Friday, January 25, 2013

Supreme Indifference

In a welcome development, the Supreme Court has taken to publishing judgments on You Tube. There is an example here.

Unfortunately the numbers of views for the clips appear to be small or zero, at the moment. That means that this blog, with 1000 to 1500 views a day has a bigger readership than the Supreme Court. That's fun, isn't it?

11 comments:

  1. I wouldn't get *too* excited. I bet Nuts has a higher readership than this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Definitely bedtime story stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Most of the stuff on the Supreme Court is boring and of little interest. I watched some of the Prudential one and turned off .

    ReplyDelete
  4. AYoungerNobody25 January 2013 13:10

    If you want to see an example of unjustifiable(?) "cost per view", a good candidate is the Ministry of Justice's YouTube page.

    http://www.youtube.com/user/MinistryofJusticeUK/videos?sort=dd&view=0&flow=grid

    ReplyDelete
  5. Their Lordships need to work on their presentation skills. The judgement I viewed was extremely repetitive; and not surprisingly they seemed to be delivering it to an empty room.

    I notice they have disallowed comments and likes/dislikes in their YouTube channel. Unfortunately for them they cannot switch off the view counter which shows their lack of relevance.

    Social media are taking over. I heard of a company yesterday that will not hire anyone with fewer than 20 friends on Facebook - as they are deemed to lack the required social and networking skills.

    Maybe the future is virtual courts with seniority based on the number of followers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We could of course have guilt or innocence decided by facebook followers or some other people's vote.

      Delete
  6. Unless the video is of interest to any particular individual, the low view count will continue. Also how many of us knew of these videos before reading about them here?

    ReplyDelete
  7. @AYoiungerNobody - how could you criticise? This was rivetting viewing (meaning I would rather be outside in the cold doing some rivetting somewhere - even though I have never done any anywhere, ever).

    ReplyDelete
  8. Must be me. I saw one judgement and whilst not thrilled (Silent Witness makes better viewing) found it to be straightforward and clearly presented.

    An empty room and I was surprised no advocates for either party present. In that case I would not have expected the judgement to be read out all all, merely noted in the appropriate registers. If the MoJ is worried about case management and progression, they might consider this. The reading I saw only took a few minutes - many are much longer. An hour here, an hour there and who knows, one has a whole new court sitting available.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A public court - read it out publicly - parties are usually informed of the decision in advance

      Delete
    2. A public court - read it out publicly - parties are usually informed of the decision in advance

      Delete

Posts are pre-moderated. Please bear with us if this takes a little time, but the number of bores and obsessives was getting out of hand, as were the fake comments advertising rubbish.