Comments are great but some times really useful stuff misses out on the exposure it deserves. Here's David "Essential Law" Banks commenting on the Jackie Danicki contempt thread....
....Philip started this discussion with reference to ethical behaviour by bloggers. The underpinning ethic of the Contempt of Court Act is the preservation of the judicial process, the assumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial. These are fairly fundamental principles in free societies.
Bloggers do themselves a disservice if they argue that their right to comment on whatever they want, whenever they want somehow trumps a person's right to justice.
Some people have read both David and my comments as somehow favouring the alleged attacker over the victim in our comments on Jackie's story. That is far from the case - we are both interested in defining what is responsible blogging behaviour, and I would again emphasise that I have largely confined my comments to those people who have, often with the best intentions, amplified and expanded on Jackie's posts.
It is not unusual for there to be a difference between what is ethical and what is legal... but it is usually a good idea to be aware of the distinction; having the best of intentions is not necessarily enough in itself.