tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627081175329856970.post8619369617156609608..comments2024-03-18T15:08:44.116+00:00Comments on Ambush Predator: Put Your Own House In Order First!JuliaMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07844126589712842477noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627081175329856970.post-80360070266651154542012-09-22T23:15:52.772+01:002012-09-22T23:15:52.772+01:00Come on, Julia.
We can't have people in the A...Come on, Julia.<br /><br />We can't have people in the A-G's office who are smarter than the A-G, can we?UK Fredhttp://ukfred.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627081175329856970.post-52580015044187576402012-09-22T07:46:30.327+01:002012-09-22T07:46:30.327+01:00"It's an in-fight."
And we'll ...<i>"It's an in-fight."</i> <br /><br />And we'll see more of this in the future, I'll bet...<br /><br /><i>"Quite frankly, I was astonished at what Sir Peter said to journalists."</i> <br /><br />Doesn't it just go to show the quality and calibre of the top brass? He should know better. He's paid on the basis that he DOES know better!JuliaMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07844126589712842477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627081175329856970.post-67909410051039660762012-09-22T01:28:41.564+01:002012-09-22T01:28:41.564+01:00Julia: I fully understand why Sir Peter Fahy made...Julia: I fully understand why Sir Peter Fahy made the comments he did at the press conference, considering the appalling events of the day but... <br /><br />Donning my defence barrister's wig for a moment I would be salivating at the prospect of running a defence based upon my client's inability to receive a fair trial and that those comments and others, made and reported in the media by other persons would undermine my client - who is entitled to a defence, should he plead not guilty... <br /><br />Quite frankly, I was astonished at what Sir Peter said to journalists. It could be judged to be extremely prejudicial in my view. <br /><br />You are right, however, in pointing out the curious double standards evident here.<br /><br />FrankieFrankienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627081175329856970.post-58080324615591882552012-09-21T13:41:24.715+01:002012-09-21T13:41:24.715+01:00It's an in-fight. The A-G made a point of pros...It's an in-fight. The A-G made a point of prosecuting The Spectator when it ran the Rod Liddle opinion-piece which pointed out the fact, already in the public domain for several years and a quoted case in legal discussions, that one of the defendants already had a conviction for a racist run-in with a policeman. <br /><br />The judge acted as if Liddle had exposed a deep dark secret rather than something which had already been through an appeal when the defendants said they couldn't get a fair trail because....they had been splashed in the media.<br /><br />Rubbish, said the CofA, I'm sure the jury isn't at all influenced even if it recognizes you. <br /><br />The judge in the Spectator case reacted by throwing his petticoat over his head and threatening to abandon the trial, blaming The Spectator and going on only when the jurors swore they never read the Spectator. Probably truthfully.<br /><br />Both the Spectator and the papers today were doing no more than reporting the facts presented by appointed legal spokesmen.Woman on a Rafthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08897415591130901416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627081175329856970.post-78505869180181823622012-09-21T11:31:53.254+01:002012-09-21T11:31:53.254+01:00The only reason they came out with that bilge is t...The only reason they came out with that bilge is that they have to do something to justify their existence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com