This seems to be either a deliberate ploy or is it just another dropped ball by the Government. The families are quite rightly up in arms about this appointment. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-me ... e-23431026

This seems to be either a deliberate ploy or is it just another dropped ball by the Government. The families are quite rightly up in arms about this appointment. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-me ... e-23431026

How can you spot a Hillsborough family member?

They've got the arms of Arnold Schwarzenegger.

I can't help but feel this is going to be yet another excuse for some professional grief whoring.

She has far more form than that.

She gave consent for embarrasing disaster that was the #PornTrial ", as Myles Jackman reminded Twitter the other day. ([url=http://thevoluptuousmanifesto.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/porntrial-masking-real-questions.htmlMy layman's precis[/url).

There's an interview with her [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xIwBfJJQsghere[/url where, as Jackman (who is lawyer dealing with such issues) puts it, she "misstates law & blinks through @BBCNewsnight #PornTrial interview: #AllInTheEyes".

She is a career CPS lawyer from a day and age where the CPS was the place you went when you couldn't get a job anywhere else in law.

I've only just started watching the Newsnight clip, but that photo they put of the barrister, he looks well dodgy. I'm not surprised they're after him.

He was cleared. Very quickly. The jury were not fooled by the crackpot prosecution.

He broke the law enough to prosecute. The court thought it was BS. As do I. As do you.

But he still broke the law.

I've got a vid of Jenna Haze on a couple of my computers that I reckon will definitely break the law. If not now, then definitely the new laws they're trying to bring in.

My concern is zero, even if they do make it illegal. It might be against the law, but it's Jenna ****ing Haze. She's hot, she looks great and it works well for my needs.

If there wasn't the outrage about Saville then there's no way Stuart Hall would have been sent to jail from what I've read about his offences. I've only read a couple of the accounts, but IMO they were ridiculous.

The same with some of Saville's offences. Without the crowd calling for blood, in the vast majority of cases his individual crimes wouldn't have been considered worth the time to follow.

I'm not saying that Saville and Hall haven't committed horrible offences. I'm just saying the accounts I've read their offences were no more court worthy than the guy watching fisting videos was.

If it wasn't for public pressure Zimmerman would have never even gone to trial.

No. A jury decided that he did not break the law. That was why he was acquitted/found not guilty – as in not guilty of breaking the laws that he was charged with breaking.



You need help?

I didn't realise that merely appearing in court as a defendant automatically means you have broken the law. I was under the (apparently erroneous) impression that the whole purpose of a court case was to decide whether or not the defendant had broken the law. Silly me.

A jury decided Zimmerman was not guilty. You said it was it because their laws are wrong and the racism of the US.

For some reason I was reading about a Coronation Street actor who'd been charged and went to trial because he broke someone's jaw in a nightclub. He walked free after after he claimed self-defence.

Steven Gerrard walked from court with a not guilty verdict because he said he thought he was going to get smacked.

The first guy to start beating the DJ was found guilty. Gerrard's other 3 mates were found guilty. But Gerrard walked.



Why? Thinking Jenna Haze is hot? But that guy watching fisting porn and stuff shoved in someone's penis doesn't?

If I've robbed your house. Or broken your jaw in an attack. Under the eyes of the law I am innocent unless I have found guilty in court of doing it.

So does that mean that your house hasn't been robbed and your jaw is not really broken if the cops can't even devote the time to make a case?

If I get off because I've got a fake alibi. Does that mean I didn't do it?

You are confused. The presumption of innocence becomes relevant only when you are charged with a criminal offence, which you do not admit.

If asked, the guy who burgled your house, or broke your jaw, might freely admit that, yeah, he did it. It's just silly to say all such people are nevertheless "innocent", the only relevant context would be that if charged and he denied either offence.


Anyway, the first answer is, it means that you have committed perjury, and will go to jail if/when this is proved as well as being re-tried for the original charge. But then you knew that.

However, and I don't blame you for being legally confused, can I just point out the rather obvious fact is that just because you've got a fake alibi, clearly is irrelevant as to whether or not you DID do it.

What? You said that the defendant in the 'Porn Trial' had broken the law 'enough to be prosecuted'. This is obvious nonsense. The purpose of a prosecution is to decide whether or not the defendant is guilty of an offence. In the case in question, a man (quite legally) viewed some adult material and was found not to have committed any offence. Build as many broken-jawed strawmen as you like, but it doesn't alter the fact that your post was quite a lot of horse.

Are you sure you don't mean horse-contaminated BS bombs?

And you know what the laws are like surrounding porn. Just hearing about the videos he was watching you know he will have broken a law just by watching it. Just like I know that my Jenna Haze video is probably illegal now, and will definitely be illegal if the new porn laws were brought in.

The reasoning for this is mainly, IMO, because if the laws let me watch my Jenna Haze vid, then the suspected child abuser whose computer is full of real recorded rapes, is going to use that law to walk by claiming that they are in the same category as my Jenna Haze vid.

Having seen those videos and his computer. He'll be done for having obscene videos. He'll go to court and get hammered.

And sometimes dumb **** like this will get through to court and they'll throw it out.

But we will have all broken the laws as they are written.

Ah. So you're viewing pictures of the aforementioned Ms Haze while posting here. That explains it.

I agree. A terrible choice of words on my part.

Were you being fisted when you posted your nonsense about Zimmerman?

As mentioned before, I contributed to the consultation on the law that was used to prosecute Simon Walsh, so I am fairly familiar with it and the issues surrounding it.

It is an abysmal piece of legislation, drafted badly and aimed at pleasing the [iMail[/i and its ilk.

I just read your Voluptuous Manifesto article. I hadn't read it before. I'd just watched about 4 minutes of the Newsnight youtube clip. I didn't know anything about your contribution to the consultation to the law or even that it was a new law.

I'd say I'm about 98% with you on what you write about in your article. I think it's a great article and a damning indictment of what appears to be an agenda led police persecution.

How much it implicates this woman I don't know. Just from the this quick reading she could have her fingerprints all over it or she could have been dropped in it by someone down the line. To use a phrase I'm being mocked for, it could be a BS bomb aimed at her. If that's the case I don't like it.