Re: Drugs at Premier Football Club

[Judith]

"Judith" wrote in message
news:flo6l911as0v7d818...@4ax.com...



Why cannot the club be named for "legal reasons"?

Does it mean that the club has obtained an injunction to stop publication -
or
are there any other "legal reasons" which apply?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A major football club in England has been rocked by a drugs scandal that has
gone as far as the police and the English authorities.

The allegations go to the top of the club and involve at least one
high-profile
figure with a considerable reputation within the sport.

On one occasion, two prominent officials were allegedly caught snorting
cocaine
in the boardroom of a rival club during an away fixture.

At a home match, one member of the club’s hierarchy became concerned when he
noticed the residue of a white powder on the clothing of a colleague as he
took
his seat.

The club cannot be named for legal reasons.

[Judith]

"Judith" wrote in message
news:o457l9hrebp582c5s...@4ax.com...

On Sun, 20 Apr 2014 09:44:15 +0100, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:

>On Sun, 20 Apr 2014 07:04:06 +0100, Judith put finger to keyboard and
>typed:

>
>>
>>
>>Why cannot the club be named for "legal reasons"?
>>
>>Does it mean that the club has obtained an injunction to stop
>>publication - or
>>are there any other "legal reasons" which apply?
>

>Because if the allegations are false, or even unprovable, then this is a
>pretty much cast-iron case of libel.
>
>Mark


I bet that that is not sufficient and not the case.

Why has no paper printed: "The police are investigating alleged drug taking
at
the XYZ Premier League FC: the club strongly denies all aspects of these
unfounded allegations"

I think there is more to this than meets the eye.

[andy]

Drugs is a buzzword like terrorism and paedophilia. These buzzwords can
be talked up and exploited by media, military-industrial complex and
government to take away your money and freedom.

Snorting coke is not as wrong as cheating on your wife in my book, and
in God's too.

[White Spirit]

On 23/04/14 00:23, andy wrote:

> Drugs is a buzzword like terrorism and paedophilia. These buzzwords can
> be talked up and exploited by media, military-industrial complex and
> government to take away your money and freedom.

> Snorting coke is not as wrong as cheating on your wife in my book,

Nor are terrorism and paedophilia where you are concerned, apparently.

> and
> in God's too.

Did he tell you that personally? That must be why he approves of your
drug use; that's when you hear him the most.

What a fuckwit.

[andy]

dunno. There was definately something about adultery in the big 10, but
not cocaine as far as I'm aware. The only mention of God and coke
together I've heard is the following- Cocaine- God's way of saying "you
have too much money".

Cocaine is horrid stuff anyway, particularly the shit around here, I
mean 1/3 coke, 1/3 speed and 1/3 vim makes for an expensive way to kill
yourself whilst talking and acting like a twat. Smack is much the same.
Why don't the papers complain about the crappy quality of the gear and
why don't the police only bust those pushing the crappy stuff? - and do
everyone a favour.

I think sex with a person before or during puberty is a no-no, same with
having sex with an under-18 who you have a formal or informal position
of responsibility over is wrong too. Is that pro-paedo? I say drop the
underage cases relating to those screwing 14 and 15 year olds and go
after the sick fucks who screw the under 13s. I'm not into young girls
myself, I've only had one girlfriend younger than me, and she was mid 20s.

The terrorism issue? Murder is murder at the end of the day, whether
that's in Iraq or London. The Taliban were fair game, being both
hideously repressive and not recognised by the UN as the official
government, never mind the legitimate one. With the Iraq campaign they
used the term "shock and awe", which sounds awfully like "fly a plane
into a tower" to me.

[Vidcapper]

I assume the club concerned must be named somewhere on the internet...?

--

Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

[The Todal]

On 24/4/14 00:16, Judith wrote:
>

>
> Why has no paper printed: "The police are investigating alleged drug
> taking at
> the XYZ Premier League FC: the club strongly denies all aspects of these
> unfounded allegations"
>
> I think there is more to this than meets the eye.
>

Possibly someone has already been arrested. My theory is (quote from CPS
site):

Strict Liability Contempt under the Contempt of Court Act 1981

The strict liability rule may render the publication a contempt
regardless of any intent to interfere with the course of justice in the
proceedings. Refer to The Law, earlier in this guidance, applies:

* to publications (including broadcasts , websites and other online
or text-based communication) addressed to the public at large or any
section of the public;
* which create a substantial risk that the course of public justice
will be seriously impeded or prejudiced. Risk is judged at the time of
publication. The longer the gap between publication and the trial ('the
fade factor'), the less the substantial risk of serious prejudice is
likely to be;
* and only applies to legal proceedings that are "active" at the time
of the publication.

"Active" is defined in Schedule 1 Contempt of Court Act 1981 and
proceedings are active if a summons has been issued or a defendant
arrested without warrant. Where a warrant has been issued, proceedings
cease to be active once twelve months' have elapsed without the
suspect's arrest, and where there has been an arrest when the suspect is
released without charge otherwise than on bail.

Proceedings also cease to be active where they conclude by, inter alia,
acquittal/sentence, any other order bringing proceedings to an end, or
by discontinuance/operation of law.

Note: Common law contempt may be committed where proceedings are pending
or imminent (albeit not necessarily active for the purposes of the 1981
Act), and where there is actual intent to interfere with the
administration of justice in those proceedings.

[abelard]

On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 07:45:51 +0100, Vidcapper <vidca...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

there are no drugs in sport...let alone in british sport


--
www.abelard.org
























---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

[Vidcapper]

All true - but if the football club is named in another country, the
above will not apply since they will have no jurisdiction over them.

--

Paul Hyett, Cheltenham