and this judge has rightly been removed from the bench. This smacks of a schoolteacher attitude of long gone years where a whole class would be punished for the misdemeanors of one. Interestingly in "Judge John Deed" on BBC there was a similar scenario when the judge wanted to know who had leaked something and he incarcerated all the press members who were in court until somebody took the blame. I wonder if a judge could indeed do this and if he did, would there be any consequences?
@Button: Would fail under breach of Human Rights, I guess. No jailing without a fair hearing and all that.
I have said before that in the real world John Deed wouldn't last a week before having his collar felt by the Lord Chief Justice.
Mind you, I heard some very embarrasing ring tones going off in court which are criminal!!! 
I can remember a judge John Hopkin his name was, who ordered during a trial that no-one was to enter or leave during a piece of intensive evidence upon which he wanted the court to concentrate. One chappie needed the toilet badly during this "prohibition" and the judge sent a police officer after him to arrest for contempt - the guy spent some time in the court jail until brought before the judge to explain. Though this is slightly different from jailing wholesale so to speak!
Seemed to me like the judge had the right approach; don't you think we're all going a bit soft on people who are a nuisance. I still remember the old days (not that long ago) when a fines court would send the first defaulter of the session down for non payment, and it was amazing to see how many of the remainder managed to find spare money in their pockets after that.
Bystander _ "I have said before that in the real world John Deed wouldn't last a week before having his collar felt by the Lord Chief Justice."
Don't you have a go at my favourite Judge just because he's always right and gets to the bottom of all those conspiracies.
On topic now: The signs say 'turn off your mobile phones'. Non compliance is contempt.
Shame on the person who did not own up.
DJB - What's wrong with those long gone schoolteacher days?! In those days you didn't get the same problems as you do with todays 'yoof'. Discipline i think it was called... Obviously in this case, the judge was dealing with adults - adults that couldn't obey a simple sign/instruction, one that couldn't own up and several who must have had a good idea who it was but wouldn't say. Sounds like they were being childish to me and got treated as such!
Why do you classify this as 'Only in America'? Have you never had a deranged judge in the UK?
If my schoolboy history lessons have served me well, did we not used to have in medieval days "tithings" which were groups of people who were effectively responsible for each other - so when one got punished, so did the others? So would you mind the whole street at your address being fined because joe at No. 19 was speeding because when you do that sort of thing, people rebel against it as unfair and unjust. I tell you what, if I was ever banged up as part of a group where one had broken a law but all of us were jailed to find the offender "by force", I would certainly sue - yet it goes on in small ways - like on road wars where you see cops trying to get someone to "fess up" to a bit of weed - they don't care if it the real offender, so long as one of them calls it his and takes the rap for it. Thats not justice!!!!!!
I don't know about these 'tithings' but they actually sound like they could be useful if applied to the right people! It would certainly help develop some more respect for the others around them, especially when they come knocking on your door for their money back!
To answer your question, no i wouldn't want to pay either but the offence you suggested is one that can be tied to one offender via car registration. The case of these people was that no-one would identify a culprit or be indentified themself.
And as a side note, given your good recollection of history i'm guessing that same schoolteacher attitude helped you learn and develop into the civilised person you sound today?! Funny now it's gone, what the youth are turning out like.
That crappy article doesn't even say where this occurred!
" I tell you what, if I was ever banged up as part of a group where one had broken a law but all of us were jailed to find the offender "by force", I would certainly sue - "
Mr Button, sir, I don't know you but I believe, rather sadly, that you represent the attitude of too many in this country which is why we are steamrolled by the powers-that-be.
Sue, Sue ! I would RIOT.
This is a much better article, with more detail and a link to the report of those who investigated the judge's conduct:
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3...ml?
tag=nefd.top
From "The Australian"
Raunchy mobile lowers courtroom tone
By Tony Keim | October 03, 2007
A MAN was lucky not to find himself facing contempt charges when his highly embarrassing mobile phone ring tone rang out loudly in a packed courtroom.
The decorum in the Ipswich Magistrate's call-over court was shattered as the sound of a woman experiencing heightened sexual pleasure rang out for between 10 to 20 seconds.
Numerous people sat in the public gallery, including several local lawyers, struggled to choke back laughter in Court 1 as acting magistrate Roger Stark tried to ignore the ring tone and attend to the case before him.
The message repeated a woman moaning: "Oh, yeah ... yeah ... oh, yeah ... do it to me."
A man seated in the public gallery could be seen try to unsuccessfully turn off his phone as he also attempted to hide his obvious embarrassment.
Less than an hour earlier, prosecutor Constable Jo Little had warned people seated in the public gallery to ensure their mobile telephones were switched off or risk having them confiscated by the presiding magistrate.
Most, if not all, Queensland courts have clear, obvious signage near the front of every courtroom informing people to ensure their phones are switched off.
Several magistrates have also adopted the practice of confiscating mobile phones that ring in court, while many others publicly chastise people who fail to turn them off.
While Mr Stark chose to take no action against the man, he could have held him to in contempt of court.
The man could have also found himself charged with causing a public nuisance - which carries a maximum sentence of six months jail.
What's wrong with the old Roman method of putting a bit of stick about? Decimating the odd bunch of miscreants hanging around court rooms would probably sort out most of the problems with mobile phones going off in court.
So he didn't "jail the whole courtroom" as the Sun claims, but rather the defendants. Also, the Sun makes it sound as if it just happened whereas it in fact took place in 2005.
Par for the course with the Sun I suppose.
Bystander, I hope someone emailed you the link. Somehow I can't see you reading the Sun.
(I skim the online edition most days - know your enemy! - ed)
Edited By Siteowner
@Vic: Of course he does; it's obligatory for Magistrates to know how the man on the Clapham Omnibus is thinking, ever since Lord Denning (RIP) set the legal test.
Sue - you are correct, you don't know me. I have been on the receiving end of british justice thus:
Many years ago, I gave my (then new) father in law permission to use my car under the provision that he was insured on his own insurance. He borrowed it one day - went to the pub and had an accident in it. He left the accident scene after giving MY name. He failed to sort it out, so other driver went to police. Result - he got charged 4 offences - failing to stop, fail to report, no insurance and careless driving. Police interview me (not under caution) and I am charged with cause or permit no insurance. WE both plead guilty - me with mitigation to technical offence. He gets 5 points and £30 fine £7.50 costs, I get same fine and costs with 4 points. I appealed against sentenance, Crown Court judge says I had defence, sends it back to mags to enter not guilty plea. Police officer gives evidence and confirms interview without caution but mags still accept it!!!!! Mags re-convict me despite evidence confirming said he could use car provided insured under own policy. Mags then ask me to "plead" for no points special circumstances - I didn't - I "demanded" otherwise back to appeal judge - mags then decided no points but doubled the fine with no further costs.
Is that justice? Is it hell!!!!!
Any comments bystander?????
"...Restaino, who conceded he had no legal right to take the defendents into custody, had committed "an egregious and unprecedented abuse of judicial power." "
And there are commentators who think he did well !
The mind boggles.
@Pascal - He wouldn't be the first person to concede that he was wrong when he was right.
After all, so many people concede they are right when they are wrong.
@Mr Button - I would not presume to speak for BS but I really don't see how he can realistically comment. Obviously you have given us some information - but it is inevitably only one side of the story and as none of us were there, and did not hear all the evidence it would not be fair to opine one way or the other.
All I would say is that by your own admission, this took place many years ago. Life has moved on, not least in relation to the extensive training and assessments that magistrates now have to receive. I am sure you feel very strongly that you were hard done by. But don't judge the standard of justice then by the standard of justice now. After all, it wasn't that long ago that we hung people for murder. Today, we do not...(although some people may indeed like to reintroduce it!!)
SLJP - You've hit a thorn in my side.
It's hanged, not hung.
I'm running a campaign against the BBC's use of language. Please help.
Yet more negative publicity for the courts service
http://news.aol.co.uk/straw-
orde...129083209990002
Amazing!
(It's an admin screw-up rather than a judicial one, I think. - ed)
Edited By Siteowner
Ooh, Rod quite right but you really should get out more... I also get hanged up on the odd shibboleth...
Was that you on radio 5live the other day? One of the cases being discussed seemed rather familiar.....
(I'm afraid it was - ed).
Edited By Siteowner
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/n...ive/
morning_wed
Mr Button
I am Anon from 8.56pm. may I explain that my name is not Sue.
I have a friend who happens to be a solicitor who many years ago suffered at the hands of justice. See what you think.
My friend was driving along minding his own business when he came to a junction which was a STOP junction and not a GIVE WAY one. He decided it was safe for him to slow down but not actually stop and negotiated the junction. Unluckily for him there was one of those beat bobbies (yes it was some time ago as I said)a bit further along who had seen this and who pulled him over.
To cut a long story short my friend (who can be bombastic and overbearing) accused the bobbie of being an imbecile and, should he be able to demonstrate the difference between stop and slow down he, my friend, would accept his dues. The bobbie asked him to get out of the car and, whilst my friend was in the process of getting out the bobbie proceeded to beat him furiously about the head with his truncheon whilst saying " Well, do you want me to stop"...thrash,thrash, thrash "or do you want me to slow down"
Justice done I thought.
Notsue
@SLJP - Is that an invitation? (Bystander will edit this as he's not running a dating agency).
Anyway, you're in good company. Jonathan Aitken said 'hung' on This Week, last night (BBC again).
@notSue - Now that's what I call a Policman with a sense of humour. Where have they gone?
Arghh - Policeman - not Policman.
I hat whn th e gt's stuck.
@Rod: I hate it when the "e" gets stuck too, instead of a narcotic experience someone has to do the Heimlich manoever to get it out....
@noni - There are too many e's in the English language. At least that's what my Cockney girlfriends say.
'Hung' and 'hanged' are both perfectly acceptable forms as the past participle of 'to hang' - as a quick glance at any decent dictionary will confirm. Merriam Webster notes 'For both transitive and intransitive senses the past and past participle hung, as well as hanged, is standard.' Foxe used 'hung' in the 'Book of Martyrs', so have many other authors.
The purpose of language is to convey meaning; ideally, but not necessarily, in an aesthetically pleasing style. Grammar is a tool to help in this effort. Nothing more. The effort of the semi-educated middle class in Britain to create shibboleths; meaningless pedantries intended to distinguish themselves from those they would like to regard as inferior is becoming tiresome. Please don't add to it.
I've spent a hour on this blog looking and thinking about the postings and comments on here.
Nothing has prompted me to comment until I read the above.
James Nicola. You are a very sad man. Get a life.
Seems a bit excessive, but I can understand and empathise with the Judge's annoyance.
Commenting by HaloScan
