> Yes, she really did say that. Group 4 would have to decide.
Presumably that refers to G4S (nee Group 4), the private security company that the UK Government are increasingly farming work out too?
i.e. the company who are embroiled in a series of scandals: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_G4S
It is therefore quite concerning that a justice-based decision (a prisoner sitting by their lawyers and being able to speak to them as normal) is down to a for-profit private company.
I know that's just the tip of the iceberg, but still concerning to be reminded of it.
Which isn't to say you shouldn't be outraged, but you should probably be outraged about a sixteen year old black kid being brought up for possession as well. He's not high profile enough to get a star lawyer determined to enumerate the problems with his treatment.
pointing out such inconsistency is an excellent way to dilute and dissolve outrage. Most people don't see such cases, they see this one because it's so high-profile/novel; If this is the breakthrough case that starts people talking it will benefit everyone.
How would I expect this to be handled? I would expect the court to say what they want and for G4S (who serve the court) to accommodate that.
When you book a security firm, surely you give them details about what you want them to do. They may advise you, but you decide.
That's what we expect. And when it comes to court systems the appointed representative in positions of authority should decide what's required of hired help.
If the system is so opaque, what mechanism exists to protect against a judge who does whatever they want? If the judge is truly using some kind of apparent word salad to justify arbitrary decisions which don't pass a basic test of reasoning, doesn't this effectively mean that a judge can do this anytime without consequences?
I don't believe you can get these in real time. You can apply for them afterwards, or you can go and listen for yourself, as this person did.
In the UK we generally don't go in for blow-by-blow realtime reporting of court cases, like they do in the US.
> doesn't this effectively mean that a judge can do this anytime without consequences?
Judges in the UK are appointed professionals - they aren't elected as in many places in the US, so they aren't pursuing an agenda or appealing to an electorate. Judges going rogue isn't a problem in practice.
I think in this very case the judge clearly IS pursuing an agenda. It may be a government-approved agenda, but it is clearly an agenda separate from the even-handed pursuit of justice.
If the transcript exists it ought to be made available quickly to the public. If it's a matter of fees, there ought to be a way of paying in advance for the transcript for a particular day, unless I'm missing something that's unique to the transcription process that makes it less feasible than I'm imagining it to be.
Federal Judges are appointed and about 90% of state judges are elected. There have only been 2 Federal judges that have been impeached since 1989.
Usually a higher court or the court of appeal, the latter of which you can appear before an unlimited number of times if you have grounds. Both have mechanisms for urgent hearings.
Judges can also be struck off for misconduct, which happens from time to time
Just to add though, this is not a judge, this is a magistrate, who take legal advice but are not legally qualified like a judge is.
She is (or was at the last time they updated their lists) a "District Judge (Magistrates' Courts)" which means ordinarily (this case is anything but ordinary) she would not be assigned to a Crown Court but would work alongside Magistrates in their court. Unlike them she can sit on her own (as she does here) deciding things for herself.
It says in some online articles that she is a district judge - is that the same thing as a magistrate?
It seems unusual for an international case involving an Australian citizen, the UK crown and the US government to be at the mercy of someone who is not qualified at the highest level to make decisions and adjudicate the matter.
Here's what they have for Assange's previous cases: https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/?filter_type=judgment&sea...
Some other cases will be pushed to the charitable organisation BAILII, who'll do any necessary anonymisation, apply a standard format, and put them up on the web. https://www.bailii.org/
Here's the BAILII search for Assange: https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/lucy_search_1.cgi?highlight=1...
But in general, no, we don't have full transcripts easily available and nothing apart from court reporting is available in real time.
The collapse of journalism as a career, especially local journalism (maybe this is just a UK thing?) means a lot of court reporting just doesn't happen any more, which is a bit worrying.
[1] If anyone's looking for a project something that scrapes that data and makes it easier to search and pull out themes would be welcomed by many people in England. It's a shame that this important learning is locked up in PDFs that are hard to find and use.
I think that is the appropriate link. In general you can pay to get a copy of any transcribed court proceeding assuming the court approves. Some small hearings are not transcribed (eg magistrates) so are not available. Records are only kept for a few years?
This is a blatant intellectually dishonest character assasination attempt.
Probably helpful to mention he was a former overseas Ambassador for the UK too? Surely that carries some weight in the world of online conspiracy discourse we are having here?
Not saying he's right, simply saying he's the type of guy who was at the forefront of where real conspiracies happen. Have no actual opinion on the matter and don't know anything about it. It could be pure rambling for all I know.
That said, look at all the people who were criticised for knowing the truth before Snowden, before MKUltra, before Iran-Contra. It's a fine line to draw here.
To pretend that this world doesn't have some funny things going on all the time behind the scenes is either willfully ignorant or...
I'm not sure I'd call him a conspiracy theorist for this, isn't it normal that the public aren't told the true progression of events for "Spy" stuff?
The court/prison site is not on a marsh, it is not an island. It is situated in a residential neighbourhood of London, about 15km from the city centre. There are three bus lines stopping at the front entrance.
Murray tries to take us for a ride. Insert "don't-believe-his-lies polaroid" meme here.
≥ she appears to be the only public figure in Western Europe with no photo on the internet. Indeed the average proprietor of a rural car wash has left more evidence of their existence and life history on the internet than Vanessa Baraitser. Which is no crime on her part, but I suspect the expunging is not achieved without considerable effort
Likely something more people should strive for
I envy the judge and others who can pull this feat off.
The IETF began using coloured lanyards, if you picked the special colour this was a signal to not record your presence at the in-person event where practical. When they first began doing this somebody key (maybe a Working Group chair or Area Director? Anyway someone who'd obviously be on camera all the time so that not recording them is hopeless) picked that colour because they liked it, and then only realised later why everybody was freaking out. Amusing.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ERxqKg1XsAEctQm?format=jpg&name=...
In fact some of these comments are really quite disturbing. If I were responsible for being the judge at the extradition hearing of Julian Assange I wouldn't want my picture out in public either. Let's not pretend like there isn't a real threat that one of the loony conspiracy theorists that follow Assange wouldn't take matters in to their own hands.
> Being angry at the public at random must be very stressful for her. I suspect she shouts a lot on trains.
I know this guy thinks the legal case is going to be lost so wants to tarnish the reputation of the people he disagrees with, but could someone volunteer step forward and explain why this sort of bollocks makes them think lower of the judge rather than just thinking badly of the author?
That might not necessarily be what you want to hear but: Because I ignore the bollocks. Conspiracy theorist or not, the author seems to at least have an informed point of view, where his reporting is factual it seems to reflect reporting in e.g. the corresponding Guardian articles. Where it's not I either ignore it because it's unnecessary ramblings or see it as interesting tidbits dry reporting of other outlets leave out. The part you specifically point out for example, I had a laugh at that and went on with my life. I'm not reflecting much bad on that particular judge for that part but took it as a, in my view, rather ridiculous aspect of this proceeding (without too much judgement of whether that is normal or not, I wouldn't know).
I knew nothing about this person 4 days ago, 3 days ago I learned that he was one of only 16 people (as per his first article in the series) to actually bother enough and manage to get one of the seats for the public. He clearly puts effort in and I for one enjoy his writing style. That doesn't mean I'll stop reading regular news but it certainly makes me come back when he publishes his piece on the next court date.
> Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever.
> Baraitser started to throw out jargon like a Dalek when it spins out of control.
> He looked at her like a kindly uncle whose favourite niece has just started drinking tequila from the bottle at a family party.
