Judge Not Provided Confirmation To Allow Video Links To Be Emailed

[@AndyBury]

Justice should be SEEN to by done!

[@thegroove2000]

Not in practice. Just a phrase they repeat to instill confidence in the legal system.

[@thegroove2000]

Judicial Independence: The phrase underscores the necessity for judges to be both independent and perceived as independent. This means that even if judges are impartial in their decisions, any appearance of bias or conflict of interest can undermine public trust in the judicial process FACT. The Judicary is not really independent.

[@thegroove2000]

They are duty bound to adminster and enforce primary legislation no matter how immoral, wrong it maybe.

[@roberthiggins6401]

Must be seen!

[@tviewer4251]

what a surprise!1

[@stevestephens8969]

If the Hearing is for ''Council Tax' you will never ever obtain consent from the ''Judge'' for any third party to join any Video links. I'm sure you Guys know why.

[@jeremymott7582]

Yep, 14.55 pm here and no reply. As I said when the video came out Friday, they have 5 working days in which to reply. When do you ever know the public sector to be early, especially in circumstances likely detrimental to them?

[@mondem8756]

The same!

[@CBuxton-EX.HKt.D]

The same ,

[@IceBradleyHeal]

Why would anyone be opposed to providing open and transparent communications..?

[@davidgleeson9225]

They wouldn't But if the live stream was showing corruption of the court and council Them maybe they might not want that evidencing all over the world wide web Just a thought

[@jamiewatson491]

So it doesn't go wide spead and inform others

[@jeffbarrett1787]

Brian, you were extremely calm with that call I’m impressed, no doubt it’s what you expected anyway. I myself was disappointed I didn’t get a link sent I await Marc’s video on what happened in court. I hope it’s good news .

[@AndyBury]

Muppets....

[@GHOST5663]

What a shocker. Name the Judge.

[@gwyneth7812]

This is interesting as i am wanting this too and they seem to be hesitant

[@davidlanyon4780]

had notification from the court that permission to observe refused. Over 70 applications received

[@garydavies601]

I didn't receive a link either.

[@sorchajones1788]

Shame. I’d hoped to catch some of this, as least. I really hope we will be able to see the video or read a transcript of the hearing.

[@scousepie2]

Very disappointed.

[@AlexProudfoot1]

No fair play!

[@Theevul_Gekneeus]

If it's not council tax ignore this... If it's for council tax... Isn't that just yourself and a representative for the council so they could simply "label" them prior and use that just as they do with "exhibit A" etc therefore not giving their name out... So from what she has said, their "NAME" has been applied... Curious...

[@louiseburnett5795]

S N A K E S I N T H E G R A S S

[@honda4004]

it must be the missing link! laughing at the plebs no doubt.

[@10tendogsdonie]

Suprise suprise,

[@davevarney2299]

It's civil, i.e. private business

[@me.me-me]

Since Mark was in court today what are you hiding by not letting people know what happened? If you don't state what the outcome was I shall in 1 hr

[@PeaceKeepersOfficialChannel]

What are you talking about?

[@me.me-me]

​@@PeaceKeepersOfficialChannel I did see after that post you had mark on outside court saying what happened however if in court I'd be leaving with the order the same day, not wait 30 days, as it don't take 30 days to write an order, to me that is not a good sign but just saying

[@me.me-me]

@@PeaceKeepersOfficialChannel I have saw before a case via a link before about a year ago so they should of allowed it. I always use covert recording and advise others as they don't want you to record, to cover up the crimes they commit

[@JamieMerchant-w8b]

I expected this to happen