Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
@terry wrote:
Jen
There was a 10-year period (when Tony Blair was PM) that 4,000 new laws and regulations were introduced onto the statute books. That averages out to at least one new law per day.
Any law introduced by Labour compelling you to give evidence against your will isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on. My son was asked to give evidence against somebody in a court case. He refused and that was the end of it. He wasn’t fined or imprisoned.
It’s not a new law or principle Terry, much as you’d like to blame New Labour for everything you don’t like about the country. If discretion was used and your son faced no penalty for refusing to testify, it doesn’t mean the law doesn’t exist.
@terry wrote:
@wordsworth60 wrote:
I only just read today that Ferdinand actually had nothing to do with the complaint to the police or the charges being pressed against John Terry.
He was forced into the witness box against his will then. I notice after giving evidence he and his agent got a taxi home. He only lives a 10 minute drive from the court, but it took him 3 hours to get home after the taxi driver decided to take a scenic route through Cambridge.
the complaint was made by an off duty police officer. The Police followed it up and passed it to the CPS, I don’t know whether Ferdinand was subpoenaed or threatened with a subpoena or not, fact is, he wasn’t being lambasted for being a witness but for using the courts against Terry, it wasn’t his case, it was a criminal case. If he hadn’t testified, he’d probably have got stick anyway. Anyway, it’s all bollocks.
Because of my lack of interest in football, I didn’t pay enough attention to this case.
I only just read today that Ferdinand actually had nothing to do with the complaint to the police or the charges being pressed against John Terry. Which would make the various comments here and elsewhere about him playing the race card and about him being scum for doing so a tad unjust.
@minim wrote:
@wordsworth60 wrote:
@minim wrote:
why do people say.. i hate to tell you this? If they hated saying it they wouldn’t say it.
8)
It’s a way of saying “I don’t think you’re going to like what I’m about to tell you, but please don’t get upset with me, I’m only saying it because if I didn’t the sky would fall in, honest”
:roll: Thank you for pointing out the obvious.
You asked!
@terry wrote:
@tinks wrote:
@terry wrote:
@anc wrote:
I don’t want to talk about money, ‘cos I ain’t got any! Think I won’t carry on reading this thread, as I’m trying to forget it!
Yeah, the ‘never ending story’ thread is right down your street.
You really are a horrible man.
I could say the same about you. :wink:
no you couldn’t! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Selling lamps! Chips wrapped in pages from discarded books? Tell the truth, you’re really a push burd!
Bet you’re out there in your Hermes scarf right now, wiv yer pashmina tucked away in case the wind blows . . . . . .
Thanks for the reviews by the way, I haven’t paid attention to what films are out for a while, I’ll check out both of them.
@minim wrote:
why do people say.. i hate to tell you this? If they hated saying it they wouldn’t say it.
8)
It’s a way of saying “I don’t think you’re going to like what I’m about to tell you, but please don’t get upset with me, I’m only saying it because if I didn’t the sky would fall in, honest”
A magistrate should only judge based on what the law allows with the evidence. Although not necessarily legally qualified, magistrates get advice from (I think) the clerk of court.
Magistrates courts only judge individual cases and do not set legal precedents, so this judgement, although it remains as a reference, does not bind any subsequent magistrate to make the same decision under similar circumstances.
So Panda, I saw the point you were making, but in respect of this particular decision Terry’s language is not necessarily OK, he’s basically got away with it.
It is interesting that the focus was on John Terry’s intention rather than on his actions, as I always understood that in law intention could be used in mitigation, but not in judging innocence or guilt. I guess the law in question must specifically mention intent. That does require a certain amount of mind-reading on the part of the magistrate, however, and what I’ve read of this judgement so far doesn’t make total sense to me.
Oh well, back to world peace . . . . . . .
