|
|
|
ENGLAND IS NOT A DEMOCRACY
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Begin transcript of essence of judgment by Mr. Justice King:
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
----------------------------------------------------------------------------=
----------------------------------
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No.
7MA90367
QUEEN=92S BENCH DIVISION
MANCHESTER DISTRICT REGISTRY
Before: The Honorable Mr. Justice King
Date: 10 March 2008
BETWEEN:
CHRISTOPHER ADAM GREGG Claimant
-and-
NOEL O=92GARA Defendant
--------------------------
ORDER
--------------------------
UPON application by the Claimant pursuant to CPR r.24.2 dated 13
November 2007
AND UPON HEARING Counsel for the Claimant and the Defendant having
represented himself
IT IS ORDERED that:
1)Judgment be entered in favour of the Claimant and against the
Defendant on the whole of the claim.
2) An injunction be granted restraining the Defendant whether by
himself, his servants or agents or otherwise howsoever from publishing
or causing to be published the words complained of in this claim or
any similar words defamatory of the Claimant.
3)Damages be assessed at 50,000 pounds payable by the Defendant
within twelve weeks of the date of this Order.
4)The Defendant=92s application for permission to appeal the above
orders is refused.
5)The Defendant do pay the Claimant=92s costs of the action to be
subject to detailed assessment and the Defendant do pay 10,000 pounds
on account of those costs within 28 days of the date of this Order.
6)The Defendant=92s application for a stay of all the above orders
pending an application for permission for him to appeal is refused.
Dated the 10th day of March 2008
By the Court
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
End of transcript of essence of judgment by Mr. Justice King (E&OE).
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
For those who want to face up to it, the case of Noel O=92Gara v. Chris
Gregg epitomizes all that is wrong with England and its so-called
justice system.
There is no freedom of expression in England.
As holder of dual British-Irish citizenship, I claim to right to
freedom of expression under the British Human Rights Act and the
European Convention on Human Rights which is the basis of that Act.
That means I have the freedom under British and European law to say
that John Humble was framed, because that is where all the evidence
points.
I have listened repeatedly to the recordings of the Yorkshire Ripper
tape posted to ACC George Oldfield in 1979, alongside recordings of
John Humble=92s voice. It is clear to me that these are the voices of
two different men. Add to that the fact that John Humble=92s handwriting
is a world away from the handwriting of the letters sent to George
Oldfield in 1979.
John Humble was convicted solely on the strength of his confession.
The technology exists to prove with independent verification whether
or not his voice was the voice on the tape of 1979. Handwriting
analysis is now a sophisticated science. Yet no such evidence was
presented at John Humble=92s trial, by either the prosecution or the
defence.
Everything hinged on a confession.
Just as everything hinged on Stefan Kiszko=92s =93confession,=94 Gerry
Conlon=92s =93confession,=94 Judith Ward=92s =93confession=94=85. and so on=
=85=85
The evidence is overwhelming that John Humble was NOT the author of
the letters and tape of 1979.
So what is Chris Gregg playing at?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------=
----------------------
Back in the 1980s, we often had to ask the following question:
=93IS THIS PERSON A FOOL OR AN INFILTRATOR?=94
Gill Langley and Richard Ryder were clearly professional infiltrators,
as were Terry Hunt and Carole Hayman=85...
However, when it came to lesser players such as Robert Sharpe, Mark
Gold, etc=85.. I had to ask that question:
=93IS HE A FOOL OR AN INFILTRATOR?=94
Robert Sharpe knew what the script was. Whether he was a paid,
professional infiltrator, I don=92t know and I=92m not interested in
finding out.
As for Mark Gold, he was of limited intelligence, just a junior
clerk, and he knew approximately what was required of him, although he
blundered badly in a certain letter he wrote about me in 1986, and he
paid for it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------=
--------------------
Now fast forward to Chris Gregg.
=93IS HE A FOOL OR AN INFILTRATOR?=94
Gregg must be one or the other, because John Humble is innocent of the
charge on which he has been convicted, as any impartial observer can
see. John Humble obviously is not the author of the letters and tape
sent to George Oldfield in 1979 in connection with the Yorkshire
Ripper case.
Conclusion: Chris Gregg is either a fool or an infiltrator.
As holder of dual British-Irish citizenship, I claim the right to
freedom of expression under the Human Rights Act, which gives me the
right to speak the truth as the evidence shows it, especially in a
case like this =96 the Yorkshire Ripper cover up and its bloody legacy
of fear and shame and death and heartbreak.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---------------------
This is not over. There is a court in Europe where Greek, Romanian,
Slovenian, Bulgarian, Polish judges are among the adjudicators. These
judges are not controlled by the British ruling group, and Britain=92s
courts already have been given a red face and pulled back into line on
many occasions by that higher court.
See also:
http://yorkshireripper.com/libel%20action%20by%20Chris%20Gregg.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---------------------
-Peter Newman, Harrogate, North Yorkshire
----------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---------------------
|
| |
| |
THE CURSE OF THE YORKSHIRE RIPPER
------
The Yorkshire Ripper [the REAL Yorkshire Ripper, NOT Peter
Sutcliffe]..... The REAL Yorkshire Ripper has contaminated and cursed
everything and everyone he has ever come in contact with.
Chris Gregg made a bad mistake when he connected even remotely with
that man, by meddling with the bloody legacy of the Yorkshire Ripper
cover up, by saying John Humble wrote those letters and recorded that
tape.
Chris Gregg would have done better to steer well clear of the REAL
Yorkshire Ripper, so as to avoid being contaminated by THE CURSE OF
THE YORKSHIRE RIPPER.
He has touched so many people's lives, that bloody man, and always for
the worse.
For the rest of his life, Chris Gregg will regret having connected
with that bloody man, The REAL Yorkshire Ripper, and bringing upon
himself THE CURSE OF THE YORKSHIRE RIPPER.
|
| |
| |
THE CURSE OF THE YORKSHIRE RIPPER
------
The Yorkshire Ripper [the REAL Yorkshire Ripper, NOT Peter
Sutcliffe]..... The REAL Yorkshire Ripper has contaminated and cursed
everything and everyone he has ever come in contact with.
Chris Gregg made a bad mistake when he connected even remotely with
that man, by meddling with the bloody legacy of the Yorkshire Ripper
cover up, by saying John Humble wrote those letters and recorded that
tape.
Chris Gregg would have done better to steer well clear of the REAL
Yorkshire Ripper, so as to avoid being contaminated by THE CURSE OF
THE YORKSHIRE RIPPER.
You have broken the injunction and now can expect a prison sentence. I hope
you aren't allowed access to usenet while you're in prison.
|
| |
| |
Don't be so defensive.
|
| |
| |
The Todal wrote:
You have broken the injunction and now can expect a prison sentence.
I hope you aren't allowed access to usenet while you're in prison.
Seems to me that it's your life which has been blighted by this obsession,
Noel.
|
| |
| |
On 24 Mar, 21:55, "Steve Walker" <spam-t...@beeb.net> wrote:
Seems to me that it's your life which has been blighted by this obsession,
Noel.
=======================================================
I am not Noel O'Gara.
Can't you read?
Furthermore, I am not a "servant" or "agent" of Noel O'Gara, as is
well known to regular readers of discussions on the Yorkshire Ripper
cover up.
I have never received money from Noel O'Gara. My only connection with
this case is that I discovered Mr O'Gara's book "The Real Yorkshire
Ripper" in 1996, after seeing an advertisement for it in a magazine
circulated in the north of England, and I soon understood that the
core of Mr O'Gara's thesis is correct and should be forced out into
the open.
I have on occasions written in support of several obscure authors
whose work has been suppressed by this badly flawed civilisation into
which we were born, where morality is inverted and truth is often
demonised. Such authors included Hans Ruesch, Wilhelm Reich, Immanuel
Velikovsky, Paul Brunton, Hugh Auchincloss Brown, Michael Roll. (This
does not mean I endorse every word such authors have written. Nor does
it mean they endorse me.)
Similarly, Noel O'Gara is deserving of support.
Ultimately it will be non-British judges in Europe who will deliver
the final verdict.
And there is another - even higher - court: THE COURT OF WHAT THE
PEOPLE KNOW TO BE TRUE.
That is the highest court of all, and cops and judges ignore THAT
court at their peril.
-Peter Newman, Harrogate, North Yorkshire
================================================
|
| |
| |
On Mar 25, 9:12=A0am, Special.Car...@googlemail.com wrote:
I am not Noel O'Gara. Can't you read?
Furthermore, I am not a "servant" or "agent" of Noel O'Gara, as is
well known to regular readers of discussions on the Yorkshire Ripper
cover up.
Hi Peter,
Thought I'd let you know that:
1. Writing in support of O'Gara over a number of years
2. Attacking the opposing opinion to O'Garas stated one
3. Using different usernet addys over a number of years
4. Getting material such as the judgement above
5 Posting in support of O'Garas version over a number of years
well these are just a few ideas that folk will use to assess wether or
not you are a friend, associate, servant or agent of O'Gara, if you
couple that to you know work with and support all known associates of
O'Gara maybe you can see why folk will say you are an agent of the
dynamic midget. Anyway no doubt someone will drop the AG a line
|
| |
| |
On 24 Mar, 22:28, raffles-...@hotmail.com wrote:
On Mar 25, 9:12=A0am, Special.Car...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hi Peter,
Thought I'd let you know that:
1. Writing in support of O'Gara over a number of years
2. Attacking the opposing opinion to O'Garas stated one
3. Using different usernet addys over a number of years
4. Getting material such as the judgement above
5 Posting in support of O'Garas version over a number of years
well these are just a few ideas that folk will use to assess wether or
not you are a friend, associate, servant or agent of O'Gara, if you
couple that to you know work with and support all known associates of
O'Gara maybe you can see why folk will say you are an agent of the
dynamic midget. Anyway no doubt someone will drop the AG a line
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
The final decision still rests with European judges, and the even
higher court, THE COURT OF WHAT THE PEOPLE KNOW TO BE TRUE.
|
| |
| |
On Mar 25, 9:34=A0am, Special.Car...@googlemail.com wrote:
The final decision still rests with European judges, and the even
higher court, THE COURT OF WHAT THE PEOPLE KNOW TO BE TRUE
Fraid you can expect to be thrown out of the European courts......even
before the case gets presented, know why, .....?
|
| |
| |
On Mar 24, 9:55=A0pm, "Steve Walker" <spam-t...@beeb.net> wrote:
Seems to me that it's your life which has been blighted by this obsession,=
Noel.-
Well I have a life unlike the many victims of the Real Ripper Billy
Tracey. In fact he was responsible for many more serious crimes than
simply the ones he linked together as the Ripper murders in Yorkshire
and most likely goes on to commit serious crime in the UK. Of course
the police wont tell you about this and you wouldnt believe it anyway
unless you met Tracey face to face with a knife in his hand. Then it
would be too late.
The Ripper has blighted many lives and I am no exception but it has
given me a purpose in life and he cant threaten me.
He exposed the corruption in the British authorities like no other
human being before.
Today those corrupt authorities are crumbling as the criminal
stitchups unravel.
I lead a very exciting life because of all this but I must admit it is
frustrating at times.
Have you got a purpose in life or are you just one of those fools who
rush in?
perhaps it makes you feel better thinking I am obsessed but thats not
the way the police think. They know better but the fool will rush in.
Always bear in mind that murder is a serious business and if you
overlook that it can come back to bite you.
When the Ripper commits further crimes, at least I dont feel any
burden of guilt but you wouldnt know anything about that because you
and your ilk are so smug and knowledgable.
|
| |
| |
On Mar 25, 11:51=A0am, "Noel O'Gara" <noelog...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Have you got a purpose in life or are you just one of those fools who rush=
in?
Hey Noel, my son has a few folk who want to bid on your farm. Sorry I
cant bid myself, Ive got no money.
|
| |
| |
On Mar 25, 12:14=A0pm, raffles-...@hotmail.com wrote:
On Mar 25, 11:51=A0am, "Noel O'Gara" <noelog...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hey Noel, my son has a few folk who want to bid on your farm. Sorry I
cant bid myself, Ive got no money.
Hey Noel, my son asks if you will put up an estimate range on price
you think your farm is worth...hes had an appraisal of 50 grand...but
what do you think? will you accept his offer.
|
| |
| |
On Mar 24, 9:55 pm, "Steve Walker" <spam-t...@beeb.net> wrote:
Seems to me that it's your life which has been blighted by this obsession,
Noel.-
Today those corrupt authorities are crumbling as the criminal
stitchups unravel.
I first heard this over 30 years ago, like the Socialist Worker "Revolution
is just around the corner" nonsense. Some corner! Yet, er, the criminal
stitchups are unraveling only in your own mind.
|
| |
| |
On Mar 25, 1:25=A0pm, "Janitor of Lunacy" <gh...@attic.info> wrote:
I first heard this over 30 years ago,
Look JL, we can all see O'Gara is as mad as a march hare, sadly in
need of a long spell in a padded cell, if his bills can be paid to
make that stay confortable, dot you think like me, that it would be
doing the lunatic a great service? Together we might accomplish a
great good for mankind
|
| |
| |
On 25 Mar, 02:25, "Janitor of Lunacy" <gh...@attic.info> wrote:
I first heard this over 30 years ago, like the Socialist Worker "Revolution
is just around the corner" nonsense. Some corner! Yet, er, the criminal
stitchups are unraveling only in your own mind.
=====================================================
I've heard it before too.... in the context of the Vivisection
Swindle, and all those miracle cures for cancer, epilepsy, arthritis
etc. which are permanently *just around the corner* , as we torture
more and more animals, and the nursing homes fill up with more and
more tortured humans..... Your turn will come soon.
|
| |
| |
Just trying to be serious about the whole thing.... the cops are a
special case.
MPs are protected against libel suits when they speak in
parliament...... parliamentary privilege.......
At a time when democracy is being eroded by common consent, it
remains useful that our 'representatives in parliament' have the
freedom to speak on our behalf or on behalf of their conscience, while
enjoying
immunity from libel suits against any statement made in the
parliamentary chamber.
------------------
There should be a similar privilege when it comes to saying a cop is
corrupt. There should be immunity from libel suits when a citizen
calls a cop corrupt.
Why?
Because cops have the power to beat confessions out of us and to
plant fake DNA on items recovered from a crime scene........... and
also to pretend that "low copy number" DNA matches are valid because
paid
"experts" say they're valid...... while the average defendant has no
money to hire an equally fake "expert" to brainwash a jury the
opposite way.
There should be a balancing mechanism, a braking mechanism, built
into the law, to send a strong signal to corrupt cops that they will
be exposed and publicly shamed if they bully vulnerable suspects into
confessing to crimes they did not commit or plant fake DNA
evidence ................ or pretend that LCN DNA profiling has any
validity.
In short, the legal / justice system MUST ALWAYS BAN CONVICTIONS
WHICH DEPEND SOLELY ON POLICE HONESTY.
So convictions must NEVER be allowed on the basis of confessions or
DNA "evidence," as these are dependent on police honesty.
The criterion for conviction must be: would we convict in the absence
of the confession / DNA? If not, do not convict.
Considering what has happened in the past, the legal / justice system
must completely disregard anything a cop says in court.
The learned judge must always instruct the jury: "in view of what
Dick Holland did to Stefan, and what happened to the Birmingham Six,
Gerry Conlon, Judith Ward, Wilhelm Reich, etc, the jury will
completely
disregard in their deliberations all statements made in this court by
police officers."
Given the human condition, and given the nature of policing in every
country, logic requires us to rule ALL confessions and ALL DNA
profiling to be always inadmissible in ALL criminal prosecutions.
Given the human condition, no police force anywhere in the world can
be trusted to present evidence to a court based on a confession or on
DNA profiling, as confessions and DNA profiling are often faked by
corrupt cops.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
=AD=AD=AD--------
But then I'm trying to apply sane logic to an insane
civilisation.........
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
|
| |
| |
======================================================
PETER SUTCLIFFE'S KILLINGS AND ASSAULTS, 1975 - 1980
======================================================
Nobody disputes that Peter Sutcliffe committed four of the
series of murders known as the Yorkshire Ripper killings. It is
likely that he killed or attacked other women too during that
period. Most prominent among Sutcliffe's victims were Yvonne
Pearson, 1978, and Margo Walls and Jacqueline Hill in 1980. We
all agree that Peter Sutcliffe killed those three women. Yet,
in the days following all three murders, the West Yorkshire
Police were emphatic in saying these were not Ripper killings.
All that changed in January 1981 when Peter Sutcliffe forced
the police to arrest him by displaying fake number plates in a
red light district outside the West Yorkshire jurisdiction. The
police knew Sutcliffe was not the Ripper, but faced with the
prospect of never being able to catch the real Ripper, and with
the deranged idiot Sutcliffe willing to confess to all the
murders, the West Yorkshire Police took the easy way out and
made a deal with Sutcliffe for his confessions, allowing the
main Ripper to go free and continue killing, which he did, as
the record shows. A man like the Yorkshire Ripper will not stop
killing until he is captured or killed.
The following reports from the period detail police statements
following Peter Sutcliffe's three most prominent murders. The
police insisted these were not Ripper killings...... until the
time came to rewrite history.
=========================================
Daily Mail, 28 March 1978:
--------------
"Yvonne 'a victim of the carbon-copy Ripper
by Stephen Oldfield
A second Ripper was being hunted by police last night.
The crazed killer is thought to have set himself up as a rival
to the man who has already killed seven girls.
So far he is known to have murdered Yvonne Pearson whose
battered body was found in Bradford on Sunday.
A pathologist who examined all the good-time girls murdered by
the Ripper told police yesterday: "She is not his eighth
victim.""
--------------
=========================================
Yorkshire Post, 19 November 1980 /
re Jacqueline Hill murder:
--------------
"Another Maniac At Large
Police doubt Ripper link in student's murder
--------------
Police last night feared a second maniac was at large in West
Yorkshire, the stalking ground of the infamous Yorkshire
Ripper, after the murder of a 29-year-old student in Leeds.
Ripper Squad detectives were called in when the body of Miss
Jacqueline Hill was found with extensive head injuries on waste
ground at the back of the Arndale Centre, almost within view of
her home in a students' hall of residence.
A post mortem was postponed until late last night but Ripper
detectives said they had found no evidence to connect her death
with the 12-times killer whose last victim was Bradford
University student 14 months ago.
One police theory gaining strength was that Miss Hill, a
student of French, could have been the victim of the same man
who attacked another woman in Headingley two months ago.
On September 24, Dr Upaehya Bandara, 34, who had come from
Singapore on a World Health Organization scholarship to study
at Leeds University was attacked at Chapel Lane, Headingley.
She was left for dead with severe head injuries in a pool of
blood but survived. Police have not ruled out the possibility
that Dr Bandara's attacker was the same man who murdered Miss
Margo Walls, a middle-aged civil servant, late at night in a
garden of New Street, Pudsey, in August.
Det. Supt. Alf Finlay, who is leading the inquiry into Miss
Hill's death, said: "There is no evidence at the moment to link
this death with the so-called Yorkshire Ripper. We have not
ruled him out yet, but we have nothing to suggest it's him.
Earlier in the day, Det. Chief Supt. Peter Gilrain head of the
Ripper inquiry, visited the murder scene and said later: "This
is not my investigation. Someone else is handling it.""
------------------------------------------------
Margo Walls:
"Detective Chief Superintendent Jim Hobson arrived to take charge of
the enquiry...... Next day, armed with the autopsy report, Mr Hobson was
able to tell the Press: 'I am satisfied the woman's death was in no
way connected with the Ripper killings.'" -from "The Yorkshire Ripper
Story" by John Beattie, 1981.
See also http://yorkshireripper.net/ripper/peter-sutcliffes-victims/margo-walls/
-----------------------------------------------
Tracey Browne
It is well known to students of *The Yorkshire Ripper Cover Up* that
Tracey Browne was one of Peter Sutcliffe's earlier victims, in August
1975. Tracey
Browne survived only because a motorist happened along, and Peter
Sutcliffe fled, and so Tracey Browne lived.
Tracey Browne gave a photofit image to the police, describing the man
that attacked her. It was as good as a photograph of Peter Sutcliffe.
The West Yorkshire Police ignored her account, because they knew that
the man who attacked her was not the Yorkshire Ripper.
The man who attacked Tracey Brown WAS Peter Sutcliffe, yes....
But the man who attacked Tracey Browne was NOT the Yorkshire Ripper.
===================================================================
The evidence assembled by Noel O'Gara is cumulative in its
effect on the reader. The more one examines it, the more
everything points in the direction of a massive cover-up of
unprecedented proportions, which demands a complete re-
evaluation of the nature of policing and of how we organise our
society.
------------------------------------------------
The killings have not stopped:
http://yorkshireripper.com/sundaytimes.htm
http://www.yorkshireripper.co.uk/hyper/win-005.htm
------------------------------------------------
See also
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/09/352106.html
------------------------------------------------
|
| |
| |
On 24 Mar, 23:26, raffles-...@hotmail.com wrote:
On Mar 25, 9:34=A0am, Special.Car...@googlemail.com wrote:
Fraid you can expect to be thrown out of the European courts......even
before the case gets presented, know why, .....?
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D
It's not my case, but I reckon the British justice system has a case
to answer at Strasbourg.
It's about complying with the European Convention on Human Rights,
which has not been observed in the case of Clegg v. O'Gara.
|
| |
| |
REPRODUCED FROM GOOGLE GROUPS ARCHIVE:
------------------------------------
The Yorkshire Ripper cover up was a step too
far, and demands a complete reappraisal of how we view policing and
how we administer a justice system. Realistically, not much will
change
in the foreseeable future.
What we CAN do in our time is to legislate on
a rational basis so as to deal with the practical reality of the
situation and to prevent as much as possible what the British so
charmingly refer to as 'miscarriages of justice,' and to make it
easier to
correct those that do occur.
These sad events have happened because the police are geared toward
achieving 'results,' to relieve the pressure on them from their
bosses, from the media, from politicians and from the general public,
and also
because 'results' are the basis for promotion prospects within the
police service. Under such conditions, there will be a temptation
for
corrupt cops to take shortcuts by framing a 'soft target,' a
vulnerable
suspect with no articulate and influential family or friends, and to
let
such innocent people take the rap for serious crimes, thus
generating
'results' and promotions to senior rank.
What can be done?
Well, apart from the inevitable nepotism and fast-tracking of
cronies, it seems difficult to have a system of police promotions
based on
anything other than 'results,' and 'results' for the most part means
convictions.
At least we can legislate sanely and practically to prevent
'miscarriages of justice' within the current set up, and to make it
easier to correct them. The following are some recommendations:
1. Convictions for offences carrying a jail sentence must never be
allowed on the basis of confessions and / or DNA alone, as we all
know now that confessions can be squeezed out of innocent suspects and
DNA
can be planted.
The criterion for a conviction will have to be:
has the defendant's guilt been proved beyond reasonable doubt in the
absence of the confession and / or of the DNA evidence? If not, do
not convict.
2. In addition, the law should formally acknowledge the unavoidable
tendency for some police officers to be corrupt and to take
shortcuts to spurious 'results.'
On that basis we should legislate rationally to help prevent and
correct miscarriages of justice by giving full immunity from libel
proceedings to any citizen who states that a police officer is
corrupt. The police are a special case when it comes to this form of
accusation
of corruption, because the police have the power to frame innocent
suspects and to have innocent people jailed for life, as has happened
on
innumerable occasions, and so the citizenry are entitled to a
'braking' or balancing legal mechanism in the form of immunity from
being prosecuted for
libel if we say a cop is corrupt.
--------------------
Does that make sense to anyone?
Does anyone want to take those proposals further?
Laws can be forced into being if enough people demand it. There's no
use in saying writing to your MP is a waste of time. It's all we've
got at this stage. It's best to use it, so as to preserve the
semblance of
democracy we still have. It is something to build on, rather than to
dismiss.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(End of extract from Google Groups archive.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One thing that is needed is a TEST CASE to establish in English law
the principle of FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION as enshrined in European Human
Rights Law, which we are told has been incorporated into English law.
If FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION is said to conflict with laws prohibiting
libel, we need to establish clearly where that line is to be drawn in
English law.
And if you're telling me that there is no freedom to express the
obvious truths about the Yorkshire Ripper cover up and its bloody
legacy of confusion and fear and shame and death and heartbreak, and
if you're telling me there is no freedom to say a man has been wrongly
convicted when it is glaringly obvious to any half-sane and impartial
observer that a man has been wrongly convicted.... then England is not
a democracy and there is no such thing as freedom of expression in
England and the so-called "Human Rights Act" is best used as toilet
paper.
Look at this image:
http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00409/SNN2719A_280_409721a.jpg
See the pain there, a lifetime's pain etched into Sonia's face. Sonia
hanged herself last Christmas, a victim of the REAL Yorkshire Ripper
(NOT Peter Sutcliffe). Are you going to tell me I do not have the
freedom of expression to inform other victims of the REAL Yorkshire
Ripper of the truth about this unprecedented scandal, to ease the pain
etched into their faces and to try to save them from going the same
way as Sonia?
Have a test case if you want it then.
I WANT TO KNOW WHAT KIND OF COUNTRY I AM LIVING IN, AND I AM SURE THE
REST OF THE WORLD WANTS TO KNOW WHAT KIND OF COUNTRY ENGLAND IS.
What are we allowed to say, when confronted with this ongoing legacy
of pain, and all the hidden victims of the REAL Yorkshire Ripper, who
are not as newsworthy as Sonia?
|
| |
| |
Well hopefully they will come and seize your computer and modem and put it
in the auction...
Basically Humble was found because they did match up his voice, writing and
IIRC DNA (under the stamp) with the letters that were sent.
No surprise he copped a guilty plea!
ENGLAND IS NOT A DEMOCRACY
No its a contitutional monarchy.
======
Begin transcript of essence of judgment by Mr. Justice King:
======
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No.
7MA90367
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
MANCHESTER DISTRICT REGISTRY
Before: The Honorable Mr. Justice King
Date: 10 March 2008
BETWEEN:
CHRISTOPHER ADAM GREGG Claimant
-and-
NOEL OGARA Defendant
--------------------------
ORDER
--------------------------
UPON application by the Claimant pursuant to CPR r.24.2 dated 13
November 2007
AND UPON HEARING Counsel for the Claimant and the Defendant having
represented himself
IT IS ORDERED that:
1) Judgment be entered in favour of the Claimant and against the
Defendant on the whole of the claim.
|
| |
| |
On 24 Mar, 21:55, "Steve Walker" <spam-t...@beeb.net> wrote:
=======================================================
I am not Noel O'Gara.
Can't you read?
Furthermore, I am not a "servant" or "agent" of Noel O'Gara,
Then you must be an "otherwise howsoever". If you aren't Mr O'Gara you
aren't much of a supporter since you've put him in breach of an injunction.
|
| |
| |
On 25 Mar, 10:20, "The Todal" <deadmail...@beeb.net> wrote:
Then you must be an "otherwise howsoever". =A0If you aren't Mr O'Gara you
aren't much of a supporter since you've put him in breach of an injunction=
..
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
No, I'm not an "otherwise howsoever" because Mr O'Gara didn't compose
or post it, I did.
|
| |
| |
On 25 Mar, 09:19, "R. Mark Clayton" <nospamclay...@btinternet.com>
wrote:
Basically Humble was found because they did match up his voice, writing and
IIRC DNA (under the stamp) with the letters that were sent.
No surprise he copped a guilty plea!
========================================================
We've been through that already. The voices don't match. Voiceprint
technology supposedly is an infallible system for comparing recordings
of voices, but it was not availed of in this case, nor were
handwriting experts, although anyone can see that John Humble's
handwriting is a world away from the handwriting in the letters sent
to Oldfield in 1979.
But this is really about a fundmental principle of freedom of
expression.
If we say a man has been wrongly convicted, we are also saying
directly or by implication that the person(s) responsible for
convicting him is either (a) incompetent or (b) corrupt.
If Gregg v. O'Gara is establishing in law the precedent that we have
no legal right to say a man has been wrongly convicted, because it
automatically implies that someone is (a) incompetent or (b) corrupt,
then we have entered dangerous legal and societal territory in terms
of the implications for civil liberties in this country.
That is why it is so important to fight this case all the way to
Strasbourg and to establish firmly in case law the principle of
freedom of expression when it comes to saying that a citizen has been
wrongly convicted, which must always carry the implication that the
person(s) responsible for the conviction is either (a) incompetent or
(b) corrupt.
Chris Gregg has no right to be seeking to pollute our justice system
further by seeking to overturn a vital principle of freedom of
expression with this spurious case, and it is important to appeal it
all the way to Strasbourg so as to re-establish firmly in case law the
legal right to declare that a citizen has been wrongly convicted,
which automatically implies that the person responsible for the
conviction is either (a) incompetent or (b) corrupt.
|
| |
| |
Special.Care03@googlemail.com wrote:
....
I have listened repeatedly to the recordings of the Yorkshire Ripper
tape posted to ACC George Oldfield in 1979, alongside recordings of
John Humbles voice. It is clear to me that these are the voices of
two different men.
....
John Humble obviously is not the author of the letters and tape
sent to George Oldfield in 1979 in connection with the Yorkshire
Ripper case.
Well, if it's obvious, that's convinced me. Must be the freemasons so.
--
J/
SOTW: "Rat(tlesnake) In Mi Kitchen" - UB40
www.tolife.shadowcat.name
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 06:13:30 -0700 (PDT), Special.Care03@googlemail.com
wrote:
But this is really about a fundmental principle of freedom of
expression.
If we say a man has been wrongly convicted, we are also saying
directly or by implication that the person(s) responsible for
convicting him is either (a) incompetent or (b) corrupt.
I don't follow that. How was one person responsible for the conviction?
Was he judge, jurors, prosecution, defence and all of the witnesses? Or
did he bribe or otherwise control all those people? What did Mr. Gregg do?
If Gregg v. O'Gara is establishing in law the precedent that we have
no legal right to say a man has been wrongly convicted, because it
automatically implies that someone is (a) incompetent or (b) corrupt,
then we have entered dangerous legal and societal territory in terms
of the implications for civil liberties in this country.
Mr. O'Gara is totally free to tell people that Mr. Gregg is corrupt, and
Mr. Gregg is free to demand that Mr. O'Gara pays the price for defaming him
when Mr. O'Hara can not prove his claim. What is unfair about that?
Tony
|
| |
| |
On 25 Mar, 09:19, "R. Mark Clayton" <nospamclay...@btinternet.com>
wrote:
If Gregg v. O'Gara is establishing in law the precedent that we have
no legal right to say a man has been wrongly convicted, because it
automatically implies that someone is (a) incompetent or (b) corrupt,
then we have entered dangerous legal and societal territory in terms
of the implications for civil liberties in this country.
It is not establishing any such thing. First-instance decisions very rarely
create precedent, and then only persuasively. This decision binds no other
court.
|
| |
| |
On 25 Mar, 17:40, "Janitor of Lunacy" <gh...@attic.info> wrote:
It is not establishing any such thing. First-instance decisions very rarely
create precedent, and then only persuasively. This decision binds no other
court.
=====================================================
But it gags us all because it signals to all of us that if we oppose a
miscarriage of justice in the future, we risk a libel suit and a
massive bill for costs which very few can absorb.
(I typed the following before coming on line:)
Do people not understand what we are sleepwalking into if the juryless
Gregg v. O'Gara judgment is not successfully appealed and reversed?
In England, the euphemism for a 'stitch up' is 'miscarriage of
justice.'
To rectify a miscarriage of justice, you have to state that a citizen
has been wrongly convicted, which automatically implies that one or
more of those responsible for the conviction is either incompetent or
corrupt. Given that you have to imply it, it's more effective to
simply say it directly.
To take an example, one of the most evil 'miscarriages of justice' in
England was the Stefan Kiszko affair. To obtain Stefan's eventual
release, obviously it was necessary to state that Dick Holland was a
liar, that Dick Holland was corrupt, that Dick Holland deliberately
and consciously concealed evidence that would have exonerated Stefan
at the time of his trial. Just to complete the picture, it is a true
statement of fact that Dick Holland was a murderer, and everybody
knows it, because we can safely say that Dick Holland's sneaky,
corrupt actions caused the premature deaths of Stefan and his Mum. And
that's even before we mention Dick Holland's role in the Yorkshire
Ripper cover up, which means Dick Holland shares the responsibility
for the murders of women committed by the Yorkshire Ripper in the
years following the phoney Peter Sutcliffe trial.
The point is - we were never going to get Stefan out of jail without
stating in quite direct language that Dick Holland is a liar, Dick
Holland is corrupt, etc.
Can you see where this is taking us?
If the Gregg v. O'Gara juryless judgment is not successfully appealed
and reversed, WE CAN NO LONGER OPPOSE MISCARRIAGES OF JUSTICE IN THIS
COUNTRY IN ANY EFFECTIVE MANNER.
'Precedent' or not, this judgment sends a dangerous signal to us all,
to the effect that if we oppose a miscarriage of justice in the
future, we risk bankruptcy by a crippling bill for legal costs in a
libel suit by the person responsible for the miscarriage of justice.
That a senior police officer has embarked on a course that is leading
us all into this Orwellian nightmare, this disastrous contamination
and degradation of the British justice system - is a bit surreal.
Miscarriages of justice are a fact of life, to put it politely.
HOW DO WE CORRECT MISCARRIAGES OF JUSTICE AND GET INNOCENT PEOPLE OUT
OF JAIL WITHOUT SAYING THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR JAILING INNOCENT
PEOPLE IS EITHER INCOMPETENT OR CORRUPT?
And if we risk bankruptcy by saying that, what kind of a country are
we living in?
What Dick Holland did to Stefan in the past might easily be done to
you in the future. It's the way the world works under present
conditions.
If you ever have the misfortune of being wrongfully jailed, do you
really want your friends and supporters to be - effectively - gagged
and banned from telling the truth about what has happened to you, for
fear of being bankrupted if they speak the truth?
Whoever you are, it is in your interest to ensure that the juryless
Gregg v. O'Gara judgment is successfully appealed and reversed.
---------------------------
|
| |
| |
On 25 Mar, 17:40, "Janitor of Lunacy" <gh...@attic.info> wrote:
=====================================================
But it gags us all because it signals to all of us that if we oppose a
miscarriage of justice in the future, we risk a libel suit and a
massive bill for costs which very few can absorb.
tl;dr
|
| |
| |
On 25 Mar, 23:35, raffles-...@hotmail.com wrote:
On Mar 26, 9:37=A0am, n...@snotmail.com wrote:
I would not normally offer to help anyone against Peter Turtill as it
can be a painful experience and certainly costly but if you make a
good donation I will suffer for my cause.
Yours sincerely,
John Hunt
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
If you feel like making donations to something, open a *fighting fund*
for Noel O'Gara to make sure the juryless judgment in Gregg v. O'Gara
is successfully appealed all the way to Strasbourg and reversed, if
you value civil liberties in this country.
|
| |
| |
| | |
