Cameras in Court?

As if dodgy TV dramas aren't bad enough, the lunatics at Sky want TV cameras in our courts. Important sentencing decisions could be televised to the viewing public, with judges being forced to explain their decisions to a "sceptical public".

Just because members of the public don't agree with the reasons and/or the sentences, it doesn't mean that justice is not being seen to be done. Obviously someone at Sky has never set foot in a court as JUDGES DO EXPLAIN THEIR DECISIONS TO THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO CAN BE ARSED TO GO TO COURT AND SIT IN THE PUBLIC GALLERY! And boy, some judges REALLY like to go into their reasons behind their judgments. If you can't be bothered to do that, newspapers report parts of judge's speeches in some cases. Especially the big, more interesting, cases, you know, the ones that Sky wants the right to put on TV (not to boost ratings). If people don't want to sit in the public gallery of their local courts now, do they really want to see it on TV? After all, real life court action is nothing like Law and Order UK, for a start. 

Of course other countries allow cameras into their courts; it doesn't mean that justice is done proper, like. They never make mistakes, oh no sir-ee. Sky's argument comes across more as an attempt to extend further televisual voyeurism. We clearly don't have enough real life programming. The public won't be tuning into see if the courts are doing the job properly any more than they watch The Jeremy Kyle Show for its fascinating insight into modern day British society.