On 30 Mar, 15:42, Mitsos** wrote:
> Special.Car...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > On 25 Mar, 17:40, "Janitor of Lunacy" wrote:
> >>> If Gregg v. O'Gara is establishing in law the precedent that we have
> >>> no legal right to say a man has been wrongly convicted, because it
> >>> automatically implies that someone is (a) incompetent or (b) corrupt,
> >>> then we have entered dangerous legal and societal territory in terms
> >>> of the implications for civil liberties in this country.
> >> It is not establishing any such thing. First-instance decisions very ra=
rely
> >> create precedent, and then only persuasively. This decision binds no ot=
her
> >> court.
>
> > =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
>
> > But it gags us all because it signals to all of us that if we oppose a
> > miscarriage of justice in the future, we risk a libel suit and a
> > massive bill for costs which very few can absorb.
>
> > (I typed the following before coming on line:)
> > Do people not understand what we are sleepwalking into if the juryless
> > Gregg v. O'Gara judgment is not successfully appealed and reversed?
>
> > In England, the euphemism for a 'stitch up' is 'miscarriage of
> > justice.'
>
> > To rectify a miscarriage of justice, you have to state that a citizen
> > has been wrongly convicted, which automatically implies that one or
> > more of those responsible for the conviction is either incompetent or
> > corrupt. Given that you have to imply it, it's more effective to
> > simply say it directly.
>
> > To take an example, one of the most evil 'miscarriages of justice' in
> > England was the Stefan Kiszko affair. To obtain Stefan's eventual
> > release, obviously it was necessary to state that Dick Holland was a
> > liar, that Dick Holland was corrupt, that Dick Holland deliberately
> > and consciously concealed evidence that would have exonerated Stefan
> > at the time of his trial. Just to complete the picture, it is a true
> > statement of fact that Dick Holland =A0was a murderer, and everybody
> > knows it, because we can safely say that Dick Holland's sneaky,
> > corrupt actions caused the premature deaths of Stefan and his Mum. And
> > that's even before we mention Dick Holland's role in the Yorkshire
> > Ripper cover up, which means Dick Holland shares the responsibility
> > for the murders of women committed by the Yorkshire Ripper in the
> > years following the phoney Peter Sutcliffe trial.
>
> > The point is - we were never going to get Stefan out of jail without
> > stating in quite direct language that Dick Holland is a liar, Dick
> > Holland is corrupt, etc.
>
> > Can you see where this is taking us?
>
> > If the Gregg v. O'Gara juryless judgment is not successfully appealed
> > and reversed, WE CAN NO LONGER OPPOSE MISCARRIAGES OF JUSTICE IN THIS
> > COUNTRY IN ANY EFFECTIVE MANNER.
>
> > 'Precedent' or not, this judgment sends a dangerous signal to us all,
> > to the effect that if we oppose a miscarriage of justice in the
> > future, we risk bankruptcy by a crippling bill for legal costs in a
> > libel suit by the person responsible for the miscarriage of justice.
>
> > That a senior police officer has embarked on a course that is leading
> > us all into this Orwellian nightmare, this disastrous contamination
> > and degradation of the British justice system - is a bit surreal.
>
> > Miscarriages of justice are a fact of life, to put it politely.
>
> > HOW DO WE CORRECT MISCARRIAGES OF JUSTICE AND GET INNOCENT PEOPLE OUT
> > OF JAIL WITHOUT SAYING THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR JAILING INNOCENT
> > PEOPLE IS EITHER INCOMPETENT OR CORRUPT?
>
> > And if we risk bankruptcy by saying that, what kind of a country are
> > we living in?
>
> > What Dick Holland did to Stefan in the past might easily be done to
> > you in the future. It's the way the world works under present
> > conditions.
> > If you ever have the misfortune of being wrongfully jailed, do you
> > really want your friends and supporters to be - effectively - gagged
> > and banned from telling the truth about what has happened to you, for
> > fear of being bankrupted if they speak the truth?
> > Whoever you are, it is in your interest to ensure that the juryless
> > Gregg v. O'Gara judgment is successfully appealed and reversed.
>
> > ---------------------------
>
> My situation is similar only the stakes are smaller.
> See " Seaniehunter " on youtube and the link to the 00server.
> Many European countries are moving closer to a totalitarian police state.-=
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
I'm not a youtube fan. Can you give a direct URL / link? |