BBC News Updated every minute of every day

Added: Monday, 6 July, 2009, 11:34 GMT 12:34 UK

There should be a D notice on all court cases until their conclusion, then they should be reported on fully and without bais. However that would only happen in a dream world because the UK is more bothered about the criminals and terrorists rights than those of their victims.They can belt hell out of a copper and he's not supposed to do anything because if he does it's police brutality. I have every confidence in the police, it's the ones with something to hide who shout unfair at every thing.

Fedup, Leeds

Added: Monday, 6 July, 2009, 11:31 GMT 12:31 UK

"We can't trust this government to amend the laws of this country; particularly those surrounding justice. They have already eroded the civil liberties of those accused of crimes to such an extent that those who devised the Magna Carta must be spinning in their graves.

Colin Mardell, Holbeach, United Kingdom"

All our civil liberties have been eroded by CCTV and by the Terrorism Act.

Newsman Face, Stockport, United Kingdom

Added: Monday, 6 July, 2009, 11:16 GMT 12:16 UK

The ban on investigating agency on publication in fear of undue infulance on jury is allowing the jury be influnced by lot of confusing details. In modern days a jury has lot of way to learn about the case false or true. At USA during watergate crisis the defence claimed that no jury or USA citizen is not prejudice. In a era of media trial the ban on publication to be held as a contempt of court is too much. The contempt of court laws suitably modified all over world to meet new environment.

Akhtar Javed Usmani Khongapani..., Khongapani,Koreya, C.G., India

Added: Monday, 6 July, 2009, 11:12 GMT 12:12 UK

Upon reading the entire article I have come to my own opinion on the act mentioned
The idea of reviewing it does not suggest entirely getting rid of it, which is good.However Mr Clarke does not give examples of the changes that may be made to the act, which should be mentioned in is point about reviewing it,or at elast some sort of hypothesis should be put forward
I am also in agreement with Mr Jafar, Mass media coverage on the goings on of court activites could create a media frenzy.not good

Joe, Stoke on Trent

Added: Monday, 6 July, 2009, 11:05 GMT 12:05 UK

Given that government ministers went on television after a recent 'terrorism' arrest to say the security services had foiled a major plot, it would appear that the contempt of court law has already been revoked. You didn't see those same ministers apologising when the terrorism suspects were eventually released without charge.

colin craig, Stratford

Added: Monday, 6 July, 2009, 10:51 GMT 11:51 UK

We are talking about the contempt act, which has just been admirably shown to exist in the HYS page. I wish they would tell you why they reject a comment when there are no swear words, religious or ethnic insults or abuse. Right, back to the question. When you see some of the news that the media reports on a case and the hysteria that they can raise in a gullible population, I feel it is right that we have this act. By all means report after a trial but not before. Fair trials for all is a must.

Worry Wort, Sheffield, United Kingdom

Added: Monday, 6 July, 2009, 10:38 GMT 11:38 UK

In the age of a sensible media and responsible reporting? Absolutely. But we're not in that age. Trying to enforce your rights in a court of law should not carry the price of having your private life splashed across the newspapers. For that reason, the Contempt of Court Act must remain - honour and personal integrity have vanished from public life, and the press are no different. They cannot be trusted to report fairly and responsibly, so in the interests of justice they can't report at all.

Lookingforhonestpolitics InTheUK, United Kingdom

Added: Monday, 6 July, 2009, 10:30 GMT 11:30 UK

Once again it’s a retired official who feels able to criticise government policy. Are all those actually serving in high-powered jobs too frightened to say what they really think?

[digiwinstonsmith]

Added: Monday, 6 July, 2009, 10:15 GMT 11:15 UK

Confidence or lack of confidence, in the police, in any country is the result of their actions.
All the spin in the world will not change that which people see with their own eyes, such as the beating to death of innocent protesters.
Any change in the law proposed by any senior police officer is only ever about more police power and less accountability.

john smith

Added: Monday, 6 July, 2009, 10:12 GMT 11:12 UK

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences.”
C.S. Lewis

Simon Attwood

Added: Monday, 6 July, 2009, 10:09 GMT 11:09 UK

It is a fallacy that talk, discussion, and reporting on cases influences court decisions. As our society stands today we are trying to do the impossible in restricting the public its right to know what's going on. The courts should get on with the job without worrying what the public know, how much or how little. The police get little enough complements on the dirty rotten job they have to endure without restricting news on work they have completed and satisfactory arrests etc they have made.

Roy Smith, Tauranga, New Zealand

Added: Monday, 6 July, 2009, 09:51 GMT 10:51 UK

You can take two views. First you could complain that the medias inability to publish an unbiased 100% unopinionated story justifies the necessity for such a law to exist.
However considering we now live in a state where jails are better funded, equipped and fed than most primary schools and you will never even serve your full sentence I think it would be totally fair for the public to know how little power (and righteous fear) the Police and Justice system actually utilizes.

James, Aberdeen UK

Added: Monday, 6 July, 2009, 09:50 GMT 10:50 UK

No. Contempt laws, should if anything be more stringent. We should not be going down the path of the USA where trial by media is common place. When it comes trials the over riding factor should be that the outcome is made on the evidence produced in court, not the a bias report on the TV or in the press. There should be a media block on all trials until an outcome is reached, to ensure a fair trail.

nigel, salford

Added: Monday, 6 July, 2009, 09:41 GMT 10:41 UK

Yes, I, as Peter Clarke and Lord Goldsmith believe that there should be some changes in the Contempt of Court Act regarding accumulations and selection of information through people from the community, media, or police.these collected information regarding each court case might be right or wrong,but they should be sifted through and selected the most appropriate ones to be applied by judiciary system. Without community and media,judiciary system and police can't have the confidence of people.

Gholamhosain Tasbihi, Tabriz, Iran

Added: Monday, 6 July, 2009, 09:31 GMT 10:31 UK

Why do we just photocopy the US Patriot Act and stick a royal coat of arms on the front!
Innocent until proven guilty is alien to our Government: and to think this is supposed to be a socialist Government. If the Conservatives had attempted to erode our rights and freedoms to a fraction of the extent which Labour has accomplished, there would have been riots.
Trial by jury, not by the media, is our last bastion against totalitarianism. That is why ZanuLabour wants rid of it.

David Jones, Peterborough