|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jan 20, 2023 22:12:06 GMT
So, in the world of Shrieky, Sticky-Toes and BullIShite, commenting on mainstream media reports = "Contempt of Court". So report me, dickheads!  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2023 22:37:08 GMT
But the main stream media that I referenced are very much based in the UK. More ignorance of law. Best stop digging. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jan 20, 2023 22:46:41 GMT
Report me then. I've thrown down the challenge multiple times, you just can't back up your point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2023 7:30:28 GMT
You said this in regards to murderous medics..... "Well, apart from Harold Shipman there was, er... Beverley Allitt, Benjamin Geen, Colin Norris, Lucy Letby and many, many more..." This clearly places someone alleged to be a murderer but as yet not unconvicted alongside the names of convicted murderers, clearly implying that she too is one. That is contempt. She may end up being convicted, and if she is, then and only then can she be included alongside other convicted murderers
Ok then, if you think that I'm in contempt of court (LOL!) for mentioning matters freely reported in the main stream media then please report the forum owner to the relevant authorities. You will, of course, need to provide your own genuine identity in order to do so. And then, upon contact from a bone fide police officer (whose identity I will need to, and very much can, verify) I will provide my own genuine identity. And then, in the unlikely event that it gets that far, the police/CPS will advise that there isn't a case to answer. In the process of which I (or my legal representatives) may request your name and address (although you cannot, at that stage, request mine). Or, in short, just go away with your puerile attempts at “No platforming” because, unlike you, I've dealt with real evidence in real courts and you imbeciles haven't a cat in hells chance of bullshitting me. You named someone on trial for murder alongside people convicted of it, you twat! That is tantamount to labelling someone a murderer before they have been convicted But if you think I can be arsed to report it, or that this is an attempt at supposed no platforming, you are an even bigger twat than I thought you were. Because the last thing I expect you to do is power down your motormouth whilst powering up your brain |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jan 21, 2023 7:37:19 GMT
Do go away, Shrieky and take your collection of lefty imbeciles with you. There's a chap.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2023 8:20:02 GMT
Do go away, Shrieky and take your collection of lefty imbeciles with you. There's a chap. You mean I was not alone in calling out your idiocy and contempt? |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jan 21, 2023 8:41:31 GMT
Do go away, Shrieky and take your collection of lefty imbeciles with you. There's a chap. You mean I was not alone in calling out your idiocy and contempt?
Absolutely. Your fellow travellers were equally as wrong as you were. But hardly surprising when you don't have a brain cell between you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2023 9:03:45 GMT
You mean I was not alone in calling out your idiocy and contempt?
Absolutely. Your fellow travellers were equally as wrong as you were. But hardly surprising when you don't have a brain cell between you.
Hahaha, it really is comedy hour on this place this morning. Have you considered teaming up with Jokesy? Jokesy and The Squeezed Pimple - a 21st century Morcombe and Wise. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jan 21, 2023 9:07:20 GMT
Absolutely. Your fellow travellers were equally as wrong as you were. But hardly surprising when you don't have a brain cell between you.
Hahaha, it really is comedy hour on this place this morning. Have you considered teaming up with Jokesy? Jokesy and The Squeezed Pimple - a 21st century Morcombe and Wise.
Well it's an idea, but we're not as funny as you alleging contempt of court for referencing a case that's all over the MSM. Now that is funny and a special kind of stupid.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2023 9:30:43 GMT
Hahaha, it really is comedy hour on this place this morning. Have you considered teaming up with Jokesy? Jokesy and The Squeezed Pimple - a 21st century Morcombe and Wise.
Well it's an idea, but we're not as funny as you alleging contempt of court for referencing a case that's all over the MSM. Now that is funny and a special kind of stupid.
What the MSM is not doing is placing the name of the accused alongside those of the convicted in a manner that suggests she is already guilty. If they did they'd be on a charge for contempt and probably fined a large sum, and Letby's defence would try and use the argument that this prejudiced a fair trial. At worst the whole thing could be thrown out with a retrial necessary. You of course are just too pifflingly insignificant for anyone to bother with, fortunately for both the trial and you. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jan 21, 2023 11:15:37 GMT
No one compounds wrongness like a lefty. But then I suppose that believing in utter nonsense is a pre-requisite for the role. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jan 21, 2023 11:56:40 GMT
You named someone on trial for murder alongside people convicted of it Perhaps someone can clarify this for me. From my weak understanding of the law, it is not contempt of court to offer the opinion that a (yet) un-convicted person is guilty (ie in reality committed a murder). It is not even contempt of court to offer the opinion that an acquitted person is guilty of the crime they were acquitted of. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2023 12:28:23 GMT
You named someone on trial for murder alongside people convicted of it Perhaps someone can clarify this for me. From my weak understanding of the law, it is not contempt of court to offer the opinion that a (yet) un-convicted person is guilty (ie in reality committed a murder). It is not even contempt of court to offer the opinion that an acquitted person is guilty of the crime they were acquitted of. It is contempt to publish on any kind of public forum or in the media, material likely to prejudice a fair trial, like for example stating that someone is guilty when in fact that has yet to be determined. We can give our opinions on guilt or innocence yet when stating as such in any kind of public forum it needs to be hedged with words like "allegedly" without guilt being assumed. This forum and the Squeezed Pimple's spoutings on it are of course of such minor significance that nothing is going to happen. My own personal opinion based upon the evidence I have heard so far is that Letby is likely to be found guilty. But I cannot know that for certain. I am not sitting there throughout the trial as jurors are, so like everyone here cannot be certain that I am hearing the full picture. So I am not going to place her alongside convicted murderers or state with certainty that she is guilty until or unless we get a guilty verdict. That is rather more sensible than just assuming her guilt and labelling her guilty as sin on a public forum. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jan 21, 2023 12:39:35 GMT
You named someone on trial for murder alongside people convicted of it Perhaps someone can clarify this for me. From my weak understanding of the law, it is not contempt of court to offer the opinion that a (yet) un-convicted person is guilty (ie in reality committed a murder). It is not even contempt of court to offer the opinion that an acquitted person is guilty of the crime they were acquitted of.
Quite so. But that is unfortunately beyond the ken of Shrieky & Co.
Not that I actually offered any such opinion, which is another fact that went straight over Shrieky & Co's heads.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jan 21, 2023 13:08:21 GMT
It is contempt to publish on any kind of public forum or in the media, material likely to prejudice a fair trial, like for example stating that someone is guilty when in fact that has yet to be determined. Those are two different things to my mind I am struggling to see how a jury would be swayed overly by someone offering the simple opinion that someone committed the crime in question. In their deliberations and the court's proceedings, the jury are going to have to hear many such opinions. For instance, every time the prosecutor speaks to them, he is likely to tell them (or at least imply) that the accused committed the crime. If you were to start widely publicising facts or distortions that the court ordered kept from jury, that might be a different matter. Squeezed doesn't even feel he directly offered such an opinion. |
|
