Guest pelmetman Posted May 28, 2018 Share Posted May 28, 2018 Whilst your looking Bullet ;-) ......Here's an example of you consistently playing down Asian rape gangs :D ......... 24 February 2018 4:12 PM Subject: RE: Cue excuses from Apologists & Co....... Tracker - 2018-02-24 11:18 AM Time and again when the media show us block photos of numerous perpetrators so many of them are non white, regardless of where they were born - or is it being racist to notice that. My own view is that the police, local authorities, schools, social services et al all suffer from ostrich syndrome as it is far easier, less controversial and more cost effective to use speed cameras to catch a soft target like a driver than it is to investigate sexual predators and perverts of any colour but especially non white. Bullets reply "Plenty of white too and lets not forget UK's most prolific sex offender in history was white....but that doesn't sit easy with those desperately pushing their Muslim hate agenda. " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted May 28, 2018 Share Posted May 28, 2018 Bulletguy - 2018-05-28 4:29 PM pelmetman - 2018-05-28 4:21 PM Get over yerself Bullet *-) ......... This is a forum not a court of law, so prove me wrong? >:-) .......... No i will not 'get over myself' at all Dave. You made an allegation that i've "consistently tried to play down the rape of 1000's of children" which was not only wrongful but extremely dangerous. I'm not entering into any bartering with you either. You seem to think it funny. I don't. You've done this once too often and you knew it was wrong so please withdraw it. I'll tell you what I'll do Bullet ;-) .......I'll qualify it to be more accurate by changing it to....... "you have consistently tried to play down the Asian grooming gangs that have been involved in the rape of 1000's of children" >:-) ...... Is that better? :D .......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted May 28, 2018 Share Posted May 28, 2018 pelmetman - 2018-05-28 4:34 PM Whilst your looking Bullet ;-) ......Here's an example of you consistently playing down Asian rape gangs :D ......... 24 February 2018 4:12 PM Subject: RE: Cue excuses from Apologists & Co....... Tracker - 2018-02-24 11:18 AM Time and again when the media show us block photos of numerous perpetrators so many of them are non white, regardless of where they were born - or is it being racist to notice that. My own view is that the police, local authorities, schools, social services et al all suffer from ostrich syndrome as it is far easier, less controversial and more cost effective to use speed cameras to catch a soft target like a driver than it is to investigate sexual predators and perverts of any colour but especially non white. Bullets reply "Plenty of white too and lets not forget UK's most prolific sex offender in history was white....but that doesn't sit easy with those desperately pushing their Muslim hate agenda. " That's not 'downplaying' that's a fact..........unless you believe Savile was neither white or UK's most prolific sex offender? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted May 28, 2018 Share Posted May 28, 2018 pelmetman - 2018-05-28 4:42 PM Bulletguy - 2018-05-28 4:29 PM pelmetman - 2018-05-28 4:21 PM Get over yerself Bullet *-) ......... This is a forum not a court of law, so prove me wrong? >:-) .......... No i will not 'get over myself' at all Dave. You made an allegation that i've "consistently tried to play down the rape of 1000's of children" which was not only wrongful but extremely dangerous. I'm not entering into any bartering with you either. You seem to think it funny. I don't. You've done this once too often and you knew it was wrong so please withdraw it. I'll tell you what I'll do Bullet ;-) .......I'll qualify it to be more accurate by changing it to....... "you have consistently tried to play down the Asian grooming gangs that have been involved in the rape of 1000's of children" >:-) ...... Is that better? :D .......... No it's not and you know it's completely unacceptable. I suggested you withdrew it so we could move on, instead you've chosen to continue with it. Very foolish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted May 28, 2018 Share Posted May 28, 2018 Violet1956 - 2018-05-28 4:13 PM pelmetman - 2018-05-28 3:56 PM Violet1956 - 2018-05-28 3:37 PM Sorry Dave "As trials are only held in secret when national security is at risk" is a complete misstatement of the law. Really?............What other reason can there be to prevent the public from seeing the justice process from being carried out?.......... Perhaps its the new process for all future Asian grooming gang trials ? :-| ......... Here is a link I found which explains the law and practice in relation to the principle of open justice and in what circumstances it is lawful for a court to depart from the general principle that proceedings should take place in public. https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/reporting-restrictions-guide-may-2016-2.pdf From your pdf ;-) .......... "Circumstances which may justify hearing a case in private include situations where the nature of the evidence, if made public, would cause harm to national security e.g. by disclosing sensitive operational techniques or identifying a person whose identity for strong public interest reasons should be protected e.g. an undercover police officer. The application to proceed in private should be supported by relevant evidence and the test to be applied in all cases is whether proceeding in private is necessary to avoid the administration of justice from being frustrated or rendered impractical. Disorder in court may also justify an order that the public gallery be cleared. Again the exceptional measure should be no greater than necessary. Representatives of the media (who are unlikely to have participated in the disorder) should normally be allowed to remain." Isn't that what I kinda said? :-| .......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted May 28, 2018 Share Posted May 28, 2018 Bulletguy - 2018-05-28 4:46 PM pelmetman - 2018-05-28 4:42 PM Bulletguy - 2018-05-28 4:29 PM pelmetman - 2018-05-28 4:21 PM Get over yerself Bullet *-) ......... This is a forum not a court of law, so prove me wrong? >:-) .......... No i will not 'get over myself' at all Dave. You made an allegation that i've "consistently tried to play down the rape of 1000's of children" which was not only wrongful but extremely dangerous. I'm not entering into any bartering with you either. You seem to think it funny. I don't. You've done this once too often and you knew it was wrong so please withdraw it. I'll tell you what I'll do Bullet ;-) .......I'll qualify it to be more accurate by changing it to....... "you have consistently tried to play down the Asian grooming gangs that have been involved in the rape of 1000's of children" >:-) ...... Is that better? :D .......... No it's not and you know it's completely unacceptable. I suggested you withdrew it so we could move on, instead you've chosen to continue with it. Very foolish. Tough >:-) ..........So you better get me evicted :D ........... BTW you do start threads about child rapists ;-) ............... http://forums.outandaboutlive.co.uk/forums/General-Chat/Chatterbox/Husband-and-wife-Paedos-jailed/47015/ When they're white :-| .......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted May 28, 2018 Share Posted May 28, 2018 pelmetman - 2018-05-28 4:54 PM Bulletguy - 2018-05-28 4:46 PM pelmetman - 2018-05-28 4:42 PM Bulletguy - 2018-05-28 4:29 PM pelmetman - 2018-05-28 4:21 PM Get over yerself Bullet *-) ......... This is a forum not a court of law, so prove me wrong? >:-) .......... No i will not 'get over myself' at all Dave. You made an allegation that i've "consistently tried to play down the rape of 1000's of children" which was not only wrongful but extremely dangerous. I'm not entering into any bartering with you either. You seem to think it funny. I don't. You've done this once too often and you knew it was wrong so please withdraw it. I'll tell you what I'll do Bullet ;-) .......I'll qualify it to be more accurate by changing it to....... "you have consistently tried to play down the Asian grooming gangs that have been involved in the rape of 1000's of children" >:-) ...... Is that better? :D .......... No it's not and you know it's completely unacceptable. I suggested you withdrew it so we could move on, instead you've chosen to continue with it. Very foolish. Tough >:-) ..........So you better get me evicted :D ........... If that's your attitude you will have nobody to blame other than yourself. Fortunately for you i'm away after tomorrow but will address the matter in due course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted May 28, 2018 Author Share Posted May 28, 2018 pelmetman - 2018-05-28 4:54 PM Bulletguy - 2018-05-28 4:46 PM pelmetman - 2018-05-28 4:42 PM Bulletguy - 2018-05-28 4:29 PM pelmetman - 2018-05-28 4:21 PM Get over yerself Bullet *-) ......... This is a forum not a court of law, so prove me wrong? >:-) .......... No i will not 'get over myself' at all Dave. You made an allegation that i've "consistently tried to play down the rape of 1000's of children" which was not only wrongful but extremely dangerous. I'm not entering into any bartering with you either. You seem to think it funny. I don't. You've done this once too often and you knew it was wrong so please withdraw it. I'll tell you what I'll do Bullet ;-) .......I'll qualify it to be more accurate by changing it to....... "you have consistently tried to play down the Asian grooming gangs that have been involved in the rape of 1000's of children" >:-) ...... Is that better? :D .......... No it's not and you know it's completely unacceptable. I suggested you withdrew it so we could move on, instead you've chosen to continue with it. Very foolish. Tough >:-) ..........So you better get me evicted :D ........... It reminds me of the boy at school who'd pull girls hair and lift their skirts up only eventually to get a smack in the face off one of the girls and then he'd go running off to Mr Liberal the deputy head crying and shouting bully ... I bet he's not only informing Daniel he'll be writing to his MP again to demand immediate action ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted May 28, 2018 Author Share Posted May 28, 2018 Bulletguy - 2018-05-28 5:03 PM pelmetman - 2018-05-28 4:54 PM Bulletguy - 2018-05-28 4:46 PM pelmetman - 2018-05-28 4:42 PM Bulletguy - 2018-05-28 4:29 PM pelmetman - 2018-05-28 4:21 PM Get over yerself Bullet *-) ......... This is a forum not a court of law, so prove me wrong? >:-) .......... No i will not 'get over myself' at all Dave. You made an allegation that i've "consistently tried to play down the rape of 1000's of children" which was not only wrongful but extremely dangerous. I'm not entering into any bartering with you either. You seem to think it funny. I don't. You've done this once too often and you knew it was wrong so please withdraw it. I'll tell you what I'll do Bullet ;-) .......I'll qualify it to be more accurate by changing it to....... "you have consistently tried to play down the Asian grooming gangs that have been involved in the rape of 1000's of children" >:-) ...... Is that better? :D .......... No it's not and you know it's completely unacceptable. I suggested you withdrew it so we could move on, instead you've chosen to continue with it. Very foolish. Tough >:-) ..........So you better get me evicted :D ........... If that's your attitude you will have nobody to blame other than yourself. Fortunately for you i'm away after tomorrow but will address the matter in due course. Crikey that's lucky Dave ... Thought you were really for it ... I'm with ya Dave ... Tha's plenty of vile cr8p on here he's posted to look back on if needed ... This is exciting ... Our first court case for slander Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted May 28, 2018 Share Posted May 28, 2018 Bulletguy - 2018-05-28 5:03 PM pelmetman - 2018-05-28 4:54 PM Bulletguy - 2018-05-28 4:46 PM pelmetman - 2018-05-28 4:42 PM Bulletguy - 2018-05-28 4:29 PM pelmetman - 2018-05-28 4:21 PM Get over yerself Bullet *-) ......... This is a forum not a court of law, so prove me wrong? >:-) .......... No i will not 'get over myself' at all Dave. You made an allegation that i've "consistently tried to play down the rape of 1000's of children" which was not only wrongful but extremely dangerous. I'm not entering into any bartering with you either. You seem to think it funny. I don't. You've done this once too often and you knew it was wrong so please withdraw it. I'll tell you what I'll do Bullet ;-) .......I'll qualify it to be more accurate by changing it to....... "you have consistently tried to play down the Asian grooming gangs that have been involved in the rape of 1000's of children" >:-) ...... Is that better? :D .......... No it's not and you know it's completely unacceptable. I suggested you withdrew it so we could move on, instead you've chosen to continue with it. Very foolish. Tough >:-) ..........So you better get me evicted :D ........... If that's your attitude you will have nobody to blame other than yourself. Fortunately for you i'm away after tomorrow but will address the matter in due course. Oooooh I cant wait :D ............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet1956 Posted May 28, 2018 Share Posted May 28, 2018 pelmetman - 2018-05-28 4:51 PM Violet1956 - 2018-05-28 4:13 PM pelmetman - 2018-05-28 3:56 PM Violet1956 - 2018-05-28 3:37 PM Sorry Dave "As trials are only held in secret when national security is at risk" is a complete misstatement of the law. Really?............What other reason can there be to prevent the public from seeing the justice process from being carried out?.......... Perhaps its the new process for all future Asian grooming gang trials ? :-| ......... Here is a link I found which explains the law and practice in relation to the principle of open justice and in what circumstances it is lawful for a court to depart from the general principle that proceedings should take place in public. https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/reporting-restrictions-guide-may-2016-2.pdf From your pdf ;-) .......... "Circumstances which may justify hearing a case in private include situations where the nature of the evidence, if made public, would cause harm to national security e.g. by disclosing sensitive operational techniques or identifying a person whose identity for strong public interest reasons should be protected e.g. an undercover police officer. The application to proceed in private should be supported by relevant evidence and the test to be applied in all cases is whether proceeding in private is necessary to avoid the administration of justice from being frustrated or rendered impractical. Disorder in court may also justify an order that the public gallery be cleared. Again the exceptional measure should be no greater than necessary. Representatives of the media (who are unlikely to have participated in the disorder) should normally be allowed to remain." Isn't that what I kinda said? :-| .......... No Dave it isn't. Examples are cited in this extract not all scenarios in which an order can be made. I doubt that you have read all 45 pages yet so get back to me when you have as you haven't understood what you have quoted from it so far. What you have read already should show you the process that has to be gone into before or after an order is made. The most important being that an order is open to challenge and any representations from the press have to be considered. For all we know the press have been given that opportunity already in this case and lost. If they lost they can appeal against the order restricting publication such is the importance placed on justice being public by our legal system. There are restrictions on reporting on the proceedings in which representations are made that concern the scope or existence of an order restricting publication for the obvious reason that a full report may defeat the object of any subsequent order. Here's another good link to a Law Commission Paper on Contempt of Court. If you really are interested in justice for all, including the victims of grooming gangs, then I recommend it as essential reading. This one's only 40 pages long. http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/app/uploads/2015/03/cp209_contempt_of_court_summary.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted May 28, 2018 Share Posted May 28, 2018 Violet1956 - 2018-05-28 5:23 PM pelmetman - 2018-05-28 4:51 PM Violet1956 - 2018-05-28 4:13 PM pelmetman - 2018-05-28 3:56 PM Violet1956 - 2018-05-28 3:37 PM Sorry Dave "As trials are only held in secret when national security is at risk" is a complete misstatement of the law. Really?............What other reason can there be to prevent the public from seeing the justice process from being carried out?.......... Perhaps its the new process for all future Asian grooming gang trials ? :-| ......... Here is a link I found which explains the law and practice in relation to the principle of open justice and in what circumstances it is lawful for a court to depart from the general principle that proceedings should take place in public. https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/reporting-restrictions-guide-may-2016-2.pdf From your pdf ;-) .......... "Circumstances which may justify hearing a case in private include situations where the nature of the evidence, if made public, would cause harm to national security e.g. by disclosing sensitive operational techniques or identifying a person whose identity for strong public interest reasons should be protected e.g. an undercover police officer. The application to proceed in private should be supported by relevant evidence and the test to be applied in all cases is whether proceeding in private is necessary to avoid the administration of justice from being frustrated or rendered impractical. Disorder in court may also justify an order that the public gallery be cleared. Again the exceptional measure should be no greater than necessary. Representatives of the media (who are unlikely to have participated in the disorder) should normally be allowed to remain." Isn't that what I kinda said? :-| .......... No Dave it isn't. Examples are cited in this extract not all scenarios in which an order can be made. I doubt that you have read all 45 pages yet so get back to me when you have as you haven't understood what you have quoted from it so far. What you have read already should show you the process that has to be gone into before or after an order is made. The most important being that an order is open to challenge and any representations from the press have to be considered. For all we know the press have been given that opportunity already in this case and lost. If they lost they can appeal against the order restricting publication such is the importance placed on justice being public by our legal system. There are restrictions on reporting on the proceedings in which representations are made that concern the scope or existence of an order restricting publication for the obvious reason that a full report may defeat the object of any subsequent order. Here's another good link to a Law Commission Paper on Contempt of Court. If you really are interested in justice for all, including the victims of grooming gangs, then I recommend it as essential reading. This one's only 40 pages long. http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/app/uploads/2015/03/cp209_contempt_of_court_summary.pdf 40 pages 8-) .......I'll read it once Bullets had me evicted as I'll have more time on my hands :D ........... Have to say I cant see how what I saw of Robinson filming the defendents could be anyway predjudicial to the trial? :-S ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted May 28, 2018 Author Share Posted May 28, 2018 pelmetman - 2018-05-28 5:39 PM Violet1956 - 2018-05-28 5:23 PM pelmetman - 2018-05-28 4:51 PM Violet1956 - 2018-05-28 4:13 PM pelmetman - 2018-05-28 3:56 PM Violet1956 - 2018-05-28 3:37 PM Sorry Dave "As trials are only held in secret when national security is at risk" is a complete misstatement of the law. Really?............What other reason can there be to prevent the public from seeing the justice process from being carried out?.......... Perhaps its the new process for all future Asian grooming gang trials ? :-| ......... Here is a link I found which explains the law and practice in relation to the principle of open justice and in what circumstances it is lawful for a court to depart from the general principle that proceedings should take place in public. https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/reporting-restrictions-guide-may-2016-2.pdf From your pdf ;-) .......... "Circumstances which may justify hearing a case in private include situations where the nature of the evidence, if made public, would cause harm to national security e.g. by disclosing sensitive operational techniques or identifying a person whose identity for strong public interest reasons should be protected e.g. an undercover police officer. The application to proceed in private should be supported by relevant evidence and the test to be applied in all cases is whether proceeding in private is necessary to avoid the administration of justice from being frustrated or rendered impractical. Disorder in court may also justify an order that the public gallery be cleared. Again the exceptional measure should be no greater than necessary. Representatives of the media (who are unlikely to have participated in the disorder) should normally be allowed to remain." Isn't that what I kinda said? :-| .......... No Dave it isn't. Examples are cited in this extract not all scenarios in which an order can be made. I doubt that you have read all 45 pages yet so get back to me when you have as you haven't understood what you have quoted from it so far. What you have read already should show you the process that has to be gone into before or after an order is made. The most important being that an order is open to challenge and any representations from the press have to be considered. For all we know the press have been given that opportunity already in this case and lost. If they lost they can appeal against the order restricting publication such is the importance placed on justice being public by our legal system. There are restrictions on reporting on the proceedings in which representations are made that concern the scope or existence of an order restricting publication for the obvious reason that a full report may defeat the object of any subsequent order. Here's another good link to a Law Commission Paper on Contempt of Court. If you really are interested in justice for all, including the victims of grooming gangs, then I recommend it as essential reading. This one's only 40 pages long. http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/app/uploads/2015/03/cp209_contempt_of_court_summary.pdf 40 pages 8-) .......I'll read it once Bullets had me evicted as I'll have more time on my hands :D ........... Have to say I cant see how what I saw of Robinson filming the defendents could be anyway predjudicial to the trial? :-S ........ Maybe if those white victims of Muslim gang rape just "shut their mouths" like Labour MP Naz Shah says we wouldn't have any of these silly court cases and we could all live in multicultural heaven Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted May 28, 2018 Share Posted May 28, 2018 antony1969 - 2018-05-28 5:56 PM pelmetman - 2018-05-28 5:39 PM Violet1956 - 2018-05-28 5:23 PM pelmetman - 2018-05-28 4:51 PM Violet1956 - 2018-05-28 4:13 PM pelmetman - 2018-05-28 3:56 PM Violet1956 - 2018-05-28 3:37 PM Sorry Dave "As trials are only held in secret when national security is at risk" is a complete misstatement of the law. Really?............What other reason can there be to prevent the public from seeing the justice process from being carried out?.......... Perhaps its the new process for all future Asian grooming gang trials ? :-| ......... Here is a link I found which explains the law and practice in relation to the principle of open justice and in what circumstances it is lawful for a court to depart from the general principle that proceedings should take place in public. https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/reporting-restrictions-guide-may-2016-2.pdf From your pdf ;-) .......... "Circumstances which may justify hearing a case in private include situations where the nature of the evidence, if made public, would cause harm to national security e.g. by disclosing sensitive operational techniques or identifying a person whose identity for strong public interest reasons should be protected e.g. an undercover police officer. The application to proceed in private should be supported by relevant evidence and the test to be applied in all cases is whether proceeding in private is necessary to avoid the administration of justice from being frustrated or rendered impractical. Disorder in court may also justify an order that the public gallery be cleared. Again the exceptional measure should be no greater than necessary. Representatives of the media (who are unlikely to have participated in the disorder) should normally be allowed to remain." Isn't that what I kinda said? :-| .......... No Dave it isn't. Examples are cited in this extract not all scenarios in which an order can be made. I doubt that you have read all 45 pages yet so get back to me when you have as you haven't understood what you have quoted from it so far. What you have read already should show you the process that has to be gone into before or after an order is made. The most important being that an order is open to challenge and any representations from the press have to be considered. For all we know the press have been given that opportunity already in this case and lost. If they lost they can appeal against the order restricting publication such is the importance placed on justice being public by our legal system. There are restrictions on reporting on the proceedings in which representations are made that concern the scope or existence of an order restricting publication for the obvious reason that a full report may defeat the object of any subsequent order. Here's another good link to a Law Commission Paper on Contempt of Court. If you really are interested in justice for all, including the victims of grooming gangs, then I recommend it as essential reading. This one's only 40 pages long. http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/app/uploads/2015/03/cp209_contempt_of_court_summary.pdf 40 pages 8-) .......I'll read it once Bullets had me evicted as I'll have more time on my hands :D ........... Have to say I cant see how what I saw of Robinson filming the defendents could be anyway predjudicial to the trial? :-S ........ Maybe if those white victims of Muslim gang rape just "shut their mouths" like Labour MP Naz Shah says we wouldn't have any of these silly court cases and we could all live in multicultural heaven It's certainly starting to look like one law for them.......and a different one for us........ if they are going to start carrying out Asian grooming gang trials in secret *-) ......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted May 28, 2018 Author Share Posted May 28, 2018 pelmetman - 2018-05-28 6:01 PM antony1969 - 2018-05-28 5:56 PM pelmetman - 2018-05-28 5:39 PM Violet1956 - 2018-05-28 5:23 PM pelmetman - 2018-05-28 4:51 PM Violet1956 - 2018-05-28 4:13 PM pelmetman - 2018-05-28 3:56 PM Violet1956 - 2018-05-28 3:37 PM Sorry Dave "As trials are only held in secret when national security is at risk" is a complete misstatement of the law. Really?............What other reason can there be to prevent the public from seeing the justice process from being carried out?.......... Perhaps its the new process for all future Asian grooming gang trials ? :-| ......... Here is a link I found which explains the law and practice in relation to the principle of open justice and in what circumstances it is lawful for a court to depart from the general principle that proceedings should take place in public. https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/reporting-restrictions-guide-may-2016-2.pdf From your pdf ;-) .......... "Circumstances which may justify hearing a case in private include situations where the nature of the evidence, if made public, would cause harm to national security e.g. by disclosing sensitive operational techniques or identifying a person whose identity for strong public interest reasons should be protected e.g. an undercover police officer. The application to proceed in private should be supported by relevant evidence and the test to be applied in all cases is whether proceeding in private is necessary to avoid the administration of justice from being frustrated or rendered impractical. Disorder in court may also justify an order that the public gallery be cleared. Again the exceptional measure should be no greater than necessary. Representatives of the media (who are unlikely to have participated in the disorder) should normally be allowed to remain." Isn't that what I kinda said? :-| .......... No Dave it isn't. Examples are cited in this extract not all scenarios in which an order can be made. I doubt that you have read all 45 pages yet so get back to me when you have as you haven't understood what you have quoted from it so far. What you have read already should show you the process that has to be gone into before or after an order is made. The most important being that an order is open to challenge and any representations from the press have to be considered. For all we know the press have been given that opportunity already in this case and lost. If they lost they can appeal against the order restricting publication such is the importance placed on justice being public by our legal system. There are restrictions on reporting on the proceedings in which representations are made that concern the scope or existence of an order restricting publication for the obvious reason that a full report may defeat the object of any subsequent order. Here's another good link to a Law Commission Paper on Contempt of Court. If you really are interested in justice for all, including the victims of grooming gangs, then I recommend it as essential reading. This one's only 40 pages long. http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/app/uploads/2015/03/cp209_contempt_of_court_summary.pdf 40 pages 8-) .......I'll read it once Bullets had me evicted as I'll have more time on my hands :D ........... Have to say I cant see how what I saw of Robinson filming the defendents could be anyway predjudicial to the trial? :-S ........ Maybe if those white victims of Muslim gang rape just "shut their mouths" like Labour MP Naz Shah says we wouldn't have any of these silly court cases and we could all live in multicultural heaven It's certainly starting to look like one law for them.......and a different one for us........ if they are going to start carrying out Asian grooming gang trials in secret *-) ......... Yes maybe they will have secret Muslim , sorry Asian sex gang trials ... That word Asian discriminates against Japanese , Korea , Thailand , Vietnam doesnt it ??? ... In all the Muslim , sorry Asian sex gang trials I aint seen any Japanese or Koreans on the list ... A lot of Mohameds/Muhammed types ... Are they Japanese ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted May 28, 2018 Author Share Posted May 28, 2018 Lordy 380000 decent folk have now signed the Free Tommy Robinson petition ... Kinda puts those silly Brexit petitions in perspective now ... Maybe we'll need a Free Dave Pelmet petition soon if old short trousers carries out his threats ... Hes such an animal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet1956 Posted May 28, 2018 Share Posted May 28, 2018 pelmetman - 2018-05-28 5:39 PM Violet1956 - 2018-05-28 5:23 PM pelmetman - 2018-05-28 4:51 PM Violet1956 - 2018-05-28 4:13 PM pelmetman - 2018-05-28 3:56 PM Violet1956 - 2018-05-28 3:37 PM Sorry Dave "As trials are only held in secret when national security is at risk" is a complete misstatement of the law. Really?............What other reason can there be to prevent the public from seeing the justice process from being carried out?.......... Perhaps its the new process for all future Asian grooming gang trials ? :-| ......... Here is a link I found which explains the law and practice in relation to the principle of open justice and in what circumstances it is lawful for a court to depart from the general principle that proceedings should take place in public. https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/reporting-restrictions-guide-may-2016-2.pdf From your pdf ;-) .......... "Circumstances which may justify hearing a case in private include situations where the nature of the evidence, if made public, would cause harm to national security e.g. by disclosing sensitive operational techniques or identifying a person whose identity for strong public interest reasons should be protected e.g. an undercover police officer. The application to proceed in private should be supported by relevant evidence and the test to be applied in all cases is whether proceeding in private is necessary to avoid the administration of justice from being frustrated or rendered impractical. Disorder in court may also justify an order that the public gallery be cleared. Again the exceptional measure should be no greater than necessary. Representatives of the media (who are unlikely to have participated in the disorder) should normally be allowed to remain." Isn't that what I kinda said? :-| .......... No Dave it isn't. Examples are cited in this extract not all scenarios in which an order can be made. I doubt that you have read all 45 pages yet so get back to me when you have as you haven't understood what you have quoted from it so far. What you have read already should show you the process that has to be gone into before or after an order is made. The most important being that an order is open to challenge and any representations from the press have to be considered. For all we know the press have been given that opportunity already in this case and lost. If they lost they can appeal against the order restricting publication such is the importance placed on justice being public by our legal system. There are restrictions on reporting on the proceedings in which representations are made that concern the scope or existence of an order restricting publication for the obvious reason that a full report may defeat the object of any subsequent order. Here's another good link to a Law Commission Paper on Contempt of Court. If you really are interested in justice for all, including the victims of grooming gangs, then I recommend it as essential reading. This one's only 40 pages long. http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/app/uploads/2015/03/cp209_contempt_of_court_summary.pdf 40 pages 8-) .......I'll read it once Bullets had me evicted as I'll have more time on my hands :D ........... Have to say I cant see how what I saw of Robinson filming the defendents could be anyway predjudicial to the trial? :-S ........ Have you read and digested anything I've said Dave? It might not be this trial it could be another one that is scheduled to take place after this one is finished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted May 29, 2018 Share Posted May 29, 2018 Violet1956 - 2018-05-28 7:39 PM pelmetman - 2018-05-28 5:39 PM Violet1956 - 2018-05-28 5:23 PM pelmetman - 2018-05-28 4:51 PM Violet1956 - 2018-05-28 4:13 PM pelmetman - 2018-05-28 3:56 PM Violet1956 - 2018-05-28 3:37 PM Sorry Dave "As trials are only held in secret when national security is at risk" is a complete misstatement of the law. Really?............What other reason can there be to prevent the public from seeing the justice process from being carried out?.......... Perhaps its the new process for all future Asian grooming gang trials ? :-| ......... Here is a link I found which explains the law and practice in relation to the principle of open justice and in what circumstances it is lawful for a court to depart from the general principle that proceedings should take place in public. https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/reporting-restrictions-guide-may-2016-2.pdf From your pdf ;-) .......... "Circumstances which may justify hearing a case in private include situations where the nature of the evidence, if made public, would cause harm to national security e.g. by disclosing sensitive operational techniques or identifying a person whose identity for strong public interest reasons should be protected e.g. an undercover police officer. The application to proceed in private should be supported by relevant evidence and the test to be applied in all cases is whether proceeding in private is necessary to avoid the administration of justice from being frustrated or rendered impractical. Disorder in court may also justify an order that the public gallery be cleared. Again the exceptional measure should be no greater than necessary. Representatives of the media (who are unlikely to have participated in the disorder) should normally be allowed to remain." Isn't that what I kinda said? :-| .......... No Dave it isn't. Examples are cited in this extract not all scenarios in which an order can be made. I doubt that you have read all 45 pages yet so get back to me when you have as you haven't understood what you have quoted from it so far. What you have read already should show you the process that has to be gone into before or after an order is made. The most important being that an order is open to challenge and any representations from the press have to be considered. For all we know the press have been given that opportunity already in this case and lost. If they lost they can appeal against the order restricting publication such is the importance placed on justice being public by our legal system. There are restrictions on reporting on the proceedings in which representations are made that concern the scope or existence of an order restricting publication for the obvious reason that a full report may defeat the object of any subsequent order. Here's another good link to a Law Commission Paper on Contempt of Court. If you really are interested in justice for all, including the victims of grooming gangs, then I recommend it as essential reading. This one's only 40 pages long. http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/app/uploads/2015/03/cp209_contempt_of_court_summary.pdf 40 pages 8-) .......I'll read it once Bullets had me evicted as I'll have more time on my hands :D ........... Have to say I cant see how what I saw of Robinson filming the defendents could be anyway predjudicial to the trial? :-S ........ Have you read and digested anything I've said Dave? It might not be this trial it could be another one that is scheduled to take place after this one is finished. I guess we'll have to wait and see wont we? ;-) ....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet1956 Posted May 29, 2018 Share Posted May 29, 2018 pelmetman - 2018-05-29 8:18 AM Violet1956 - 2018-05-28 7:39 PM pelmetman - 2018-05-28 5:39 PM Violet1956 - 2018-05-28 5:23 PM pelmetman - 2018-05-28 4:51 PM Violet1956 - 2018-05-28 4:13 PM pelmetman - 2018-05-28 3:56 PM .... Have you read and digested anything I've said Dave? It might not be this trial it could be another one that is scheduled to take place after this one is finished. I guess we'll have to wait and see wont we? ;-) ....... Hallelujah (!) (^) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barryd999 Posted May 29, 2018 Share Posted May 29, 2018 antony1969 - 2018-05-28 6:59 PM Lordy 380000 decent folk have now signed the Free Tommy Robinson petition ... Kinda puts those silly Brexit petitions in perspective now ... Maybe we'll need a Free Dave Pelmet petition soon if old short trousers carries out his threats ... Hes such an animal Didnt the second referendum petition started by Vote Leave when they thought they were going to lose attract 4.5 million signatures? Just sayin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted May 29, 2018 Author Share Posted May 29, 2018 Barryd999 - 2018-05-29 9:15 AM antony1969 - 2018-05-28 6:59 PM Lordy 380000 decent folk have now signed the Free Tommy Robinson petition ... Kinda puts those silly Brexit petitions in perspective now ... Maybe we'll need a Free Dave Pelmet petition soon if old short trousers carries out his threats ... Hes such an animal Didnt the second referendum petition started by Vote Leave when they thought they were going to lose attract 4.5 million signatures? Just sayin Maybe but weren't lots and lots and lots of those folk signing it from outside the UK and signing multiple times ... Nice try 450000 ... Yes four hundred and fifty thousand have now signed ... Wow ... A true brave hero who dares to stand up against wicked teachings ... Let's make it 500000 before the end of the day xx tommy xx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barryd999 Posted May 29, 2018 Share Posted May 29, 2018 antony1969 - 2018-05-29 9:48 AM Barryd999 - 2018-05-29 9:15 AM antony1969 - 2018-05-28 6:59 PM Lordy 380000 decent folk have now signed the Free Tommy Robinson petition ... Kinda puts those silly Brexit petitions in perspective now ... Maybe we'll need a Free Dave Pelmet petition soon if old short trousers carries out his threats ... Hes such an animal Didnt the second referendum petition started by Vote Leave when they thought they were going to lose attract 4.5 million signatures? Just sayin Maybe but weren't lots and lots and lots of those folk signing it from outside the UK and signing multiple times ... Nice try 450000 ... Yes four hundred and fifty thousand have now signed ... Wow ... A true brave hero who dares to stand up against wicked teachings ... Let's make it 500000 before the end of the day xx tommy xx Maybe lots and lots of extremists from outside of the UK are signing Tommys petition then Antony as well. You clearly cant trust these petitions if what you say about the millions of people fudging the referendum one is true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted May 29, 2018 Author Share Posted May 29, 2018 Barryd999 - 2018-05-29 10:36 AM antony1969 - 2018-05-29 9:48 AM Barryd999 - 2018-05-29 9:15 AM antony1969 - 2018-05-28 6:59 PM Lordy 380000 decent folk have now signed the Free Tommy Robinson petition ... Kinda puts those silly Brexit petitions in perspective now ... Maybe we'll need a Free Dave Pelmet petition soon if old short trousers carries out his threats ... Hes such an animal Didnt the second referendum petition started by Vote Leave when they thought they were going to lose attract 4.5 million signatures? Just sayin Maybe but weren't lots and lots and lots of those folk signing it from outside the UK and signing multiple times ... Nice try 450000 ... Yes four hundred and fifty thousand have now signed ... Wow ... A true brave hero who dares to stand up against wicked teachings ... Let's make it 500000 before the end of the day xx tommy xx Maybe lots and lots of extremists from outside of the UK are signing Tommys petition then Antony as well. You clearly cant trust these petitions if what you say about the millions of people fudging the referendum one is true. Possibly ... Difference being Brexit and a 2nd referendum is a UK issue ... Mass Islamic paedophilia is a worldwide problem ... I don't believe I said "millions" Barry did I Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted May 29, 2018 Author Share Posted May 29, 2018 Almost 470000 signatures ... Wow ... Well done everyone on here for signing too ... Next time I see young Tommy at the footie I'll let him know Chatterbox believes xxx Tommy xxx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted May 29, 2018 Share Posted May 29, 2018 antony1969 - 2018-05-29 3:40 PM Almost 470000 signatures ... Wow ... Well done everyone on here for signing too ... Next time I see young Tommy at the footie I'll let him know Chatterbox believes xxx Tommy xxx When intentionally breaking the law in contempt of court then you speak for yourself........certainly not me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.