DLT Charged
Re: Attn: David Johnson
I don't want legal advice I was soliciting your opinion.
Re: DLT Charged
Have a look at the front page of The Scum (Sun) today.
Now that's comtempt!
Now that's comtempt!
Re: Attn: David Johnson
David Johnson wrote:
> I have explained why your assertion re. Spider etc. is
> incorrect. I have given you chapter and verse re. the
> limitations.
Have no idea what the Smiths have to do with Dave Lee Travis.
>
> I have absolutely no intention whatsoever of responding to an
> endless list of situations in which you pose "Would I be
> prosecuted?"
Because you don't know what you're talking about. Just like on witness statements when you said that they were not about the victim saying how awful it was that they had been attacked/maligned/traduced and yet on the first page that is exactly what they are about. You say x wouldn't happen so I give you two examples of Contempt of Court and you fail to respond.
>
> Get legal advice.
For what? It was your smartarse opinion I was after.
> I have explained why your assertion re. Spider etc. is
> incorrect. I have given you chapter and verse re. the
> limitations.
Have no idea what the Smiths have to do with Dave Lee Travis.
>
> I have absolutely no intention whatsoever of responding to an
> endless list of situations in which you pose "Would I be
> prosecuted?"
Because you don't know what you're talking about. Just like on witness statements when you said that they were not about the victim saying how awful it was that they had been attacked/maligned/traduced and yet on the first page that is exactly what they are about. You say x wouldn't happen so I give you two examples of Contempt of Court and you fail to respond.
>
> Get legal advice.
For what? It was your smartarse opinion I was after.
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Terminally confused Essex Lad
The Grand Prix is a boring procession so I will give you a minute of my time.
You state
"Because you don't know what you're talking about. Just like on witness statements when you said that they were not about the victim saying how awful it was that they had been attacked/maligned/traduced and yet on the first page that is exactly what they are about."
The thread you refer to includes my statement.
"They are much more far reaching with multiple objectives and not just about a victim talking about how they have been affected by a crime - as important as those thoughts are. Victim statements were provided as part of the Stuart Hall trial and quite right too".
Now Essex Lad, your English Language homework is to come back and explain to the forum how "you said that they were not about the victim saying how awful it was they had been attacked etc" tallies with my stating "they are not just about a victim talking about how they have been affected"
Keep burning the midnight oil Essex Lad, you may eventually in a year or two get one over me on this forum!!!
I look forward to having a good laugh at your inevitable, stupid answer.
You state
"Because you don't know what you're talking about. Just like on witness statements when you said that they were not about the victim saying how awful it was that they had been attacked/maligned/traduced and yet on the first page that is exactly what they are about."
The thread you refer to includes my statement.
"They are much more far reaching with multiple objectives and not just about a victim talking about how they have been affected by a crime - as important as those thoughts are. Victim statements were provided as part of the Stuart Hall trial and quite right too".
Now Essex Lad, your English Language homework is to come back and explain to the forum how "you said that they were not about the victim saying how awful it was they had been attacked etc" tallies with my stating "they are not just about a victim talking about how they have been affected"
Keep burning the midnight oil Essex Lad, you may eventually in a year or two get one over me on this forum!!!
I look forward to having a good laugh at your inevitable, stupid answer.