wrote in message
news:8b776d3a-a603-4e8e-bcdb-d6ce48323fa7@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>A QUESTION OF *CHECKS AND BALANCES*
>
> ----------
>
> The matter of libel has always presented a dilemma to lawmakers who
> wish to move in the direction of a sane and just society.
>
> On the one hand people deserve protection from false allegations. On
> the other hand, people deserve the right to expose injustices by
> 'naming names.'
>
> Public policy, fairness, the 'reasonable man' concept, must come into
> play to strike a balance in the way the justice system deals with
> issues of libel for the overall good of society.
>
> I've already stated at some length my argument that the police are a
> special case when it comes to allegations that a citizen has been
> wrongly convicted, which automatically implies that those mainly
> responsible for the conviction are either incompetent or corrupt.
>
> The Gregg v. O'Gara judgment is taking us into very dangerous
> territory. Its effect is to make us afraid to expose and fight
> miscarriages of justice in the future, for fear of being bankrupted by
> a libel suit from the public servant(s) mainly responsible for a
> wrongful conviction. This is wholly unacceptable if we want to move
> toward a fair and just society.
The Gregg v O'Gara judgement is hardly typical. In my own lengthy
experience those who have personally taken action against what they perceive
as unjust treatment by the authorities, most have at least have had some
credible evidence on which to base those actions. Some have won their cases,
and others have not. It comes down in the end to the adequacy of that
evidence, which includes the credibility of those offering it.
In O'Gara's case, the only person that agrees with him, apart from him, is
you. And your problem there is that undermining your own credibility by
swallowing O'Gara's nonsense rather than presenting your own independent
evidence doesn't make you a reliable comentator.
I have seen no credible and indepedent acceptance of O'Gara's theories.
Sutcliffe doesn't want to know, although you'd think it might be albeit
vaguely in his own interest; Humble likewise. So all we have is an Irishman
with a juristic death-wish and an unsubstantiated hypothesis which has been
effectively debunked.
As for a fair and just society, I suspect you've been walking about for
about sixty years with your eyes closed if you think that can happen.
Meanwhile, I've sent another complaint to the Attorney-General. O'Gara needs
a stiff lesson, and anyone who supports him likewise.
|