|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jan 21, 2023 18:16:05 GMT
Yes, might. So what? If there is no precedent, no-one can say definitively that it is or is not a contempt of court. So what? If that were the whole matter, the word might would not be needed. You might be in contempt of court if you mention the name of someone connected with the case. That doesn't mean the same thing as, 'you are in contempt of court if you mention the name of somebody connected with case.' No, it doesn't. I responded to Squeaky's definitive claim that it's not contempt of court. He doesn't know that. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jan 21, 2023 18:28:32 GMT
So what? If that were the whole matter, the word might would not be needed. You might be in contempt of court if you mention the name of someone connected with the case. That doesn't mean the same thing as, 'you are in contempt of court if you mention the name of somebody connected with case.' No, it doesn't. I responded to Squeaky's definitive claim that it's not contempt of court. He doesn't know that.
Well in that case Whoiney the whole of the MSM must be in contempt every time they report on a case.
Thats why the DG of the BBC and every newspaper editor are all serving two year sentences. Oh no, wait... They're not.
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jan 21, 2023 18:30:35 GMT
No, it doesn't. I responded to Squeaky's definitive claim that it's not contempt of court. He doesn't know that.
Well in that case Whoiney the whole of the MSM must be in contempt every time they report on a case.
Thats why the DG of the BBC and every newspaper editor are all serving two year sentences. Oh no, wait... They're not.
Did MSM actually say that the accused is guilty, or did they say that the accused is alleged to be guilty? It's a very important difference. Your use of the name of a person on trial alongside convicted criminals in a manner that suggested they are ejusdem generis was a statement of guilt. Don't worry, Squeaky, there doesn't appear to be a precedent and you're a nobody so there won't be any interest in testing the matter in court. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jan 21, 2023 18:49:07 GMT
Did MSM actually say that the accused is guilty, or did they say that the accused is alleged to be guilty? No idea. I was responding to the assertion that simply naming someone connected with a court case might be contempt. ...Your use of the name of a person on trial alongside convicted criminals in a manner that suggested they are ejusdem generis was a statement of guilt. Don't worry, Squeaky, there doesn't appear to be a precedent and you're a nobody so there won't be any interest in testing the matter in court. I'm not worried in the slightest, Whoiney - since your assertions appear to only exist in your head. But don't worry, you're not the only one that made that mistake. Perhaps you could get together and form a self-help group?  |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jan 21, 2023 19:30:50 GMT
Did MSM actually say that the accused is guilty, or did they say that the accused is alleged to be guilty? No idea. I was responding to the assertion that simply naming someone connected with a court case might be contempt. ...Your use of the name of a person on trial alongside convicted criminals in a manner that suggested they are ejusdem generis was a statement of guilt. Don't worry, Squeaky, there doesn't appear to be a precedent and you're a nobody so there won't be any interest in testing the matter in court. I'm not worried in the slightest, Whoiney - since your assertions appear to only exist in your head. But don't worry, you're not the only one that made that mistake. Perhaps you could get together and form a self-help group? You made a definitive statement that it wasn't contempt of court. What was that based on? Cite a precedent. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jan 21, 2023 19:55:27 GMT
No idea. I was responding to the assertion that simply naming someone connected with a court case might be contempt. I'm not worried in the slightest, Whoiney - since your assertions appear to only exist in your head. But don't worry, you're not the only one that made that mistake. Perhaps you could get together and form a self-help group? You made a definitive statement that it wasn't contempt of court. What was that based on? Cite a precedent. It was based on the precedent of "Innocent until proven guilty", Whoiney. You may have heard of it.
The way it works is: No one is guilty of anything until a court says so. And the burden of proof is on the accuser to prove that a contempt took place rather than on the accused to prove that it didn't.
That's how the law works.
Now if you think you can prove an imaginary contempt then you go for it, but I'm already way past bored of debating with people who don't understand law so I'm going to leave you to it.
Toodles.  |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jan 21, 2023 20:01:21 GMT
You made a definitive statement that it wasn't contempt of court. What was that based on? Cite a precedent. It was based on the precedent of "Innocent until proven guilty", Whoiney. You may have heard of it.
The way it works is: No one is guilty of anything until a court says so. And the burden of proof is on the accuser to prove that a contempt took place rather than on the accused to prove that it didn't.
That's how the law works.
Now if you think you can prove an imaginary contempt then you go for it, but I'm already way past bored of debating with people who don't understand law so I'm going to leave you to it.
Toodles. I'm gonna stick with Gov.Uk, Squeaky. They have slightly more authority than some pillock with a nicotine-stained frogman in his avatar. There's no precedent to support your position. Your statement that it isn't contempt of court is bullshit. It's just as likely that it is as it isn't. That's why sensible people take the precaution of using the word 'alleged' in this context. How's about you stop pretending the law is what you want or need it to be? |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jan 23, 2023 1:10:26 GMT
Who would want to be an old type copper in Londonistan? And as John stated this is nation wide but the MET is supposed to be the jewel in the crown. Shame of the Met Police's 16 crooks in uniform: Grim roll call of convictions since Sarah Everard murder highlight dark scandal at the heart of Scotland Yard At least 16 Met police officers have been convicted since Sarah Everard murder The majority have been for sexual offences or for violence against women PC David Carrick used his police officer status to keep offending until October www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11664423/At-16-Metropolitan-Police-officers-convicted-murder-Sarah-Everard.html |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jan 23, 2023 20:04:15 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Jan 25, 2023 12:28:22 GMT
Another Met Police Officer has pleaded guilty to a string of sexual offences at Wood Green Crown Court.
The Police officer who was attached to a secondary school has pleaded guilty to child sexual offences.
PC Hussain Chehab, 22, pleaded guilty at Wood Green Crown Court to four counts of sexual activity with a teenage girl in 2019, before he joined the force.
He also pleaded guilty to three counts of making indecent photographs of a child and one count of sexual communications with a child.
Some of the image offences were committed while Chehab was a ‘safer schools’ officer at an Enfield secondary
This came to light when a 16 year old girl spoke out , he had sexual relation with her when she was 14 years of age .
FFS what a sad state of affairs,
|
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jan 26, 2023 1:59:12 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Jan 28, 2023 15:00:58 GMT
Allegations against the Police seems to be gathering momentum — something positive now coming out of publicity for things that have usually been hushed up. Great Britain has usually prided itself on its Police and the way they perform their duties. Most of the British public compare the British bobby favourably to what they see as the brutal and bumbling efforts of many foreign Police. Amnesty International** has highlighted Police violence — and judging by the growing number of examples seen around Britain, the UK no longer has the type of policing that should to be emulated. ** www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/police-brutality/Amnesty is often derided as a group of Left-wing, foreign-funded troublemakers by those it makes to feel uncomfortable. But I suggest that if the UK keeps thinking its Police are only troubled by a few bad apples, it could turn out to be as bad as the others... |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jan 28, 2023 15:47:24 GMT
So, after decades of being purged of 'institutional racism and misogyny', the UK police force is now worse than ever?
Perhaps the the disappointing, if predictable, results of gross political interference (being used as a political football by the corrupt)
|
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jan 28, 2023 15:51:17 GMT
So, after decades of being purged of 'institutional racism and misogyny', the UK police force is now worse than ever? Perhaps the the disappointing, if predictable, results of gross political interference (being used as a political football by the corrupt)
Is the right answer.
|
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Jan 28, 2023 16:35:14 GMT
So, after decades of being purged of 'institutional racism and misogyny', the UK police force is now worse than ever? Supposition,without knowing what it would be like now without what you describe as a purge
Who are the corrupt?
|
|
