Re: Injunction maintained

by jmbd 18.02.10 19:28

Injunction maintained - I believe that every website that has the book on it should be closed down.

by vaguely1 18.02.10 19:28

Kololi wrote:Hi Vaguely
You have nailed it on the head.

I was told several times as I leapt and and down asking my tutor, "but what about the victim in all this" that the law has no relationship with the victim. I was gobsmacked as I had always believed the law was there to protect the general ne-er do wrong folk who ended up having their lives turned upside down by some crime of some sort.

Fortunately my tutor and I had respect for each other and the relationship developed well enough for him to allow his eyes to glaze while I had my little tantrum lol then when I stopped complaining he would ask if my soapbox was back in my bag and we would carry on like nothing happened....

Take care

There are plenty of organisations that are there to protect the victim though and they may work alongside the law, but they are separate.

That is a good thing. imho. Sentencing will never reflect what the victim feels is just and our legal system cannot be governed by the victims needs.

by vaguely1 18.02.10 19:28

jmbd wrote:Injunction maintained - I believe that every website that has the book on it should be closed down.

How about they just remove the book excerpts?

by Cath 18.02.10 19:32

jmbd wrote:Injunction maintained - I believe that every website that has the book on it should be closed down.

That would be a worldwide ban then.
But it seems the book is still sold in some countries.
What's been said about that in the original injunction and has this verdict changed that?

by jmbd 18.02.10 19:33

vaguely1 wrote:
jmbd wrote:Injunction maintained - I believe that every website that has the book on it should be closed down.

How about they just remove the book excerpts?

Yes - I'm sure that would work fine.

by Kololi 18.02.10 19:34

To a degree I would agree with you Vaguely but don't you think there might be less reason to have all these other organisations if our Police were able to do what ideally Joe Public wants them to do - crime prevention rather than reacting to crime?

Its like our health and social services - less and less proactive care and more and more reactive care. All about costs of course and not for this thread really - apologies jmbd.

Take care

by jmbd 18.02.10 19:35

Inyx wrote:
jmbd wrote:Injunction maintained - I believe that every website that has the book on it should be closed down.

That would be a worldwide ban then.
But it seems the book is still sold in some countries.
What's been said about that in the original injunction and has this verdict changed that?

It may have been still on sale pending determination of the appeal - but that has now finished.

Of course there is talk of a further appeal.

by vaguely1 18.02.10 19:42

Kololi wrote:To a degree I would agree with you Vaguely but don't you think there might be less reason to have all these other organisations if our Police were able to do what ideally Joe Public wants them to do - crime prevention rather than reacting to crime?

Its like our health and social services - less and less proactive care and more and more reactive care. All about costs of course and not for this thread really - apologies jmbd.

Take care

The police do an awful lot of crime prevention, but ultimately crime prevention is also down to the citizen. There are a lot of things that people do that leave them more at risk of crime than their neighbours.

If there were stiffer penalties for wasting police time, and a willingness to actually pay for our services (police NHS etc etc etc) rather than constant complaints about high council tax bills then the services we receive would be much greater.

What we need is a government who actually charges a reasonable rate for what we receive, rather than one afraid of upsetting the voters by upping tax, NI and council tax. IMHO.

But the police are separate from the courts and CPS. They make no decisions on sentencing or no ultimate decision on charges that people face.

by Cath 18.02.10 19:45

Of course there's talk of a further appeal. But before deciding on that, the lawyers should study the verdict. The motivations for ruling as she did.
And the 'real' case, the libel suit, will probably be in Court before an appeal.

by jmbd 18.02.10 20:42

"And the 'real' case, the libel suit, will probably be in Court before an appeal."

That's an interesting concept. Not sure how it would work.

by Cath 18.02.10 21:23

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear?
I expect it'll take some time to get a new appeal into Court.
And the lawsuit regarding the libel case will probably start before this new appeal (on the verdict on the appeal on the injunction).

And of course I could be totally wrong. big grin

by vaguely1 19.02.10 12:26

"book was deemed to have violated the rights of Madeleine"

I worry for some that Amaral has become more important than Madeleine. I don't understand why.

by Pascal 19.02.10 14:20

If that is so Vaguely, then it is because the McCanns are more important than their own daughter.

Quick question re the book: It has been available online for sometime. So what's next for the McCanns, I wonder? are they to Ruck over those that have had the temerity to download and read it?

by vaguely1 19.02.10 14:24

Pascal wrote:If that is so Vaguely, then it is because the McCanns are more important than their own daughter.

Quick question re the book: It has been available online for sometime. So what's next for the McCanns, I wonder? are they to Ruck over those that have had the temerity to download and read it?

I think that the forums have made the McCanns more important than Madeleine. As has the foundation and Amaral's book. It's all about them. photos of them. their words. what they're doing. where they are. how they look. what they're saying. who's 'working' for them.

It's strangely obsessive.

They want the case reviewed, reopened....surely everyone does. That should be the focus.

by justagrannynow 1 19.02.10 14:37

Pascal wrote:If that is so Vaguely, then it is because the McCanns are more important than their own daughter.

Quick question re the book: It has been available online for sometime. So what's next for the McCanns, I wonder? are they to Ruck over those that have had the temerity to download and read it?

I noticed in the press conference on Sky today that on more than one occasion Kate extended her criticism of the book and Gonçalo Amaral to include his supporters and other unspecified people who do not believe the McCann version of what has happened to Madeleine, suggesting that the beliefs of such people should be "seriously looked into". I wondered if she was referring to people such as myself, a member of a forum who sincerely believes Madeleine was not abducted, a belief which was formed long before the book, which I have not read.

by vaguely1 19.02.10 14:45

justagrannynow 1 wrote:
Pascal wrote:If that is so Vaguely, then it is because the McCanns are more important than their own daughter.

Quick question re the book: It has been available online for sometime. So what's next for the McCanns, I wonder? are they to Ruck over those that have had the temerity to download and read it?

I noticed in the press conference on Sky today that on more than one occasion Kate extended her criticism of the book and Gonçalo Amaral to include his supporters and other unspecified people who do not believe the McCann version of what has happened to Madeleine, suggesting that the beliefs of such people should be "seriously looked into". I wondered if she was referring to people such as myself, a member of a forum who sincerely believes Madeleine was not abducted, a belief which was formed long before the book, which I have not read.

I imagine she was referring to those that were involved in the investigation and are personally involved with Amaral Gran.

You aren't filing away leads for the possible whereabouts of Madeleine.

by jmbd 19.02.10 16:09

Interview with Clarence here - have fun!

http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2010/02/video-clarence-mitchell-spinning-for.html

by vaguely1 19.02.10 16:10

O_M_G his hair?

Sorry. shallow of me I know.

by Pascal 19.02.10 16:11

vaguely1 wrote:O_M_G his hair?

Sorry. shallow of me I know.

by vaguely1 19.02.10 16:16

not commenting in detail about Murat. Denial that Tanner identified Murat (as per the police files)

by twinkle 19.02.10 16:31

vaguely1 wrote:O_M_G his hair?

Sorry. shallow of me I know.

Dear me, someone should have had a word with him before letting that go out on TV.
Would that be an attempt at a comb over?

by Pascal 19.02.10 16:38

twinkle wrote:
vaguely1 wrote:O_M_G his hair?

Sorry. shallow of me I know.

Dear me, someone should have had a word with him before letting that go out on TV.
Would that be an attempt at a comb over?

Was thinking the very same Twinkle. A very bad do indeed. big grin

by jmbd 19.02.10 16:38

twinkle wrote:
vaguely1 wrote:O_M_G his hair?

Sorry. shallow of me I know.

Dear me, someone should have had a word with him before letting that go out on TV.
Would that be an attempt at a comb over?

There are others, far more experienced than me on that matter, around who may answer.

by Cath 19.02.10 17:05

twinkle wrote:
vaguely1 wrote:O_M_G his hair?

Sorry. shallow of me I know.

Dear me, someone should have had a word with him before letting that go out on TV.
Would that be an attempt at a comb over?

It sure looks that way. laughat

by Kololi 19.02.10 17:31

jmbd wrote:
twinkle wrote:
vaguely1 wrote:O_M_G his hair?

Sorry. shallow of me I know.

Dear me, someone should have had a word with him before letting that go out on TV.
Would that be an attempt at a comb over?

There are others, far more experienced than me on that matter, around who may answer.

You don't have a comb over jmbd?

Log in for more topics