Hacker News Reader

Comment by mnw21cam | Hacker News Reader

You're saying that you love the integrity of the legal system being jeopardised and juries being interfered with?

The legal system of the UK ends at their border. They don't get to control what I see, hear or say. This is a fact to be celebrated indeed.

I'd go further and say that the geoblocking by the New Yorker is excessive. If the UK doesn't want its population accessing what is freely visible in the rest of the world, it should institute a firewall itself.

Don't suggest such a thing. I'm quite confident that plenty of the population would be perfectly happy with that so long as there was an exception for internet shopping and that there are plenty of politicians who would do their best to put a positive spin on it.

You'll be fine, it would be subcontracted out to Capita or the like who would make a pig's ear of the project but come in at 5 times the original budget; then it would be cancelled 2 months before completion and the minister responsible would get a job on the board.

I've been living outside the UK for so long I'd forgotten about Capita! Long live Capita! :-)

"outsourcing companies" exist?

So, should the UK government read every newspaper before it is published, every webpage that gets loaded inside the UK, every tweet viewed in the UK, etc. to check whether it deems it acceptable for UK citizens to see it?

If the government had the tech to do that it would be awfully easy to misuse it.

Then, since I'm reading this in the UK, that's illegal?

I don't think they have any desire to control what you see, because you're not going to be on the jury in her next trial.

It's very hard to argue that a story like this is really getting in the way of the integrity of the legal system.

I don't know whether the problem is that the judge doesn't have the discretion to lift reporting restrictions in this case, or that the judge is failing to exercise that discretion.

But it's very silly that there was a window after the original case where reporting was allowed (and therefore a great was deal written based on the decision that she was guilty, with as much prejudice to a future jury as you like), and then they closed the window again ahead of the new case.

The UK legal system? Integrity?

Best joke I've heard all week.

This is a system notoriously-known for railroading anyone.

They could sequester juries if that were a concern for them.

In cases such as this, sure.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com