View previous topic | View next topic

Anyone heard of the child abuse case Hollie Greig?

Page 2 of 3
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Jenny
904818.  Fri Apr 27, 2012 5:28 pm Reply with quote

Joe, if somebody else were to come on this forum and say directly that you in your real name were responsible for a rape or a murder, then would that be OK with you, if it happened not to be true? Or even if it did happen to be true?

That is effectively what you did in your original post, and it is against the law. It is also against the law for us as a site to support you saying that by giving you a forum upon which to post.

You can make allegations about the 'legal system', because the legal system is not a person and cannot sue us or you. You can make allegations about 'the media' for the same reason. However, you cannot say that Judge X or Newspaper Y did something criminal that they have not been proven in a court of law to be guilty of, because then they can sue both us and you for libel.

I might also point out that in your original post you said that Robert Green had been jailed for a particular reason. It didn't take much effort on my part to ascertain what the legal reasons were why he had been jailed, edit your post accordingly, and reflect there that it has been assumed by many (and certainly including you) to be in consequence of his role in putting this story in front of the public.

It really doesn't take a lot of effort to stay on the right side of the law. Whether you think the law is an ass or not depends on whether you need to ride that particular ass, which is rather the point I was making in my first post.

 
joeontheland
904820.  Fri Apr 27, 2012 5:39 pm Reply with quote

brunel wrote:

Do you actually know what the legal definition of "freedom of speech" is? You are quick to throw the accusation around, yet do not seem to understand what "freedom of speech" as a concept entails.


I don't think that the phrase requires any further explanation than what it already postulates.

I feel that the only thing which can compromise freedom of speech is common law.

harm another human being, damage someone else's property, use fraud or mischief in your contracts.

Creating laws around things like racism are unnecessary, these laws are extremely sanctimonious coming from the British Empire. And yes racism is still very much at the same level it has been for centuries.

Can you imagine our government bombing white people in the way it has bombed brown people?

The newspapers encourage racism, and then we create laws to stop people saying it?

The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government.

And I feel that the more left-brained among us is going to somehow use the fact that I have changed subject slightly as a reason to destroy my whole argument.

But who draws the lines? The defendant? Nope, that is rubbish.


Last edited by joeontheland on Fri Apr 27, 2012 5:50 pm; edited 1 time in total

 
joeontheland
904823.  Fri Apr 27, 2012 5:48 pm Reply with quote

Jenny wrote:
Joe, if somebody else were to come on this forum and say directly that you in your real name were responsible for a rape or a murder, then would that be OK with you, if it happened not to be true? Or even if it did happen to be true?



I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it

 
joeontheland
904824.  Fri Apr 27, 2012 5:52 pm Reply with quote

Jenny wrote:
J
It really doesn't take a lot of effort to stay on the right side of the law. Whether you think the law is an ass or not depends on whether you need to ride that particular ass, which is rather the point I was making in my first post.


Stay on the right side of the law, or on the right side legally?

Because acts and statutes are not Laws, they are given the power of law by the consent of the governed.

Can you tell me the common law I have broken?

 
Jenny
904825.  Fri Apr 27, 2012 5:57 pm Reply with quote

http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1153

I must point out that if somebody has not been convicted of an offence, then the presumption is of innocence, so it is libellous to state that X did Y, if Y is a criminal act, unless X has been found guilty of it.

So, joe on the land, you would defend anybody's right to say you were a murderer or a child abuser, even if the allegation caused you to lose your employment or be shunned by the public?

 
Jenny
904826.  Fri Apr 27, 2012 5:58 pm Reply with quote

I might point out that in the video you linked to, the lady speaking is very careful to stay on the right side of the law.

 
joeontheland
904827.  Fri Apr 27, 2012 6:04 pm Reply with quote

Jenny wrote:

So, joe on the land, you would defend anybody's right to say you were a murderer or a child abuser, even if the allegation caused you to lose your employment or be shunned by the public?


Yes, I will not put restriction on any other human being... And if they ruin my reputation. I will happily move along knowing that they had done me a favour and got rid of people in my life who were likely to be selfish, rather than selfless in the face of justice and that a reputation is not real, it is thought patterns first becoming conviction, then leading to judgement and then to dis-valuation of what you think that human is.

Seen as this is entirely absurd, it causes me no bother... If it does, I am living in an illusory existence, I am like a person living inside the matrix. I am like a person playing a virtual reality game as a character and identifying with everything what happens to their character as if it is who they are.

Let people speak without fear, I have nothing to hide.

Instead of getting angry, I would understand where they are coming from and I would love them unconditionally.

People do what is right at all times. They are right in what they are doing.

I wouldn't respond negatively toward them, I would walk away... And they would be better for it once it came to light that the allegations were false.

Otherwise I was guilty and needed even more love and compassion because people are not born paedophiles... They are victims also.


Last edited by joeontheland on Fri Apr 27, 2012 6:27 pm; edited 4 times in total

 
Jenny
904829.  Fri Apr 27, 2012 6:20 pm Reply with quote

Well good for you, but most people are less saintly than that, and the law reflects what most people's responses would be to such allegations. And on this site I do my best to keep us within the law.

 
joeontheland
904830.  Fri Apr 27, 2012 6:32 pm Reply with quote

Anyway, can we get back to the topic within suitable constraints obviously.

I will co-operate entirely and I will say at this moment that I do not convict to the accusations made. They could be entirely false, and I keep an open mind ready for new information which may suggest this.

I am therefore not accusing anyone.

Hence, there should be no issue

 
suze
904832.  Fri Apr 27, 2012 6:53 pm Reply with quote

Joe, let me ask you a question. While this story has not been covered in the mainstream news media since 2009, a Google search reveals plenty of more recent material about it.

I won't link to that material; anyone who wants to can find it for themselves. (NB Some sources name persons said to have committed heinous acts, but who have been charged with no crime. Please will no one repeat those names here.)

Most of the accounts of the matter to be found on the Internet are blog posts or are websites set up by unidentified persons who appear to have axes to grind one way or another. There is one account in a quasi-anarchist newspaper published out of Gaza, and there is some coverage on David Icke's website.

Neither quasi-anarchists out of Gaza nor David Icke are always considered as entirely reliable sources. If the truth of the matter is as you assert, why is no other media outlet covering the story?

OK, one answer you might give is "Because they've been told not to" or "Because they don't want to get sued". And as regards some parts of the news media, I'll buy those answers. But The Guardian and Private Eye, in particular, don't usually take too much notice of people who tell them what to do or threaten to sue them. They do not seem to be covering the story either.

 
CB27
904836.  Fri Apr 27, 2012 7:01 pm Reply with quote

Scotland Herald don't have a reputation for cowering from the courts neither :)

 
suze
904841.  Fri Apr 27, 2012 7:24 pm Reply with quote

Why is the name "Ryan Giggs" floating across my mind ...?

Incidentally, there is no such thing as a super-injunction in Scotland. Westminster wants such injunctions granted in England and Wales also to apply to Scotland, but it hasn't happened and Alex Salmond says that it won't happen while he is First Minister.

So there isn't one of those preventing the Scottish media from talking about this matter.

 
exnihilo
904917.  Sat Apr 28, 2012 5:05 am Reply with quote

joeontheland wrote:

Can you imagine our government bombing white people in the way it has bombed brown people?


Dunno, maybe someone from Dresden or Cologne could imagine it.

 
CB27
904937.  Sat Apr 28, 2012 5:58 am Reply with quote

The problem with conspiracy theories is that you tend to have to ignore 99% of the contrary hard evidence and claim that only the 1% dubious evidence is genuine.

 
barbados
905002.  Sat Apr 28, 2012 9:41 am Reply with quote

Another thing about a good conspiracy is it has to be plausible.

Now about this Neil Armstrong fella:..........

 

Page 2 of 3
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group