I will say it again!!!! What a great lawyer Harold Doherty is!!! Thank God for this guy!!! He's the best!!!!
9 comments:
Anonymous
said...
That was IT?? Good grief, what a waste of money. So it comes down to who do you beleive, the cop or Charles. I don't know how comprehensive the article in the paper was, but by those accounts we still have nobody's word but the cop. To prove 'beyond a reasonable doubt' you have to at least provide ONE witness, and you'd think in a room full of people that wouldn't be hard to do. Did the defense or the crown ever call any witnesses from the media to ask if they heard Parks or not? I'm assuming to prove guilt you need more than the one guy whose actions are in dispute to provide the circumstancial evidence. But who knows.
If the judge throws the case out, he'll be setting a very dangerous precedent. After today's outbursts, it seems he may have already picked a side, sounding very close to quoting various statements comments on this very blog almost word for word.
If all a person needs to do is scream "I'm a blogger!" and with zero credentials, zero accountability, zero responsibility, could gain equal access to the same locations and people as real media personnel, then all hell would break loose. How many times does it have to be stated that just because a person publishes their personal diary (that's all a blog is) on the internet, it doesn't make that person a certified journalist?
If credentials are irrelevant, heck, then I could say that I'm a police officer, go get some handcuffs and start arresting people according to my personal beliefs. Or maybe all of a sudden I could start to claim I'm a doctor and give out medical advice that I just make up, regardless of consequences.
The above post is a good point, that is essentially the question, not what is the relation between blogging and journalism, but what is the relation between activism and blogging.
However, in this case that is not the issue and never was. I don't know what outbursts are being talked about, but in such a case as this, IF it could be proven that a police officer did tell Charles to leave and he refused, then that is clearly obstruction.
However, Charles has always maintained that he heard no such thing. The fact that only one other person was charged, a person who actively was trying to get through the door (and admitted so), lends support to Charles claim. The fact that as far as the press and the blog tells, no other person besides the officer in question heard such statements or at least never testified to hearing them, also lends credence to Charles' claim.
If all those above facts are true, then clearly it has nothing to do with whether Charles said he was a blogger or whether he said he was a martian. The police are free to tell the media that if they don't move from a certain location they will be arrested, very rarely do they disobey such orders-one of the reasons you can't trust press, they simply have no access.
Even if that 'precedent' were true, I'd far rather have that precedent around than the precedent it would set if Charles was found guilty, namely that citizens have no rights in our society that can't be easily superceded by overzealous cops.
6:59, you seem as confused (and as inclined toward hyperbole) as Charles. He says it's the end of democracy if he's convicted, which of course is ridiculous. You say it's the end of accountability and it will render credentials meaningless if he's acquitted, and that's equally ridiculous.
If he's acquitted, it will not mean that you can declare yourself a police officer and arrest people without consequence. It will also not mean, of course, that Charles is a journalist just because he says so. All it will mean is this: standing around taking photos is not obstructipn of justice.
10:24pm: You're trying to oversimplify things. It would not simply be about the ability to take pictures. It's a matter of getting media access to venues and people with zero credentials - that's not the same as "taking pictures" as you seem to think this is about.
All comments seem to miss the other side of this story which is if you watch television at all you will notice that most news agencies basically beg you to send in anything you can get a picture of, whether it is with your camera or your phone or a video camera etc...including CNN, Global, CTV, CBC etc...as well as offering you something in return such as T-Shirts, Cameras, Tickets, Tote bags etc...
So if you are not in the blogging business or media business at this time, most news outlets are trying very hard to put you out there among the action as this is a MUCH CHEAPER way for them to get their ((YOUR)) story out there.
This is only a small prelude into this issue there is much more to come in the future as this new way of "Getting it out there" Takes on a whole new meaning.
News people buy pictures all the time and now only when it suits them do they want the picture.
This LNG pipeline is really a bigger story to tell. Right now Irving is trying to buy some lakes up for the water because they need alot of water for the LNG. If you think Saint John had water think again; the greedy corporation will make us pay for the water but we won't have access to it Irving will at a good rate. The make the Billions and we continue struggling. The lakes right now have lease land but Irving will have a deal with the city and of course the Mayor, city Manager and Groody will help the Irvings get what they want.
9 comments:
That was IT?? Good grief, what a waste of money. So it comes down to who do you beleive, the cop or Charles. I don't know how comprehensive the article in the paper was, but by those accounts we still have nobody's word but the cop. To prove 'beyond a reasonable doubt' you have to at least provide ONE witness, and you'd think in a room full of people that wouldn't be hard to do. Did the defense or the crown ever call any witnesses from the media to ask if they heard Parks or not? I'm assuming to prove guilt you need more than the one guy whose actions are in dispute to provide the circumstancial evidence. But who knows.
If the judge throws the case out, he'll be setting a very dangerous precedent. After today's outbursts, it seems he may have already picked a side, sounding very close to quoting various statements comments on this very blog almost word for word.
If all a person needs to do is scream "I'm a blogger!" and with zero credentials, zero accountability, zero responsibility, could gain equal access to the same locations and people as real media personnel, then all hell would break loose. How many times does it have to be stated that just because a person publishes their personal diary (that's all a blog is) on the internet, it doesn't make that person a certified journalist?
If credentials are irrelevant, heck, then I could say that I'm a police officer, go get some handcuffs and start arresting people according to my personal beliefs. Or maybe all of a sudden I could start to claim I'm a doctor and give out medical advice that I just make up, regardless of consequences.
Doherty is the greatest because he is free? But would he get you out of this mess?
The Crown has no case anon. Charles is walking and should have never been put on trial in the first place.
The above post is a good point, that is essentially the question, not what is the relation between blogging and journalism, but what is the relation between activism and blogging.
However, in this case that is not the issue and never was. I don't know what outbursts are being talked about, but in such a case as this, IF it could be proven that a police officer did tell Charles to leave and he refused, then that is clearly obstruction.
However, Charles has always maintained that he heard no such thing. The fact that only one other person was charged, a person who actively was trying to get through the door (and admitted so), lends support to Charles claim. The fact that as far as the press and the blog tells, no other person besides the officer in question heard such statements or at least never testified to hearing them, also lends credence to Charles' claim.
If all those above facts are true, then clearly it has nothing to do with whether Charles said he was a blogger or whether he said he was a martian. The police are free to tell the media that if they don't move from a certain location they will be arrested, very rarely do they disobey such orders-one of the reasons you can't trust press, they simply have no access.
Even if that 'precedent' were true, I'd far rather have that precedent around than the precedent it would set if Charles was found guilty, namely that citizens have no rights in our society that can't be easily superceded by overzealous cops.
6:59, you seem as confused (and as inclined toward hyperbole) as Charles. He says it's the end of democracy if he's convicted, which of course is ridiculous. You say it's the end of accountability and it will render credentials meaningless if he's acquitted, and that's equally ridiculous.
If he's acquitted, it will not mean that you can declare yourself a police officer and arrest people without consequence. It will also not mean, of course, that Charles is a journalist just because he says so. All it will mean is this: standing around taking photos is not obstructipn of justice.
10:24pm: You're trying to oversimplify things. It would not simply be about the ability to take pictures. It's a matter of getting media access to venues and people with zero credentials - that's not the same as "taking pictures" as you seem to think this is about.
All comments seem to miss the other side of this story which is if you watch television at all you will notice that most news agencies basically beg you to send in anything you can get a picture of, whether it is with your camera or your phone or a video camera etc...including CNN, Global, CTV, CBC etc...as well as offering you something in return such as T-Shirts, Cameras, Tickets, Tote bags etc...
So if you are not in the blogging business or media business at this time, most news outlets are trying very hard to put you out there among the action as this is a MUCH CHEAPER way for them to get their ((YOUR)) story out there.
This is only a small prelude into this issue there is much more to come in the future as this new way of "Getting it out there" Takes on a whole new meaning.
News people buy pictures all the time and now only when it suits them do they want the picture.
This LNG pipeline is really a bigger story to tell. Right now Irving is trying to buy some lakes up for the water because they need alot of water for the LNG. If you think Saint John had water think again; the greedy corporation will make us pay for the water but we won't have access to it Irving will at a good rate. The make the Billions and we continue struggling. The lakes right now have lease land but Irving will have a deal with the city and of course the Mayor, city Manager and Groody will help the Irvings get what they want.
Post a Comment