what is happening/what has happened?

I'm a bit perplexed that so far there doesn't seem to have been any news.

Even if tweeting/emailing/texting isn't allowed in the courtroom itself (and I've no idea if it is) I would have hoped that someone might have communicated something during the lunch break? I assume they break for lunch??

I'm really really hoping that no news is good news .....
Judge calls to adjourn when there's a natural break in proceedings. He wouldn't cut into the middle of say an opening argument with a call for lunch.

xxxxx

Well it's nearly 2pm, so let's hope Tony had a good filling breakfast!

by Spaniel 05.02.13 13:54

Mirage wrote:
Smokeandmirrors wrote:Judge T doesn't like super injunctions as we already know, so doubt it.

My bet is the media are waiting .....

They still want their £650K back and payback for the garbage the Mc"s spouted under oath at Leveson.

I hope and pray you are right, Smokeandmirrors.

The acres of newsprint devoted to Huhne is certainly in stark contrast to the wall of silence surrounding TM and this momentous trial, I must say. The story of perverting the course of justice over speeding points wins the hearts and minds of our journalists for the moment.

It's a pity they look so out of step. They will have to play catch up soon or risk their jobs by allowing the internet to become the first port of choice for news.

It's a ruthless old world isn't it?

Reporting restrictions were only lifted on the Huhne case yesterday. Papers chomping at the bit as it was the NOTW that first ran the story. Had they not, the truth would still be buried, cost £500,000 to keep a lid on it. Important for the press, as it shows they must be allowed to expose corrupt public figures.

by Spaniel 05.02.13 13:59

nobodythereeither wrote:
Spaniel wrote:
nobodythereeither wrote:Silly question, but I'm presuming that as the public are admitted to the court there is no kind of ban on relaying what is happening/what has happened?

I'm a bit perplexed that so far there doesn't seem to have been any news.

Even if tweeting/emailing/texting isn't allowed in the courtroom itself (and I've no idea if it is) I would have hoped that someone might have communicated something during the lunch break? I assume they break for lunch??

I'm really really hoping that no news is good news .....
Judge calls to adjourn when there's a natural break in proceedings. He wouldn't cut into the middle of say an opening argument with a call for lunch.

xxxxx

Well it's nearly 2pm, so let's hope Tony had a good filling breakfast!

It may be the case that Judge has said no discussion of the proceedings allowed. It is his court. I hope at least Tony lets us know it wasn't as bad as he was dreading.

by Casey5 05.02.13 14:08

If the McCann case does have a super injunction imposed why don't the newspapers get their own back by not mentioning anything whatsoever to do with the McCanns?
The McCann case can't still sell thousands of newspapers, most people wouldn't buy one just so they can read about a child missing for nearly 6 years.
The Editors could still hold onto their files full of info and speculation on the case until something momentous happens.
If I was a newspaper who had shelled out loads of money in libel payments I wouldn't give them the time of day until the crunch came.

by Olive_Boyle 05.02.13 14:32

Don't want to put a downer on things (just being realistic) but am I correct in thinking that if Sombrero's update is correct then that is not the best news?

by jd 05.02.13 14:34

Just a reminder of the mccanns "absolute devastation" and how "totally broken" they were in the immediate days after Maddie disappeared

COURT 14 - Mr Justice Tugendhat - 10.30am tomorrow, Tuesday 5 February - Page 6 What+the+fuck

COURT 14 - Mr Justice Tugendhat - 10.30am tomorrow, Tuesday 5 February - Page 6 What+the+fuck

by nobodythereeither 05.02.13 14:37

Olive_Boyle wrote:Don't want to put a downer on things (just being realistic) but am I correct in thinking that if Sombrero's update is correct then that is not the best news?

xxxxxxx

What Sombrero said was always strictly the case though, wasn't it?

But things aren't always as simple as they appear .... I am hopeful that the judge seems to be aware of some of the complexities .....

by Guest 05.02.13 14:38

nobodythereeither wrote:
Olive_Boyle wrote:Don't want to put a downer on things (just being realistic) but am I correct in thinking that if Sombrero's update is correct then that is not the best news?

xxxxxxx

What Sombrero said was always strictly the case though, wasn't it?

But things aren't always as simple as they appear .... I am hopeful that the judge seems to be aware of some of the complexities .....

I have just asked why sombrero has now deleted that post.

by Olive_Boyle 05.02.13 14:41

nobodythereeither wrote:
Olive_Boyle wrote:Don't want to put a downer on things (just being realistic) but am I correct in thinking that if Sombrero's update is correct then that is not the best news?

xxxxxxx

What Sombrero said was always strictly the case though, wasn't it?

But things aren't always as simple as they appear .... I am hopeful that the judge seems to be aware of some of the complexities .....

Yep I realised that. From reading on here and from I'm sure from Tony himself I thought there might be a chance of otherwise. Sombrero's post didn't sound very positive of more to me. Although the post has gone so who knows.

by WindsorBlue 05.02.13 14:46

Although I have sent Tony good luck and my love, the lack of reports from the court would suggest it is not the best news perhaps. I would have thought there would be some mention as courts usually rise around 12.30ish and sit again around 2pm, unless of course they are in the middle of questioning, but surely they would have had lunch by now.
Hopefully somebody will update us soon.

by jd 05.02.13 14:51

Tony will not be tweeting from court!! Somehow I think he has other pressing matters to attend to then to be on his mobile tweeting

by pennylane 05.02.13 14:56

jd wrote:Tony will not be tweeting from court!! Somehow I think he has other pressing matters to attend to then to be on his mobile tweeting

Absolutely jd, and nobody will know the outcome anyway, not until the judge makes his final ruling!

by russiandoll 05.02.13 14:58

No news on the rabid pro site either, only news are tweets on the spoof account the disgusting Muratfan set up today to mock TB.
All nonsense.
So the pros are in the dark like us....MF not in court it would seem or there would be genuine posts from him on the JATYK2 forum.

by DIBarlow 05.02.13 14:58

I've yet to see news from either 'side' emerging? This would tend to suggest restrictions have been placed in some way?

As a brief overview though, what exactly do the McCanns hope to achieve? Every move they make raises more questions than answers.

In the same way that these clandestine organisations seem able to override the basic principles of moral and ethical human behaviour, the jailing of a pensioner is not going to wipe the McCann slate clean in any way.

They continue to delude themselves.

by jd 05.02.13 15:01

It makes sense that this morning was CR, and this afternoon will be Tony, both in the process of cross examining each other. I doubt we will hear anything until the end of the day, and more likely an adjournment till the morning

by roy rovers 05.02.13 15:26

So the trial actually started rather than some 'door of court' number. I suspected it would as they intend to keep it to the very narrow point of the alleged breach of undertakings.

However if Tony survives this even semi intact there's no way IMO that they'll let it proceed to a full libel trial.

We shall see soon enough.

by nobodythereeither 05.02.13 15:31

roy rovers wrote:So the trial actually started rather than some 'door of court' number. I suspected it would as they intend to keep it to the very narrow point of the alleged breach of undertakings.

However if Tony survives this even semi intact there's no way IMO that they'll let it proceed to a full libel trial.

We shall see soon enough.

xxxxxx

But it's not up to them, is it? It's up to the judge whether it goes to a full libel trial, surely.

by stargazer59 05.02.13 15:37

nobodythereeither wrote:
roy rovers wrote:So the trial actually started rather than some 'door of court' number. I suspected it would as they intend to keep it to the very narrow point of the alleged breach of undertakings.

However if Tony survives this even semi intact there's no way IMO that they'll let it proceed to a full libel trial.

We shall see soon enough.

xxxxxx

But it's not up to them, is it? It's up to the judge whether it goes to a full libel trial, surely.

I am pretty sure that Adrienne Page was brought in at the last minute to try and fight it going to a full libel trial.

There is no other logical reason i can think of why she was brought on board

by monkey mind 05.02.13 15:47

russiandoll wrote:No, and don't expect any, whichever way it goes. The media only seem interested in the abduction /disappearance and the possible discovery of Maddie, not with the huge issues surrounding the case.
I am sure though that there is plenty stashed away in filing cabinets ready to go and be amended and added to when [ and I believe it is when and not if] the truth of this whole stinking affair emerges.

Sad to say I agree with you RD. I don’t think this will make the press either way because whatever happens it’s not good publicity for them is it?.Question is who exactly is keeping it out of the mainstream? We can blame your average journo who isn't going to waste time or effort writing something he is certain won't make print, so is it spineless editors for fear of litigation? Or are they acting on instruction from proprietors – a far more sinister scenario imho.

by bill516 05.02.13 15:48

I can understand reporting restrictions being in place but who instigates them, Proscution, Defence or the Judge. If one side can do it then do the other side have to agree to it or are they free to make an objection and have the restrictions lifted.

Bill

by Lance De Boils 05.02.13 15:57

No news yet, then....?

What time was it due to start? If it started first thing, it seems an awfully long time for a hearing of this nature... in my opinion. I fear that the longer it goes on, the worse for TB, but maybe that's just my pessimistic nature showing through!
Oh, silly me - just realised it was due to start at 1030. So 5.5 hrs ago. Take off, say 1.5 hrs for lunch & breaks, that's still 4 hrs in court. 2 hrs each side then summing up and directions. So yes, a full day, I guess.

Was anyone actually going with TB to support him?

Log in for more topics