Poll: Should the UK Supreme Court put recordings of entire hearings on YouTube?
21 January 2013
The UK Supreme Court says that at present putting recordings of full hearings online would be too expensive – see this post for all of the details and my thoughts on the issue.
What do you think?
All for the idea of being able to access hearings and judgments but I doubt that youtube is the best place for them. Youtube seems OK for the judgment summaries (a great move) but not for lengthy items.
Anyone wanting to watch this has to be beyond sad . . .
The cost is not cameras, or recording, that happens anyway. I don’t think edited highlights would help law students or other professionals, so uploading 10 hours or so at a spell would be unacceptable to You Tube. But Leveson provided full daily hearings on-line and recordings which can be accessed at any time thereafter, so the technology is available. That must be the same for the Supreme Court if it really wants to follow the same path.
I am not a lawyer but I need access to the law as it governs my life. I would very much like to see a list of books about Human Rights Law straight forward enough enough for me i.e. thick layman starting to show signs of senility.
The only costs I can see is the cost of a camera (or two), and then any time spent uploading, which is utterly minimal…
But either way, they should at least be filmed and made available, whether to youtube or otherwise. Anyone can walk in and watch a case anyhow!
I VOTED YES, AS THE LORD CHANCELLOR WITH THE TREASURY ARE RESPONSIBLE MINISTERS FOR FUNDING OF THE COURTS AND TRIBUNALS SYSTEM IN THE UNITED KINGDOM.
“Too expensive,” the judges said, speeding off in their Jaguars.
I voted “NO” because it will become just like byuing tickets for a circus exact that it will be FREE.
If you are against watching the court, just don’t watch it. No need to vote “no”.
Based on that logic, I would need to vote “no” on seafood. But I am fine with just not eating it myself.
You must log in to post a comment.