On 26 Mar, 23:11, "Janitor of Lunacy" wrote:
> 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.
>
> =A0The Gregg v O'Gara judgement is hardly typical. In my own lengthy
> experience those who have personally taken action against what they percei=
ve
> 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 case=
s,
> 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 Irishma=
n
> with a juristic death-wish and an unsubstantiated hypothesis which has bee=
n
> 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 nee=
ds
> a stiff lesson, and anyone who supports him likewise.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D
It doesn't matter who you are, Jan, or what your agenda is.
The death wish is collective, and it's a physical death wish of an
entire civilisation. It was all over in 1990. We're just arsing around
now, saying a few things that need to be said.
I do notice that your writing style and the subtle arsenal of
psychological ploys you use are remarkably similar to those displayed
by Gill Langley at the height of the Hans Ruesch scare in the late
1980s.
Why should they change their script, when there's a fool born every
minute and a lunatic born every two minutes? |