muckles:
Found a report still up on a news website.
The most likely reason those other sources have been taken down is because there is an ongoing trial, and as he’s been jailed for disrupting it those articles probably said something about the trial itself which they are not supposed to (which can ultimately end up causing juries to be discharged).
It’s like that EDL man-and-woman couple who got jailed - it wasn’t for telling the truth, it was for accusing completely innocent people of grievous crimes who had no connection to the case they were trying to highlight!
No one would have a problem if they were doing a Woodward and Bernstein. But they’re not, they’re just disrupting the very processes of justice that are supposed to bring criminals to book (processes which are open to public observers - I’ve sat in Crown Court myself in the past as an observer - and they would be completely free to talk about and describe in the press after the conclusion of the trial), and whipping up lynch mobs against innocent bystanders.