Wandering Off Topic

[Brietta]

I know what you mean Rob and of course that was why Ian Huntley who is convicted of murdering Holly and Jessica was helpful to the police IMO.  I don't know if you have seen his television interview before he was caught but it is creepy and I actually thought so at the time.

With this many years down the line and no coverage of the actual police investigation going on I can't see the point in the perpetrator joining a forum unless he is looking on there for another reason, gloating etc.

Also of course there are so many fora on the McCann case to chose from. When I started looking for a forum to chose I found at least 6 dedicated ones and regular threads within others too.

I chose here because it seemed a nice mix of supporters and sceptics. Sometimes it is not so nice of course

In my opinion you made exactly the right choice for the simple reason that the UK Justice Forum is unique in allowing members of all shades of opinion the opportunity to express a view.
Real freedom of expression in action within the limits of the decency demanded by forum rules and of course the libel laws.

[Alice Purjorick]

Alfred Underwood, defending, said Mr Dure accepted that Mr Farhad was not a paedophile, which was "nowhere suggested" in the Facebook message read out in court.

The victim then produced a screenshot of the post on his mobile phone.

It showed the words "grooming teenagers" had been deleted from the original published message at some stage.

Mr Dure then changed his plea to guilty.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-45395607

[Robittybob1]

Alfred Underwood, defending, said Mr Dure accepted that Mr Farhad was not a paedophile, which was "nowhere suggested" in the Facebook message read out in court.

The victim then produced a screenshot of the post on his mobile phone.

It showed the words "grooming teenagers" had been deleted from the original published message at some stage.

Mr Dure then changed his plea to guilty.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-45395607

" "grooming teenagers" seems rather a mild accusation but the fact he had tried to lie to the judge seems to be the major crime.  Did I get that right?

[Alice Purjorick]

" "grooming teenagers" seems rather a mild accusation but the fact he had tried to lie to the judge seems to be the major crime.  Did I get that right?

Only in part. Try telling "it was only a mild accusation" to the plaintiff. Better yet tell it to The Marines cos The Sailors will not piggin well believe it.
Well taking the piss out of the judiciary is never wise. There is no statute of limitations in UK.
What happened was the defendant changed his plea from not guilty to guilty . Join up the dots yourself but this is not the only case of it's kind. Plenty enough for dossier compilers to suffer from severe bouts of ring twitter and like Muhammed Ali once said "You can run but you can't hide".

[Vertigo Swirl]

 

Only in part. Try telling "it was only a mild accusation" to the plaintiff. Better yet tell it to The Marines cos The Sailors will not piggin well believe it.
Well taking the piss out of the judiciary is never wise. There is no statute of limitations in UK.
What happened was the defendant changed his plea from not guilty to guilty . Join up the dots yourself but this is not the only case of it's kind. Plenty enough for dossier compilers to suffer from severe bouts of ring twitter and like Muhammed Ali once said "You can run but you can't hide".

[Robittybob1]

Only in part. Try telling "it was only a mild accusation" to the plaintiff. Better yet tell it to The Marines cos The Sailors will not piggin well believe it.
Well taking the piss out of the judiciary is never wise. There is no statute of limitations in UK.
What happened was the defendant changed his plea from not guilty to guilty . Join up the dots yourself but this is not the only case of it's kind. Plenty enough for dossier compilers to suffer from severe bouts of ring twitter and like Muhammed Ali once said "You can run but you can't hide".

You know a lot more about the law than I do, but wasn't there the justification of something like "reasonable conclusion".  Steve would have had some interaction with the person he was accusing.  Had he presented his evidence rather than lying about what he had written would that have made a difference.

Looking this "Stevie Trap" up on YouTube he seems to have had a lot of success in setting up these stings. 

Can you say a person was "grooming teenagers" in a text if you have reasonable grounds to believe that?

[Vertigo Swirl]

You know a lot more about the law than I do, but wasn't there the justification of something like "reasonable conclusion".  Steve would have had some interaction with the person he was accusing.  Had he presented his evidence rather than lying about what he had written would that have made a difference.

Looking this "Stevie Trap" up on YouTube he seems to have had a lot of success in setting up these stings. 

Can you say a person was "grooming teenagers" in a text if you have reasonable grounds to believe that?

I think this case is far more likely to put the willies up the sceptic twitter army than the dossier compilers.  I don’t get why this story would be of any concern to them whatsoever...

[Robittybob1]

I think this case is far more likely to put the willies up the sceptic twitter army than the dossier compilers.  I don’t get why this story would be of any concern to them whatsoever...

It definitely had some similarity to the Brenda Leyland case as one YT channel suggested that a person who Stevie Trap had outed committed suicide 4 days later.

[Vertigo Swirl]

It definitely had some similarity to the Brenda Leyland case as one YT channel suggested that a person who Stevie Trap had outed committed suicide 4 days later.

The dossier compilers did not have a youtube channel.  They also made no false claims as far as I’m aware. 

[Alice Purjorick]

The dossier compilers did not have a youtube channel.  They also made no false claims as far as I’m aware.

That is scarcely a definitive argument, unless you are a member of the inner sanctum.

[Robittybob1]

That is scarcely a definitive argument, unless you are a member of the inner sanctum.

Awareness is also dependent on recall.  "They also made no false claims as far as I’m aware"   Could be a case of bad memory. Personally I have no idea whether that was the truth or not, I've never concerned myself to check whether they never made no false claims.

[Vertigo Swirl]

That is scarcely a definitive argument, unless you are a member of the inner sanctum.

Well put it this way - are you aware of any false claims made by the dossier compilers that have since got into the public domain and caused trouble for those individuals?

[Robittybob1]

Well put it this way - are you aware of any false claims made by the dossier compilers that have since got into the public domain and caused trouble for those individuals?

I thought you would have known by now that Alice isn't into research as much as he is into showing up the faults in your arguments.

[Robittybob1]

I've been reading Alice Purjorick's posts and I found this one a true classic http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7768.msg363967#msg363967
Quote from: sadie on November 14, 2016, 12:17:08 AM
On about killing again, Alice?   What ever is the matter with you ?

Alice:
Do you mean apart from being a brainless, drunken, homicidal maniac ?


That is so funny.  Sorry Sadie.

[Alice Purjorick]

Well put it this way - are you aware of any false claims made by the dossier compilers that have since got into the public domain and caused trouble for those individuals?

I was suggesting they need to be a little less cock sure that they have coppered all their bets.
Nothing more nothing less.
As some appeared to be maintaining a hull down attitude it may well have dawned on them too.