RIGHT to SILENCE

7 views
Skip to first unread message

abelard

unread,
Dec 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/17/96
to

right to silence upheld by european court by 14 to 1
the right to silence is part of the right to free speech...

europe upholds the right of the individual against the
state once more....
britain once again found guilty of breaching human rights....

the sleaze machine must go...

h***** and his protective johnny are forcing us into a
european state as the only manner of protecting
our civil rights....
only labour is offering citizens rights....

only labour will give us anything approaching a
free choice in negotiating with europe...
for civil rights must take precedence over all other
issues...the sleaze machine is driving towards dictatorship...

get rid of these unpatriotic criminals....
your freedom depends upon it.

it is not the economy....

regards.

-- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
abelard
socratic gadfly - please e-mail if response required
abelard @ abelard.demon.co.uk

all that is necessary for I walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that I a big stick.
good people do nothing I trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Julian White

unread,
Dec 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/17/96
to

abelard (abe...@abelard.demon.co.uk) wrote:

:>right to silence upheld by european court by 14 to 1


:>the right to silence is part of the right to free speech...
:>
:>europe upholds the right of the individual against the
:> state once more....
:>britain once again found guilty of breaching human rights....

Have we? Oh sod them. I'm backing Howard on this one.

:>only labour is offering citizens rights....

They seem to be offering everything to everyone. Do you really expect them
to deliver it?

:>only labour will give us anything approaching a


:> free choice in negotiating with europe...

Such as?.....

:>get rid of these unpatriotic criminals....


:> your freedom depends upon it.

Hear, hear. I'm fed up with the European courts.

:>it is not the economy....

It is for me.

:> abelard

--
Julian White. u4...@cc.keele.ac.uk
http://www.keele.ac.uk/depts/po/table/brit/brit.htm


A...@voxpops.bytenet.co.uk

unread,
Dec 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/17/96
to

abelard wrote:
> right to silence upheld by european court by 14 to 1
> the right to silence is part of the right to free speech...
> europe upholds the right of the individual against the
> state once more....
> britain once again found guilty of breaching human rights....
> the sleaze machine must go... h***** and his protective johnny are forcing us into a
> european state as the only manner of protecting
> our civil rights....
> only labour is offering citizens rights....
> only labour will give us anything approaching a
> free choice in negotiating with europe...
> for civil rights must take precedence over all other
> issues...the sleaze machine is driving towards dictatorship...
> get rid of these unpatriotic criminals....
> your freedom depends upon it.

No doubt John Major's Swagger of Abused Spivs he calls a cabinet, would
be the first to praise the benefits of a democratic society and the
importance of a fair judicial system. Unfortunately, Tories believe they
are above the law and above the rules.
They can't play any game fairly. They have to twist, they have to cheat,
they have to lie, they have to deceive, they have to tamper, they have to
pretend, they have to mislead.....and when they're found out, they always
claim the judgement was wrong.
It's the New English Bible Of The Supreme Conservative Administration.
They have to go - Britain is crying out for truth. OK Labour or Lib Dem
MAY give us bigger bills. It's a small price to pay for people who won't
be quite as crooked.

Andy J.

Andy Groves

unread,
Dec 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/17/96
to

In article <596gp6$6...@gerry.cc.keele.ac.uk>, u4...@cc.keele.ac.uk
(Julian White) wrote:

> abelard (abe...@abelard.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>

> :>europe upholds the right of the individual against the


> :> state once more....
> :>britain once again found guilty of breaching human rights....
>

> Have we? Oh sod them. I'm backing Howard on this one.
>

Julian, when you find yourself in a hole......

Julian White

unread,
Dec 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/17/96
to

Andy Groves (gro...@starbase1.caltech.edu) wrote:
:>> :>europe upholds the right of the individual against the
:>> :> state once more....
:>> :>britain once again found guilty of breaching human rights....
:>>
:>> Have we? Oh sod them. I'm backing Howard on this one.
:>>
:>
:>Julian, when you find yourself in a hole......

I make a tunnel.

M.S. Robb

unread,
Dec 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/18/96
to

In article <596gp6$6...@gerry.cc.keele.ac.uk>,
Julian White <u4...@cc.keele.ac.uk> wrote:

>:>europe upholds the right of the individual against the
>:> state once more....
>:>britain once again found guilty of breaching human rights....
>
>Have we? Oh sod them. I'm backing Howard on this one.

It's not 'them'. We signed the damn thing. We've failed to uphold the
Convention. It's 'us'.

>:>get rid of these unpatriotic criminals....


>:> your freedom depends upon it.
>

>Hear, hear. I'm fed up with the European courts.

It'd be British Courts doing the same thing if we had any such safeguards
here. It's nothing to do with 'Europe'.

--
There is no excuse,there is no accusation. UK POLITICS LINKS
http://emedia.commerceasia.com/greeting http://www.isonomia.demon.co.uk
http://www.keele.ac.uk/depts/po/table/brit/brit.htm
What is the sound of one hand clapping? "Mu"

David Stockley

unread,
Dec 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/18/96
to

ms...@cus.cam.ac.uk (M.S. Robb) wrote:
>In article <E2Lu...@cix.compulink.co.uk>,

>Robert Macmillan <rmacm...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> europe upholds the right of the individual against the
>>> state once more....
>>> britain once again found guilty of breaching human rights....
>>
>>If this is Ernest Saunders, I wonder how many of the usual right to
>>silence advocates will welcome this decision. Who'll stand up and be
>>counted?
>
>I welcome the decision.

I welcome the restatement of principle.

>I still think he was extraordinarily fortunate to be >cured of Alzheimers.

If I were him I'd sue my doctor in negligence for
failing to diagnose me properly. Furthermore a direct
consequence of any such misdiagnosis would be that
people would think less of me and view me unfairly with
the contempt that a manipulating and meretricious person
would deserve. Obviously Ernest has been put through
enough and does not deserve such spite raining down on
him.
Regards
David


David Stockley

unread,
Dec 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/18/96
to

u4...@cc.keele.ac.uk (Julian White) wrote:
>abelard (abe...@abelard.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>:>britain once again found guilty of breaching human rights....
>
>Have we? Oh sod them. I'm backing Howard on this one.

It's one of those odd cases where you hope that
something unpleasant happens to both parties (like
one coming down with an incurable degenerative
disorder) so that you needn't support either. Other
examples include: Lewis v Howard; Mellor v
Goldsmith; Archer v Hereditary Peers....

A specialist called in by the 5pm news on R4 pointed
out that Saunders would probably have been convicted
anyway and that the procedure used by the DTI in the
Guinness case is no longer used in the SFO's
investigations. In the meantime I am happy to say
(as was the News reader) that Ernest Saunders is a
convicted criminal who was shown to have abused his
position as a senior executive.

>:>only labour is offering citizens rights....
>
>They seem to be offering everything to everyone. Do you really expect them
>to deliver it?

Well it'd be a nice change to have someone different
not give us something they promised.

>:>it is not the economy....
>
>It is for me.

As it also is for Michael Hesseltine. He was in his
element last night; shouting about the economy,
shouting about the economy, denying all knowledge of
the seedy machinations of the whips' office,
declining to condemn alleged abusers, shouting about
the economy.

It all struck me as rather hollow. They haven't
taken responsibility for economic decline in the
past so I don't see why they should now take the
responsibility for recovery. By prattling on about
how Labour and the Lib Dems were threatening the
economy by stopping ministers leaving the UK when a
"Big Vote" might arise, he inadvertantly
demonstrated his contempt for justice and liberal
democracy. For Hesseltine, the possibility that oily
ministers might be able to go abroad and secure
contracts with oily dictators seemed to justify the
abuse of Parliament and fraud on the electorate.

To warm to abelard's them; the time has come, their
contempt and cynicism run too deep, they must go.
Regards and best wishes
David


Andrew Finlay

unread,
Dec 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/18/96
to

In article <32b6a9e9...@news.demon.co.uk>, abelard
<abe...@abelard.demon.co.uk> writes

<Snip...Oft repeated demented drivel... binned>

>it is not the economy....

I bet you wish it was?
--
Andrew Finlay

Robert Macmillan

unread,
Dec 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/18/96
to

> From: abe...@abelard.demon.co.uk (abelard)

>
> right to silence upheld by european court by 14 to 1
> the right to silence is part of the right to free speech...
>
> europe upholds the right of the individual against the
> state once more....
> britain once again found guilty of breaching human rights....

If this is Ernest Saunders, I wonder how many of the usual right to

silence advocates will welcome this decision. Who'll stand up and be
counted?


Robert Macmillan ------------------------------------

"About as solid as a blancmange"
Ken Livingstone on Labour's policy programme.

abelard

unread,
Dec 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/18/96
to

On 17 Dec 1996 16:12:22 GMT, u4...@cc.keele.ac.uk (Julian White)

typed:

>:>right to silence upheld by european court by 14 to 1


>:>the right to silence is part of the right to free speech...
>:>
>:>europe upholds the right of the individual against the
>:> state once more....
>:>britain once again found guilty of breaching human rights....
>

>Have we? Oh sod them. I'm backing H***** on this one.

hi jewels...(obscenity removed)
one is interested to ascertain the why...

>:>only labour is offering citizens rights....
>
>They seem to be offering everything to everyone. Do you really expect them
>to deliver it?

on this...i am becoming quite confident....

>:>only labour will give us anything approaching a


>:> free choice in negotiating with europe...
>

>Such as?.....

putting us in a position where we may oppose european
statism, without voting for an attack on civil rights.

>:>get rid of these unpatriotic criminals....
>:> your freedom depends upon it.
>
>Hear, hear. I'm fed up with the European courts.

unthought out, methinks...

>:>it is not the economy....
>
>It is for me.

not if you are a christian surely...

M.S. Robb

unread,
Dec 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/18/96
to

In article <E2Lu...@cix.compulink.co.uk>,
Robert Macmillan <rmacm...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:

>> europe upholds the right of the individual against the
>> state once more....
>> britain once again found guilty of breaching human rights....
>

>If this is Ernest Saunders, I wonder how many of the usual right to
>silence advocates will welcome this decision. Who'll stand up and be
>counted?

I welcome the decision.

I still think he was extraordinarily fortunate to be cured of Alzheimers.

--

Cheradenine Zakalwe

unread,
Dec 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/18/96
to

In article <E2Lu...@cix.compulink.co.uk>

rmacm...@cix.compulink.co.uk "Robert Macmillan" writes:
>If this is Ernest Saunders, I wonder how many of the usual right to
>silence advocates will welcome this decision. Who'll stand up and be
>counted?

My position remains that there should be a right to silence when
someone is being questioned by the police or DTI inspectors. However
there should be no reight of silence when someone is being questioned
in a properly constituted court or law (or similar tribunal -- eg a
parlaimetary select committee). If someone (even if they are a
defendant) refuses to testify in court, they should be charged with
contempt.

--
*** Zakalwe ***

David Toube

unread,
Dec 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/18/96
to

rmacm...@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Robert Macmillan") wrote:

:> From: abe...@abelard.demon.co.uk (abelard)
:>

:> right to silence upheld by european court by 14 to 1
:> the right to silence is part of the right to free speech...
:>

:> europe upholds the right of the individual against the


:> state once more....
:> britain once again found guilty of breaching human rights....

:
:If this is Ernest Saunders, I wonder how many of the usual right to

:silence advocates will welcome this decision. Who'll stand up and be
:counted?

:
I will. It is up to the prosecution, who brings the case, to
prove the case. It is not the function of the defendant to help
them to do so. Whether or not Mr Saunders is a slippery
character, or even a wealthy man, does not alter this basic
premise of procedural fairness. Neither does it - in general
terms - reverse the general imbalance of resources between the
crown and the defendant.

----
David Toube
Lecturer in Law
QMW, University of London

WWW: http://www.qmw.ac.uk/~ugtl027/index.html
David Boothroyd's British Elections Home Page
WWW: http://www.qmw.ac.uk/~laws/election/home.html

M.S. Robb

unread,
Dec 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/18/96
to

In article <598vif$5...@yama.mcc.ac.uk>,
David Stockley <mllx...@fs1.ec.man.ac.uk> wrote:

>If I were him I'd sue my doctor in negligence for
>failing to diagnose me properly. Furthermore a direct
>consequence of any such misdiagnosis would be that
>people would think less of me and view me unfairly with
>the contempt that a manipulating and meretricious person
>would deserve. Obviously Ernest has been put through
>enough and does not deserve such spite raining down on
>him.

Oh, manifestly.

--
There is no excuse,there is no accusation. UK POLITICS LINKS

http://sun1.bham.ac.uk/turnersj/pollinks.html http://www.isonomia.demon.co.uk

abelard

unread,
Dec 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/18/96
to

On 17 Dec 1996 19:36:18 GMT, u4...@cc.keele.ac.uk (Julian White)

typed:

>:>Julian, when you find yourself in a hole......
>
>I make a tunnel.

coo eeeeee jewels....i can still see you!

spin

unread,
Dec 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/18/96
to

In article <32B73F...@voxpops.bytenet.co.uk>, A...@voxpops.bytenet.co.uk
says...

>
>
>No doubt John Major's Swagger of Abused Spivs he calls a cabinet, would
>be the first to praise the benefits of a democratic society and the
>importance of a fair judicial system. Unfortunately, Tories believe they
>are above the law and above the rules.

It's worse than that. They *make* the rules and laws, and when they
don't suit they change them. Currently they have almost limitless
freedom to create whatever rules they fancy.

When was the last time the Gov't consulted you on a new law?

--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
* Man's mind and spirit grow with the space in which they are
allowed to operate - Krafft A Ehricke
* Where there is no vision, the people perish - Proverbs 29:18
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


M.S. Robb

unread,
Dec 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/18/96
to

In article <32b6a9e9...@news.demon.co.uk>,
abelard <abe...@abelard.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>right to silence upheld by european court by 14 to 1
>the right to silence is part of the right to free speech...
>
>europe upholds the right of the individual against the
> state once more....
>britain once again found guilty of breaching human rights....

Note last sunday's Observer's report on Straw's incorporation of ECHR,
allowing individuals to take govt and all govbt agencies to
court...Hopefully Straw will detail this this week.

--
There is no excuse,there is no accusation. UK POLITICS LINKS

http://emedia.commerceasia.com/greeting http://www.isonomia.demon.co.uk

Nick Landau

unread,
Dec 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/18/96
to

Zzzzzz

Stephen Horgan

unread,
Dec 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/19/96
to

On Tue, 17 Dec 1996 16:47:05 -0800, A...@voxpops.bytenet.co.uk wrote:

>abelard wrote:
>> right to silence upheld by european court by 14 to 1
>> the right to silence is part of the right to free speech...
>> europe upholds the right of the individual against the
>> state once more....
>> britain once again found guilty of breaching human rights....

>> the sleaze machine must go... h***** and his protective johnny are forcing us into a
>> european state as the only manner of protecting
>> our civil rights....

>> only labour is offering citizens rights....

>> only labour will give us anything approaching a
>> free choice in negotiating with europe...

>> for civil rights must take precedence over all other
>> issues...the sleaze machine is driving towards dictatorship...

>> get rid of these unpatriotic criminals....
>> your freedom depends upon it.
>

>No doubt John Major's Swagger of Abused Spivs he calls a cabinet, would
>be the first to praise the benefits of a democratic society and the
>importance of a fair judicial system. Unfortunately, Tories believe they
>are above the law and above the rules.

Which is, of course, why the Conservatives appointed Lord Nolan and
created the new framework for parliamentary conduct (?).

>They can't play any game fairly. They have to twist, they have to cheat,
>they have to lie, they have to deceive, they have to tamper, they have to
>pretend, they have to mislead.....and when they're found out, they always
>claim the judgement was wrong.

Politics is not a game.

As for lying and cheating, I think 'New' Labour's efforts to fix the
radio 4 personality of the year poll and their leader's secret slush
fund takes some beating.

>It's the New English Bible Of The Supreme Conservative Administration.
>They have to go - Britain is crying out for truth. OK Labour or Lib Dem
>MAY give us bigger bills. It's a small price to pay for people who won't
>be quite as crooked.
>

Increased unemployment, lower educational standards, and a sabotaged
NHS are not a 'price worth paying' for a Labour government.


--
Stephen Horgan, Basildon, Essex, England

"intelligent people will tend to overvalue intelligence"

Hayek
--
http://www.netlink.co.uk/users/horgan/bascon

M.S. Robb

unread,
Dec 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/19/96
to

In article <Pine.SOL.3.95.961219121306.3490A-100000@lupin>,

Mr A J Smith <ma...@csv.warwick.ac.uk> wrote:

>> Which is, of course, why the Conservatives appointed Lord Nolan and
>> created the new framework for parliamentary conduct (?).
>

>Er...the vast majority of Conservative MPs, honest John Major included,
>voted against Nolan's recommendations.

Details, details.

>I can't believe you're actually trying to give the Tories credit for
>anti-sleaze measures they opposed.

Well it would be hard to do it for measures they have proposed.

>> As for lying and cheating, I think 'New' Labour's efforts to fix the
>> radio 4 personality of the year poll and their leader's secret slush
>> fund takes some beating.
>

>And the Tories have beaten them within a matter of days, by cheating in a
>commons vote and then falsely accusing Labour MPs of breaking pairing
>arrangements.

Not even close. The poll is spin, almost meaningless drivel. The second
undermines due process in the Commons. Constitutinally, the pairing is
far more significant.

>And BTW do you actually have some kind of evidence that there was any
>"lying and cheating" regarding the "leader's secret slush fund" or are you
>intent on repeating the same lie continually in the hope that people will
>eventually begin to believe it?

One guess. The smearing works. After all, most people think that members
of all parties took bribes for questions.

--
There is no excuse,there is no accusation. UK POLITICS LINKS

http://sun1.bham.ac.uk/turnersj/pollinks.html http://www.isonomia.demon.co.uk

spin

unread,
Dec 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/19/96
to

In article <32b6a9e9...@news.demon.co.uk>, abe...@abelard.demon.co.uk
says...

>
>right to silence upheld by european court by 14 to 1
>the right to silence is part of the right to free speech...
>

Anyone know which articles of the convention of human rights were
found to have been breached?

T Bruce Tober

unread,
Dec 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/19/96
to

In a rather exuberant mood, Cheradenine Zakalwe
<zak...@vision25.demon.co.uk> writes

>In article <E2Lu...@cix.compulink.co.uk>
> rmacm...@cix.compulink.co.uk "Robert Macmillan" writes:
>>If this is Ernest Saunders, I wonder how many of the usual right to
>>silence advocates will welcome this decision. Who'll stand up and be
>>counted?
>
>My position remains that there should be a right to silence when
>someone is being questioned by the police or DTI inspectors. However
>there should be no reight of silence when someone is being questioned
>in a properly constituted court or law (or similar tribunal -- eg a
>parlaimetary select committee). If someone (even if they are a
>defendant) refuses to testify in court, they should be charged with
>contempt.

Disagree. As David Toube said so authoritatively and eloquently, it is
the prosecution's job to prove guilt, not the accused's.

And let's have none of the bullshit about how the innocent have nothing
to hide. That's usually, though not always true. But the more pertinent
point is that a court room and you in the dock is a very nerve-wracking
situation, even for the innocent.

I've been on tv and radio a few times in my career and was never
terribly nervous. On the other hand, I've been a witness in two court
cases and both times, as just a damned witness. I was not only a nervous
wreck because I knew what I remembered of the incident I had to testify
about, but I was so afraid of the consequences of what I had to say and
that I wouldn't say it the way I meant it. As a writer I know all too
well how dificult it is to communicate information accurately and
correctly extemporaneously, ie in a first draft (which is why at least
one famous author has said the art of writing is simple - rewrite,
rewrite, rewrite"). In additon a trained lawyer is a terror to debate
with. He's trained to turn your words to his advantage and against you.
Most of us are not so trained.

The right of silence is a civil liberty and civil right which MUST NOT
be abandoned.

tbt
--
| Bruce Tober - octob...@reporters.net - Birmingham, England |
| pgp key ID 0x9E014CE9. For CV/Resume:http://pollux.com/authors/tober.htm |
| For CV/Resume and Clips: http://nwsmait.intermarket.com/nmfwc/tbt.htm |
| "Conservatism offers no redress for the present, and makes no preparation|
| for the future." --- Benjamin Disraeli |

M.S. Robb

unread,
Dec 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/19/96
to

In article <32c42c15...@news.demon.co.uk>,
Stephen Horgan <ste...@horgan.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>Which is, of course, why the Conservatives appointed Lord Nolan and
>created the new framework for parliamentary conduct (?).

Having been caught accepting bribes. Oh very good. Then voted against the
same report. Oh very good. Just like they set up Scott, and then shot the
report down.

Such honourable men.

>As for lying and cheating, I think 'New' Labour's efforts to fix the
>radio 4 personality of the year poll and their leader's secret slush
>fund takes some beating.

Grow up child. The Poll fix is a miserable attempt at media manipulation,
but that sort of behaviour is a) not confined to Labour, b) not
significant compared with the Scott report. And the Labour Office fund is
'Commissioner approved'.

Mr A J Smith

unread,
Dec 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/19/96
to

On Thu, 19 Dec 1996, Stephen Horgan wrote:

> Which is, of course, why the Conservatives appointed Lord Nolan and
> created the new framework for parliamentary conduct (?).

Er...the vast majority of Conservative MPs, honest John Major included,


voted against Nolan's recommendations.

I can't believe you're actually trying to give the Tories credit for
anti-sleaze measures they opposed.


> Politics is not a game.
>

> As for lying and cheating, I think 'New' Labour's efforts to fix the
> radio 4 personality of the year poll and their leader's secret slush
> fund takes some beating.

And the Tories have beaten them within a matter of days, by cheating in a


commons vote and then falsely accusing Labour MPs of breaking pairing
arrangements.

And BTW do you actually have some kind of evidence that there was any


"lying and cheating" regarding the "leader's secret slush fund" or are you
intent on repeating the same lie continually in the hope that people will
eventually begin to believe it?

And can you explain how a fund that appears in the register of members
interests is secret?

> Increased unemployment, lower educational standards, and a sabotaged
> NHS are not a 'price worth paying' for a Labour government.

Kind of lucky Labour will deliver the exact opposite.

AJSmith


T Bruce Tober

unread,
Dec 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/19/96
to

In a rather exuberant mood, Robert Macmillan <rmacm...@cix.compulink.c
o.uk> writes
>> From: abe...@abelard.demon.co.uk (abelard)

>>
>> right to silence upheld by european court by 14 to 1
>> the right to silence is part of the right to free speech...
>>
>> europe upholds the right of the individual against the
>> state once more....
>> britain once again found guilty of breaching human rights....
>
>If this is Ernest Saunders, I wonder how many of the usual right to
>silence advocates will welcome this decision. Who'll stand up and be
>counted?

I will, for one.

Peter Card

unread,
Dec 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/19/96
to

ste...@horgan.demon.co.uk (Stephen Horgan) writes:
>As for lying and cheating, I think 'New' Labour's efforts to fix the
>radio 4 personality of the year poll and their leader's secret slush
>fund takes some beating.

Easily topped by the Tory's successful attempt to fix the contest last
year. They didn't get caught either...

If you genuinely believe that getting out the vote for a radio
personality poll has some deep political significance, you are a very
sad bunny indeed. Party funding is important, I agree. Now, where
exactly _do_ the Tories get there cash from again? They seem strangely
reticent on the matter.
--
----------------------------------------------------------
email Peter...@jet.uk || 10001...@compuserve.com
Eat British Beef !! - One Million Cows Can't Be Wibble Moo Ssnnort!


===============================================================================
The above article is the personal view of the poster and should not be
considered as an official comment from the JET Joint Undertaking
===============================================================================

Andrew K. Groves

unread,
Dec 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/19/96
to

In article <32c42c15...@news.demon.co.uk>, ste...@horgan.demon.co.uk
(Stephen Horgan) wrote:

> their leader's secret slush
> fund takes some beating.

It wasn't secret. It was declared in the list of MPs interests. Only the
identity of the donors was secret.

Do you think it is better that the donors are secret, or are known to the
recipients of the fund?

(he asked, for the umpteenth time....)

--
Andy Groves
Division of Biology, 216-76
California Institute of Technology

abelard

unread,
Dec 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/20/96
to

On Wed, 18 Dec 1996 14:01:29 +0000, Andrew Finlay
<And...@afin.demon.co.uk>

typed:

>In article <32b6a9e9...@news.demon.co.uk>, abelard

><abe...@abelard.demon.co.uk> writes
>
> <Snip...Oft repeated demented drivel... binned>

not demented mr. tory psychiatrist...
and it will be repeated until the right to silence
is restored.
and not drivel to any informed educated adult.

>>it is not the economy....
>

>I bet you wish it was?

i wish........it wasn't such a mess...
borrowings equivalent to 16p on basic tax rate in this
year alone....~£16 per week per household extra
interest payments since johnny went on his borrowing
binge...you will pay it for many many years...and have
to pay it back....mr. pocket book tory....

abelard

unread,
Dec 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/20/96
to

On Wed, 18 Dec 96 22:05:37 GMT, zak...@vision25.demon.co.uk
(Cheradenine Zakalwe)

typed:

>My position remains that there should be a right to silence when
>someone is being questioned by the police or DTI inspectors. However
>there should be no reight of silence when someone is being questioned
>in a properly constituted court or law (or similar tribunal -- eg a
>parlaimetary select committee). If someone (even if they are a
>defendant) refuses to testify in court, they should be charged with
>contempt.

very strong dissent.
you are innocent until proven guilty...
you do not have to 'prove' your 'innocence'...
you *cannot* prove a negative....it is not logically possible.
your manner can cause prejudice in others....

you know well my radical views...if i am forced
to reveal those views in court in this country...i
will inevitably be found 'guilty' by prejudice....and
i will be forced to reveal those views under your
proposals.
'justice' is a weak enough plant...you would
have it weakened further...your proposals
lead directly to 'witchcraft mentality'...and
to arbitrary power.
whether you speak or no...is a fundamental right
of civilised society.
your proposals are a dictator's charter.
your proposals are an encouragement to mob rule
and superstition.

the removal of the absolute right to silence
is probably the worst legal change/error this century.

where the state insists on removal of a right to silence...
which 'should' probably be never...it must give immunity as
reciprocity.

essential reading/viewing...
a man for all seasons(1966)...itv...10:10 to 12:30...1/1/97
another version(1988)...bbc2...07:20 to 09:45...27/12/96
script(oscar win) by robert bolt.
it puts the case rather well....

Mr A J Smith

unread,
Dec 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/20/96
to

On 19 Dec 1996, M.S. Robb wrote:

> Mr A J Smith <ma...@csv.warwick.ac.uk> wrote:
>

> >And BTW do you actually have some kind of evidence that there was any
> >"lying and cheating" regarding the "leader's secret slush fund" or are you
> >intent on repeating the same lie continually in the hope that people will
> >eventually begin to believe it?
>

> One guess. The smearing works. After all, most people think that members
> of all parties took bribes for questions.

I would hope, that on this newsgroup at least, the smearing doesn't work.

AJSmith


Cheradenine Zakalwe

unread,
Dec 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/20/96
to

In article <OS+S7lAe...@crecon.demon.co.uk>

octob...@reporters.net "T Bruce Tober" writes:
>I've been on tv and radio a few times in my career and was never
>terribly nervous. On the other hand, I've been a witness in two court
>cases and both times, as just a damned witness.

I've been the accused in two court cases and I wasn't that bothered.

> I was not only a nervous
>wreck because I knew what I remembered of the incident I had to testify
>about, but I was so afraid of the consequences of what I had to say and
>that I wouldn't say it the way I meant it.

Surely it is simple. If you want the accused to get off, bias your
evidence one way. If you want the accused to go down, bias your evidence
the other way. Rehearse the evidence in your head, and write it down so
you appear more decisive in what you say and are less likely to say
things that are inconsistent.

OTOH, if you don't care what happens to the accused, just say what comes
into your head, because it doesn't matter to you what happens.

--
*** Zakalwe ***

Stephen Horgan

unread,
Dec 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/20/96
to

On 19 Dec 1996 15:15:32 -0000, p...@jet.uk (Peter Card) wrote:

>ste...@horgan.demon.co.uk (Stephen Horgan) writes:
>>As for lying and cheating, I think 'New' Labour's efforts to fix the
>>radio 4 personality of the year poll and their leader's secret slush
>>fund takes some beating.
>
>Easily topped by the Tory's successful attempt to fix the contest last
>year. They didn't get caught either...
>

Except the Conservatives didn't. What's your source?

>If you genuinely believe that getting out the vote for a radio
>personality poll has some deep political significance, you are a very
>sad bunny indeed. Party funding is important, I agree. Now, where
>exactly _do_ the Tories get there cash from again? They seem strangely
>reticent on the matter.
>--

As does Blair over his own private slush fund.

Stephen Horgan

unread,
Dec 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/20/96
to

On 19 Dec 1996 11:57:01 GMT, ms...@cus.cam.ac.uk (M.S. Robb) wrote:

>In article <32c42c15...@news.demon.co.uk>,


>Stephen Horgan <ste...@horgan.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Which is, of course, why the Conservatives appointed Lord Nolan and
>>created the new framework for parliamentary conduct (?).
>

>Having been caught accepting bribes. Oh very good. Then voted against the
>same report. Oh very good. Just like they set up Scott, and then shot the
>report down.
>

The government accepted most of Nolan. As for the Scott report, it was
ambiguous to say the least and certainly did not deliver on the Labour
party's accusations.

>Such honourable men.
>
We are lucky to have them.

>>As for lying and cheating, I think 'New' Labour's efforts to fix the
>>radio 4 personality of the year poll and their leader's secret slush
>>fund takes some beating.
>

>Grow up child.

Sad...

>The Poll fix is a miserable attempt at media manipulation,

So, you problem with it is that is failed not that is was amoral.

>but that sort of behaviour is a) not confined to Labour

Even if true, that would not make it right for Labour to behave in
this way, but of course it's not true.

> b) not significant compared with the Scott report.

So the Scott report makes it alright for 'new' Labour to do anything
they want?

>And the Labour Office fund is
>'Commissioner approved'.
>

But now referred to the parliamentary committee.

Stephen Horgan

unread,
Dec 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/20/96
to

On Thu, 19 Dec 1996 12:19:46 +0000, Mr A J Smith
<ma...@csv.warwick.ac.uk> wrote:

>On Thu, 19 Dec 1996, Stephen Horgan wrote:
>
>> Which is, of course, why the Conservatives appointed Lord Nolan and
>> created the new framework for parliamentary conduct (?).
>

>Er...the vast majority of Conservative MPs, honest John Major included,
>voted against Nolan's recommendations.
>

Most of them have been implemented.

>I can't believe you're actually trying to give the Tories credit for
>anti-sleaze measures they opposed.
>

Because they didn't.

>> Politics is not a game.
>>

>> As for lying and cheating, I think 'New' Labour's efforts to fix the
>> radio 4 personality of the year poll and their leader's secret slush
>> fund takes some beating.
>

>And the Tories have beaten them within a matter of days, by cheating in a
>commons vote and then falsely accusing Labour MPs of breaking pairing
>arrangements.
>

Except the Tories didn't cheat. How dod Labour win their subsequent
vote if they didn't break pairing arrangements?

>And BTW do you actually have some kind of evidence that there was any
>"lying and cheating" regarding the "leader's secret slush fund" or are you
>intent on repeating the same lie continually in the hope that people will
>eventually begin to believe it?
>

I think banging on about the need to identify political donations
while at the same time accepting huge anonymous donations just about
covers it.

>And can you explain how a fund that appears in the register of members
>interests is secret?
>

The donors were, which does not gel with Labour attacks on the
Conservatives for the same practice.

>> Increased unemployment, lower educational standards, and a sabotaged
>> NHS are not a 'price worth paying' for a Labour government.
>
>Kind of lucky Labour will deliver the exact opposite.
>

Weren't you the guy who claimed that it was impossible for opposition
parties to come up with properly costed policies? By your own
arguments you can't have a clue what Labour would do.

Gulliver

unread,
Dec 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/20/96
to

In article <32b6a9e9...@news.demon.co.uk>,
abe...@abelard.demon.co.uk (abelard) wrote:

> right to silence upheld by european court by 14 to 1
> the right to silence is part of the right to free speech...

Good. echr I take it.

> europe upholds the right of the individual against the
> state once more....
> britain once again found guilty of breaching human rights....

echr, which is not really a part of the EU (just being my usual Eurosceptic
self.)

> the sleaze machine must go...

Indupitably.

> h***** and his protective johnny are forcing us into a
> european state as the only manner of protecting
> our civil rights....
> only labour is offering citizens rights....

The EU has little to do with the echr, aiui.

> only labour will give us anything approaching a
> free choice in negotiating with europe...
> for civil rights must take precedence over all other
> issues...the sleaze machine is driving towards dictatorship...
>
> get rid of these unpatriotic criminals....
> your freedom depends upon it.
>

> it is not the economy....

Julian still seems to think it is.

--

Angus Gulliver
an...@spuddy.mew.co.uk
Also at a.w.r.g...@herts.ac.uk
Question every piece of information that enters your mind...
...and it might grow bigger.

Andrew K. Groves

unread,
Dec 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/20/96
to

In article <32c3c8e8...@news.demon.co.uk>,
ste...@horgan.demon.co.uk (Stephen Horgan) wrote:

> On Thu, 19 Dec 1996 12:19:46 +0000, Mr A J Smith
> <ma...@csv.warwick.ac.uk> wrote:
>

> >And can you explain how a fund that appears in the register of members
> >interests is secret?
> >
> The donors were, which does not gel with Labour attacks on the
> Conservatives for the same practice.
>

As far as I know, Labour reveal all donations made over 5000 quid to the
Labour Party. The Tories don't.


I would really like you to comment on the following:


1. Do you think it is better for donors to the Labour leader's fund to be
kept secret from the leader, or known to him?

2. Do you think Opposition parties should have funds to run their offices,
and if so, what should they do given that the amount of money made
available to them is falling in real terms?

3. What is your comment on the fact that John Major refused a request by
the leaders of all seven Opposition parties to refer the issue of
political funding to Nolan?

Andrew Finlay

unread,
Dec 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/20/96
to

In article <grovesa-1912...@mac1554.bio.caltech.edu>, "Andrew
K. Groves" <gro...@starbase1.caltech.edu> writes
>In article <32c42c15...@news.demon.co.uk>, ste...@horgan.demon.co.uk

>(Stephen Horgan) wrote:
>
>> their leader's secret slush
>> fund takes some beating.
>
>It wasn't secret. It was declared in the list of MPs interests. Only the
>identity of the donors was secret.
>
>Do you think it is better that the donors are secret, or are known to the
>recipients of the fund?
>
>(he asked, for the umpteenth time....)

"Tony, we have just received a loverly cheque for a million smackers.
It's from..."
"No! Wait!" "Let me cover my ears first before you tell the other
chaps".

All silly childish bollocks, jumping through invisible hoops which
demonstrates an obvious attempt at secrecy.

--
Andrew Finlay

Andrew Finlay

unread,
Dec 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/20/96
to

In article <OS+S7lAe...@crecon.demon.co.uk>, T Bruce Tober
<octob...@reporters.net> writes

>In a rather exuberant mood, Cheradenine Zakalwe
><zak...@vision25.demon.co.uk> writes
>>In article <E2Lu...@cix.compulink.co.uk>
>> rmacm...@cix.compulink.co.uk "Robert Macmillan" writes:
>>>If this is Ernest Saunders, I wonder how many of the usual right to
>>>silence advocates will welcome this decision. Who'll stand up and be
>>>counted?
>>
>>My position remains that there should be a right to silence when
>>someone is being questioned by the police or DTI inspectors. However
>>there should be no reight of silence when someone is being questioned
>>in a properly constituted court or law (or similar tribunal -- eg a
>>parlaimetary select committee). If someone (even if they are a
>>defendant) refuses to testify in court, they should be charged with
>>contempt.
>
>Disagree. As David Toube said so authoritatively and eloquently, it is
>the prosecution's job to prove guilt, not the accused's.
>
>And let's have none of the bullshit about how the innocent have nothing
>to hide. That's usually, though not always true. But the more pertinent
>point is that a court room and you in the dock is a very nerve-wracking
>situation, even for the innocent.
>
>I've been on tv and radio a few times in my career and was never
>terribly nervous. On the other hand, I've been a witness in two court
>cases and both times, as just a damned witness. I was not only a nervous

>wreck because I knew what I remembered of the incident I had to testify
>about, but I was so afraid of the consequences of what I had to say and
>that I wouldn't say it the way I meant it. As a writer I know all too
>well how dificult it is to communicate information accurately and
>correctly extemporaneously, ie in a first draft (which is why at least
>one famous author has said the art of writing is simple - rewrite,
>rewrite, rewrite"). In additon a trained lawyer is a terror to debate
>with. He's trained to turn your words to his advantage and against you.
>Most of us are not so trained.
>
>The right of silence is a civil liberty and civil right which MUST NOT
>be abandoned.

Sound good I'm sure. But you still haven't convinced anyone that the
court should not be informed of the exercise of the right to silence.
--
Andrew Finlay

T Bruce Tober

unread,
Dec 21, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/21/96
to

In a rather exuberant mood, Cheradenine Zakalwe
<zak...@vision25.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <OS+S7lAe...@crecon.demon.co.uk>
> octob...@reporters.net "T Bruce Tober" writes:
>>I've been on tv and radio a few times in my career and was never
>>terribly nervous. On the other hand, I've been a witness in two court
>>cases and both times, as just a damned witness.
>
>I've been the accused in two court cases and I wasn't that bothered.

I take it then that you're right and I'm wrong? No accounting for
different personalities, eh?

>
>> I was not only a nervous
>>wreck because I knew what I remembered of the incident I had to testify
>>about, but I was so afraid of the consequences of what I had to say and
>>that I wouldn't say it the way I meant it.
>

>Surely it is simple. If you want the accused to get off, bias your
>evidence one way. If you want the accused to go down, bias your evidence
>the other way. Rehearse the evidence in your head, and write it down so
>you appear more decisive in what you say and are less likely to say
>things that are inconsistent.

Fine for some, but others prefer to be honest.

>
>OTOH, if you don't care what happens to the accused, just say what comes
>into your head, because it doesn't matter to you what happens.
>

Hogwash.

Nick Landau

unread,
Dec 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/22/96
to

In article <rWhbK2Aga$uyE...@crecon.demon.co.uk>,

T Bruce Tober <octob...@reporters.net> wrote:

>In a rather exuberant mood, Cheradenine Zakalwe
><zak...@vision25.demon.co.uk> writes
>>In article <OS+S7lAe...@crecon.demon.co.uk>
>> octob...@reporters.net "T Bruce Tober" writes:
>>>I've been on tv and radio a few times in my career and was never
>>>terribly nervous. On the other hand, I've been a witness in two court
>>>cases and both times, as just a damned witness.

I have been on a jury and it is the intention of the legal process to
convey the seriousness of the effect of the evidence that you give. When
you go into court you may be questioned in fine detail about the evidence
that you supply. The barrister for the opposing side has the job of tearing
your evidence into shreds. He or she wants to place the evidence of the
witness in the worst possible light.

I think that the only people who are subjected to anything like this kind
of grilling in the media are politicians.

Of course, the justification for the treatment of the witness in this way
is that the accused's liberty is at stake. The seriousness of the process
is intended.

>>
>>I've been the accused in two court cases and I wasn't that bothered.
>
>I take it then that you're right and I'm wrong? No accounting for
>different personalities, eh?
>
>>
>>> I was not only a nervous
>>>wreck because I knew what I remembered of the incident I had to testify
>>>about, but I was so afraid of the consequences of what I had to say and
>>>that I wouldn't say it the way I meant it.
>>
>>Surely it is simple. If you want the accused to get off, bias your
>>evidence one way. If you want the accused to go down, bias your evidence
>>the other way. Rehearse the evidence in your head, and write it down so
>>you appear more decisive in what you say and are less likely to say
>>things that are inconsistent.

Well, if ever, I am in the dock and you are called as a witness, I will
know to object. Thanks for warning me.

It is the jury's job to decide the guilt or innocence of the accused not
the witness.

I believe that perjury is regarded as a very serious crime under the law
and rightly so. By what right do you do what is the prerogative of the
jury.

>
>Fine for some, but others prefer to be honest.
>
>>
>>OTOH, if you don't care what happens to the accused, just say what comes
>>into your head, because it doesn't matter to you what happens.
>>

Do you maintain such high standards of probity in all areas of your life.
What about the result of your evidence for the poor accused. Strikes me as
a good example of saying what suits you on any particular occasion. Does
not the word "truth" occur in your vocabulary? Clearly not.

>Hogwash.
>
>tbt
>--

Nick

Robert Macmillan

unread,
Dec 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/22/96
to

> From: zak...@vision25.demon.co.uk (Cheradenine Zakalwe)

>
> I've been the accused in two court cases and I wasn't that bothered.

Ooh, tell us more!

Robert Macmillan ------------------------------------

"About as solid as a blancmange"
Ken Livingstone on Labour's policy programme.

T Bruce Tober

unread,
Dec 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/22/96
to

In a rather exuberant mood, Nick Landau <ni...@n-landau.demon.co.uk>
writes

>In article <rWhbK2Aga$uyE...@crecon.demon.co.uk>,
>T Bruce Tober <octob...@reporters.net> wrote:
>
>>In a rather exuberant mood, Cheradenine Zakalwe
>><zak...@vision25.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>In article <OS+S7lAe...@crecon.demon.co.uk>
>>> octob...@reporters.net "T Bruce Tober" writes:
>>>>I've been on tv and radio a few times in my career and was never
>>>>terribly nervous. On the other hand, I've been a witness in two court
>>>>cases and both times, as just a damned witness.
>
>I have been on a jury and it is the intention of the legal process to
>convey the seriousness of the effect of the evidence that you give. When
>you go into court you may be questioned in fine detail about the evidence
>that you supply. The barrister for the opposing side has the job of tearing
>your evidence into shreds. He or she wants to place the evidence of the
>witness in the worst possible light.

Yep exactly my point.

>I think that the only people who are subjected to anything like this kind
>of grilling in the media are politicians.

???

>Of course, the justification for the treatment of the witness in this way
>is that the accused's liberty is at stake. The seriousness of the process
>is intended.

As well it should be.

>>>the other way. Rehearse the evidence in your head, and write it down so
>>>you appear more decisive in what you say and are less likely to say
>>>things that are inconsistent.
>
>Well, if ever, I am in the dock and you are called as a witness, I will
>know to object. Thanks for warning me.

Yep.

Snip of comments from you with which I agree totally. Well said Nick.

Andrew K. Groves

unread,
Dec 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/22/96
to

In article <eCHKaUAe...@afin.demon.co.uk>, Andrew Finlay
<And...@afin.demon.co.uk> wrote:

I see you haven't answered my question.

NF Stevens

unread,
Dec 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/23/96
to

On Fri, 20 Dec 1996 17:20:49 GMT, ste...@horgan.demon.co.uk (Stephen
Horgan) wrote:

>On 19 Dec 1996 11:57:01 GMT, ms...@cus.cam.ac.uk (M.S. Robb) wrote:

[snip]

>>And the Labour Office fund is
>>'Commissioner approved'.
>>
>But now referred to the parliamentary committee.

So how is the leader of the opposition supposed to fund
his parliamentary team?

Norman.

--
"At least [the homeless] are mobile rubbish" - Andrew Finlay

Andrew Finlay

unread,
Dec 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/23/96
to

In article <grovesa-2212...@131.215.15.185>, Andy Groves
<gro...@starbase1.caltech.edu> writes
>In article <32bdc8d5...@news.u-net.com>, nor...@arcady.u-net.com (NF

>Stevens) wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 20 Dec 1996 17:20:49 GMT, ste...@horgan.demon.co.uk (Stephen
>> Horgan) wrote:
>>
>> >On 19 Dec 1996 11:57:01 GMT, ms...@cus.cam.ac.uk (M.S. Robb) wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >>And the Labour Office fund is
>> >>'Commissioner approved'.
>> >>
>> >But now referred to the parliamentary committee.
>>
>> So how is the leader of the opposition supposed to fund
>> his parliamentary team?
>>
>
>Don't ask either Horgan or Finlay; you will not get an answer........

The same way as the other parties of course. Fetes, garden parties,
suppers etc.
--
Andrew Finlay

Andy Groves

unread,
Dec 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/23/96
to

Andy Groves

unread,
Dec 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/23/96
to

In article <vCVG6MAS...@afin.demon.co.uk>, Andrew Finlay
<And...@afin.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <grovesa-2212...@131.215.15.185>, Andy Groves
> <gro...@starbase1.caltech.edu> writes

> The same way as the other parties of course. Fetes, garden parties,
> suppers etc.


ROTFL!!!!!!


The Conservative party managed to turn a deficit of over twenty million
into a surplus of (I believe) over 30. That's one heck of a lot of garden
parties.......

Cheradenine Zakalwe

unread,
Dec 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/23/96
to

In article <E2tH9...@cix.compulink.co.uk>

rmacm...@cix.compulink.co.uk "Robert Macmillan" writes:
>> From: zak...@vision25.demon.co.uk (Cheradenine Zakalwe)
>> I've been the accused in two court cases and I wasn't that bothered.
>
>Ooh, tell us more!

Nothing exciting, I'm afraid. They were both motoring offences. The
first time I was done for failing to stop at an accident, the second
time for speeding. I pleaded guilty on both occasions.

--
*** Zakalwe ***

Cheradenine Zakalwe

unread,
Dec 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/23/96
to

In article <rWhbK2Aga$uyE...@crecon.demon.co.uk>

octob...@reporters.net "T Bruce Tober" writes:
>In a rather exuberant mood, Cheradenine Zakalwe
><zak...@vision25.demon.co.uk> writes
>>In article <OS+S7lAe...@crecon.demon.co.uk>
>> octob...@reporters.net "T Bruce Tober" writes:
>>>I've been on tv and radio a few times in my career and was never
>>>terribly nervous. On the other hand, I've been a witness in two court
>>>cases and both times, as just a damned witness.
>>
>>I've been the accused in two court cases and I wasn't that bothered.
>
>I take it then that you're right and I'm wrong? No accounting for
>different personalities, eh?

I think people should be laid back about things like court cases.
Obviously if you are being done for something serious it is a serious
matter. But if you keep calm your cognitive skills should be better.

>>> I was not only a nervous
>>>wreck because I knew what I remembered of the incident I had to testify
>>>about, but I was so afraid of the consequences of what I had to say and
>>>that I wouldn't say it the way I meant it.
>>
>>Surely it is simple. If you want the accused to get off, bias your
>>evidence one way. If you want the accused to go down, bias your evidence

>>the other way. Rehearse the evidence in your head, and write it down so
>>you appear more decisive in what you say and are less likely to say
>>things that are inconsistent.
>

>Fine for some, but others prefer to be honest.

When doing anything in life, I find it useful to ask myself two questions:
(1) what am I trying to achieve here? (2) what's the best way to achieve
it?

>>OTOH, if you don't care what happens to the accused, just say what comes
>>into your head, because it doesn't matter to you what happens.
>

>Hogwash.

No, just logic. If you don't care what happens, then by definition you
don't care what happens. If you are a witness in court you can say what
you like as long as you don't insult the judge (that's contempt) or
get caught lying (that's perjury). Obviously if the accused is a mate of
yours then are going to want to help him/her.

--
*** Zakalwe ***

Andrew Finlay

unread,
Dec 24, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/24/96
to

In article <grovesa-2312...@131.215.15.185>, Andy Groves

<gro...@starbase1.caltech.edu> writes
>In article <vCVG6MAS...@afin.demon.co.uk>, Andrew Finlay
><And...@afin.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In article <grovesa-2212...@131.215.15.185>, Andy Groves
>> <gro...@starbase1.caltech.edu> writes
>> >In article <32bdc8d5...@news.u-net.com>, nor...@arcady.u-net.com (NF
>> >Stevens) wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, 20 Dec 1996 17:20:49 GMT, ste...@horgan.demon.co.uk (Stephen
>> >> Horgan) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On 19 Dec 1996 11:57:01 GMT, ms...@cus.cam.ac.uk (M.S. Robb) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> [snip]
>> >>
>> >> >>And the Labour Office fund is
>> >> >>'Commissioner approved'.
>> >> >>
>> >> >But now referred to the parliamentary committee.
>> >>
>> >> So how is the leader of the opposition supposed to fund
>> >> his parliamentary team?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Don't ask either Horgan or Finlay; you will not get an answer........
>>
>> The same way as the other parties of course. Fetes, garden parties,
>> suppers etc.
>
>
>ROTFL!!!!!!
>
>
>The Conservative party managed to turn a deficit of over twenty million
>into a surplus of (I believe) over 30. That's one heck of a lot of garden
>parties.......

Yup, constituencies have worked very hard. They have to, as their MPs
don't have the guaranteed hand outs from the trades union.
--
Andrew Finlay

Cheradenine Zakalwe

unread,
Dec 24, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/24/96
to

In article <AEE2AE9B...@n-landau.demon.co.uk>

ni...@n-landau.demon.co.uk "Nick Landau" writes:
>>In a rather exuberant mood, Cheradenine Zakalwe
>><zak...@vision25.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>Surely it is simple. If you want the accused to get off, bias your
>>>evidence one way. If you want the accused to go down, bias your evidence
>>>the other way. Rehearse the evidence in your head, and write it down so
>>>you appear more decisive in what you say and are less likely to say
>>>things that are inconsistent.
>
>Well, if ever, I am in the dock and you are called as a witness, I will
>know to object. Thanks for warning me.

You're welcome.

>It is the jury's job to decide the guilt or innocence of the accused not
>the witness.

I am a sentient being therefore I is my job to decide whatever I want
to decide. Whether others agree with me is up to them.

>I believe that perjury is regarded as a very serious crime under the law
>and rightly so.

I haven't advocated lying. Merely changing the emphasis...

--
*** Zakalwe ***

T Bruce Tober

unread,
Dec 24, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/24/96
to

In a rather exuberant mood, Cheradenine Zakalwe
<zak...@vision25.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <rWhbK2Aga$uyE...@crecon.demon.co.uk>

> octob...@reporters.net "T Bruce Tober" writes:
>>In a rather exuberant mood, Cheradenine Zakalwe
>><zak...@vision25.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>In article <OS+S7lAe...@crecon.demon.co.uk>
>>> octob...@reporters.net "T Bruce Tober" writes:
>>>>I've been on tv and radio a few times in my career and was never
>>>>terribly nervous. On the other hand, I've been a witness in two court
>>>>cases and both times, as just a damned witness.
>>>
>>>I've been the accused in two court cases and I wasn't that bothered.
>>
>>I take it then that you're right and I'm wrong? No accounting for
>>different personalities, eh?
>
>I think people should be laid back about things like court cases.

Easier said than done when involved in a serious court case and facing a
well trained and experienced lawyer out to save his client's hide.

>Obviously if you are being done for something serious it is a serious
>matter. But if you keep calm your cognitive skills should be better.

Again, easier said than done, unless you're a well-trained
debater/public speaker used to thinking on your feet.

>>>the other way. Rehearse the evidence in your head, and write it down so
>>>you appear more decisive in what you say and are less likely to say
>>>things that are inconsistent.
>>

>>Fine for some, but others prefer to be honest.
>
>When doing anything in life, I find it useful to ask myself two questions:
>(1) what am I trying to achieve here? (2) what's the best way to achieve
>it?

Sorry, but perjury is not my styule. I'm not and never have been a good
and convincing liar.

>>>into your head, because it doesn't matter to you what happens.
>>
>>Hogwash.
>
>No, just logic. If you don't care what happens, then by definition you
>don't care what happens. If you are a witness in court you can say what
>you like as long as you don't insult the judge (that's contempt) or
>get caught lying (that's perjury). Obviously if the accused is a mate of
>yours then are going to want to help him/her.

Sorry, but as above.

Cheradenine Zakalwe

unread,
Dec 24, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/24/96
to

In article <5qJfFICH...@crecon.demon.co.uk>

octob...@reporters.net "T Bruce Tober" writes:
>In a rather exuberant mood, Cheradenine Zakalwe
><zak...@vision25.demon.co.uk> writes
>>In article <rWhbK2Aga$uyE...@crecon.demon.co.uk>
>> octob...@reporters.net "T Bruce Tober" writes:
>>>In a rather exuberant mood, Cheradenine Zakalwe
>>><zak...@vision25.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>>In article <OS+S7lAe...@crecon.demon.co.uk>
>>>> octob...@reporters.net "T Bruce Tober" writes:
>>>>>I've been on tv and radio a few times in my career and was never
>>>>>terribly nervous. On the other hand, I've been a witness in two court
>>>>>cases and both times, as just a damned witness.
>>>>
>>>>I've been the accused in two court cases and I wasn't that bothered.
>>>
>>>I take it then that you're right and I'm wrong? No accounting for
>>>different personalities, eh?
>>
>>I think people should be laid back about things like court cases.
>
>Easier said than done when involved in a serious court case and facing a
>well trained and experienced lawyer out to save his client's hide.

What were the court cases about, incidently?

>>Obviously if you are being done for something serious it is a serious
>>matter. But if you keep calm your cognitive skills should be better.
>
>Again, easier said than done, unless you're a well-trained
>debater/public speaker used to thinking on your feet.

That does help.

>>>>the other way. Rehearse the evidence in your head, and write it down so
>>>>you appear more decisive in what you say and are less likely to say
>>>>things that are inconsistent.
>>>
>>>Fine for some, but others prefer to be honest.
>>
>>When doing anything in life, I find it useful to ask myself two questions:
>>(1) what am I trying to achieve here? (2) what's the best way to achieve
>>it?
>
>Sorry, but perjury is not my styule. I'm not and never have been a good
>and convincing liar.

Why not? You're a journalist. (Sorry, thast was a cheap one but I just
couldn't resist it).

--
*** Zakalwe ***

Andy Groves

unread,
Dec 25, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/25/96
to

In article <axK7GLAs...@afin.demon.co.uk>, Andrew Finlay
<And...@afin.demon.co.uk> wrote:

*yawn*

Please detail these handouts.......


zzzzzzzz........

T Bruce Tober

unread,
Dec 25, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/25/96
to

In a rather exuberant mood, Cheradenine Zakalwe
<zak...@vision25.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <5qJfFICH...@crecon.demon.co.uk>
> octob...@reporters.net "T Bruce Tober" writes:
>>In a rather exuberant mood, Cheradenine Zakalwe
>><zak...@vision25.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>In article <rWhbK2Aga$uyE...@crecon.demon.co.uk>
>>> octob...@reporters.net "T Bruce Tober" writes:
>>>>In a rather exuberant mood, Cheradenine Zakalwe
>>>><zak...@vision25.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>>>In article <OS+S7lAe...@crecon.demon.co.uk>
>>>>> octob...@reporters.net "T Bruce Tober" writes:
>>>>>>I've been on tv and radio a few times in my career and was never
>>>>>>terribly nervous. On the other hand, I've been a witness in two court
>>>>>>cases and both times, as just a damned witness.
>>>>>
>>>>>I've been the accused in two court cases and I wasn't that bothered.
>>>>
>>>>I take it then that you're right and I'm wrong? No accounting for
>>>>different personalities, eh?
>>>
>>>I think people should be laid back about things like court cases.
>>
>>Easier said than done when involved in a serious court case and facing a
>>well trained and experienced lawyer out to save his client's hide.
>
>What were the court cases about, incidently?

One was back in the late '60s when I was a witness in a case against
another journalist who had upset the cops during a civil rights demo
which I was also covering. I tried to keep to non-controversial matters
and fortunately got off without a hell of a lot of x-exam. the other was
something to do with the insurance payouts from the accident which
killed my first wife. I was suing the insurance comapny.

>
>>>Obviously if you are being done for something serious it is a serious
>>>matter. But if you keep calm your cognitive skills should be better.
>>
>>Again, easier said than done, unless you're a well-trained
>>debater/public speaker used to thinking on your feet.
>
>That does help.

Of course it does, but unfortunately most of us aren't.

>>
>>Sorry, but perjury is not my styule. I'm not and never have been a good
>>and convincing liar.
>
>Why not? You're a journalist. (Sorry, thast was a cheap one but I just
>couldn't resist it).

It's winter solstace, all is forgiven, you sonofabitch.

Andy Groves

unread,
Dec 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/26/96
to

In article <AEE839299...@ttym0f.powernet.co.uk>,
simon....@hack.powernet.co.uk (Simon Gardner) wrote:


> Political party funding by business:
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> Below is a model motion for any party wishing to provide
> transparency at the point of purchase for voters and
> consumers who wish to know whether the company from
> which they are about to buy also funds any political
> party. This motion quite specifically restricts itself
> to parties with MPs in the House of Commons. If a
> company makes no party political donations, then there
> would be no need, under this proposal, for any extra
> labelling.

<snip>

Sounds good to me. Not sure if point (3) is entirely feasible, but
certainly worth considering. I wonder what Lord Nolan's thinking is?

Andrew Finlay

unread,
Dec 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/26/96
to

In article <grovesa-2612...@131.215.15.185>, Andy Groves
<gro...@starbase1.caltech.edu> writes

I'd be more interested in Simon Gardner's thinking behind point (3)?
--
Andrew Finlay

Simon Gray

unread,
Dec 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/26/96
to

In article <grovesa-2612...@131.215.15.185>
gro...@starbase1.caltech.edu "Andy Groves" writes:

~ <snip>
~
~ Sounds good to me.

The principle, m3e2, but...

~ Not sure if point (3) is entirely feasible, but
~ certainly worth considering.

...I thought that looks utterly ludicrous !

--
Ban Everything or Ban Nothing !
http://www.mahayana.demon.co.uk/ ISO 1386-C compliant .sig
All words written in the above posting are my opinions


M.S. Robb

unread,
Dec 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/30/96
to

In article <32c4ca27...@news.demon.co.uk>,
Stephen Horgan <ste...@horgan.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>As does Blair over his own private slush fund.

Except that it's not his, it's the party's, and it covers his office
expenses in a wholly above-board manner. And approved by the
Parliamentary Commissiner Downey.

If this is all you've got against New labour, you ought to vote for them.

--
There is no excuse,there is no accusation.
http://sun1.bham.ac.uk/turnersj/pollinks.html