HOW DO I ARRANGE A ‘SCOPING SESSION’ WITH THE POLICE

So the noble lord McAlpine’s solicitors are having a cosy ‘scoping’ session down with the lads at Scotland Yard to see if any imaginable law might be ‘scoped’ to bring a prosecution against the Tweeters – or some of them m’lud particularly dislikes. Try this yourselves. ‘Have you come to report a crime? No… but I was wondering if we could stretch the law against to include…..’  Won’t get far I fear. So here’s one I’ve already prepared:

Edwina Currie clearly knew  – its in her own book – that Thatcher’s PPS Peter Morrison was a ‘noted paedophile’ but did nothing. So I’d like to scope the ‘failing to report a crime’ or ‘aiding and abetting’ laws to see if she could be prosecuted. Let me know how it goes. Try booking in a ‘scoping session’ today.

 

8 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

8 responses to “HOW DO I ARRANGE A ‘SCOPING SESSION’ WITH THE POLICE

  1. Hang on, I smell a fucking rat here, since the Divine Lord is looking to use the Malicious Communications Act, maybe he’s not looking to nail the 10s of 1000s of twitter users at all, it maybe that the old clot* is after anyone he thinks has caused him ‘offence’ since the Act covers “sending or delivering letters or other articles for the purpose of causing distress or anxiety”. That probably covers 99% of all socially-antagonistic bloggers who have commented on the issue.
    Perhaps I could use such a wide-ranging, wholly subjective law on the news and advertising agencies, since they inflict untold distress and anxiety on me everyday…
    (*taking a risk of offence just there.)

    This country is a SHITHOLE run by, and for, RICH TURDS.

    • b

      In the short term, the solicitors’ firm in question (RMPI, formerly Reid Minty) is getting itself some advertising. They seem very keen on that. Go to their page about how you can pay money to the Lord’s ‘chosen charity’ (although rest assured the Lord doesn’t want to cause hardship), and your screen will be filled with a big advert for the law firm. If all you want to know is how you can hand over your money, and how you can ‘fess up to causing the Lord undue distress, you’ll have to scroll down.

      They’re ‘injury claim’ solicitors. As far as I know (corrections welcome), they’ve got fuck all experience in developing the working of the law in any field. They ain’t top-drawer. Their FAQ includes questions such as “Do I have a genuine claim?” (answer: every claim is different), “How long will the claim take to settle?” (same answer), and “How much compensation will I get?” (answer: use the compensation calculator).

      Not sure if they’re one of those firms that advertises on billboards – does someone know?

      It’s a bit odd that McAlpine has gone to such a firm. He can afford better, surely?

      Their head honcho is Andrew Reid. He graduated from Queens University in Belfast, and a few years ago when he was a partner at Fergusons, his particular interests were “property development and conveyancing.” Conveyancing??? No Rumpole of the fucking Bailey there!

      The barristers they’re using, at One Brick Court, are much more formidable. though. Head guy is Andrew Caldecott. Former members have included Appeal Court judges.

      But back to RMPI. Have a look at that big photo they use in the big advert they put at the top of most of their webpages. The double-stripe tie the guy’s wearing – looks almost HARROVIAN to me! Ha! 🙂

      I guess a funny handshake can get them a meeting with plod and some reports in the newspapers about the meeting. The experts are having a ‘scope’.

      To win using the Malicious Communications Act, prosecutors would have to show that the senders intended to cause offence to someone to whom they intended the message to be communicated. (They could also win by showing the senders believed the info to be false, or were making threats, but I don’t reckon that would be a goer.) Sounds like bullshit.

      <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127"Section 127 of the Communications Act might be more the thing. But have a look here:

      in a case that seens to have turned on the interpretation of s127,

      “an appeal court saw sense and conceded that ‘a message which does not create fear or apprehension in those to whom it is communicated, or who may reasonably be expected to see it, falls outside this provision [of the 2003 Act]'”

      So what McAlpine had seen written about himself in the past, and what he did or didn’t do in response, are relevant issues.

      My appraisal: he wouldn’t have a fucking chance, without state backing.

      • b

        Untangled version of my last bit above:

        Section 127 of the Communications Act might be more the thing. But have a look here:

        in a case that seens to have turned on the interpretation of s127,

        an appeal court saw sense and conceded that ‘a message which does not create fear or apprehension in those to whom it is communicated, or who may reasonably be expected to see it, falls outside this provision (of the 2003 Act)‘

        So what McAlpine had seen written about himself in the past, and what he did or didn’t do in response, are relevant issues. A defendant could argue that he should be allowed to raise these,because otherwise how can he challenge the prosecution’s case saying he’d caused the Lord to become afraid or apprehensive? If the Lord had heard it all before, and was aware that the allegations had been widely distributed both on the internet and in bookshops, and he had treated it like water off a duck’s back, what made him become all afraid or apprehensive several years later? What evidence is there that he did? Get it brought to court. Call other evidence to rebut it. Oh fucking dear.

        My appraisal: he wouldn’t have a fucking chance – not without state backing.

  2. Greg

    This country is a SHITHOLE run by, and for, RICH TURDS.

    Good epitaph might have that on my grave.

    “Accumulation of wealth at one pole is at the same time accumulation of misery, torment, slavery, brutalization and moral degradation at the other…”

    Anyway, were we talking about bishops ? Well I think their should be women bishops -even take it further, there could be monkey bishops or dog bishops. I’d go to church to see that.

    sorry I have bene drinking

    • b

      So Savile belonged to the Athenaeum!! And the Torygraph are blaming his election to membership on…the late Cardinal Hume, who is conveniently dead. And one ‘grandee’ says they had no choice but to let him in, because that’s what Hume wanted. What a load of old shit! (BTW will I get hung drawn and quartered, keelhauled, whatever, for calling a rich person a lying cunt even if he’s anonymous and I don’t know his name?)

      Mr Anonymous (or is it Lord Anonymous?), the lying rich cunt quoted by the Torygraph, says ““It was Cardinal Basil Hume, at the time the Archbishop of Westminster, who put this character up for membership, and, while we did give consideration to blackballing Savile, we knew that would have had to result in something that could not be countenanced – Hume stepping down.”

      So Hume owned the Athenaeum, right, and so completely that he could tell them to shove their blackballing system (according to which, if even one member opposes accepting someone as a new member, anonymously, they don’t accept him) up their crapholes? Believe that, and you’ll believe anything.

      But……….can anyone think of one particular friend of Savile, from one particular famous family, who might have that power?

      And even backed by such a royal personage, what might Savile have given the in clique at the Athenaeum in return?

      • The Yorkshire Post reported in 2005; “Pupils at a leading Roman Catholic school suffered decades of abuse from at least six pedophiles following a decision by former Abbot Basil Hume not to call in police at the beginning of the scandal.”…
        With a hush-hush here and a hush-hush there, here a hush, there a hush….
        I expect the good Archbishop is cavorting with Sir Jimmy Savile the Papal Knight in their imaginary heaven having been forgiven all their very real sins.

  3. b

    I remember when the Athenaeumites’ political party booted out the gangster Michael Howard from the leadership. Almost every leading Tory MP said they supported him, and then oddly he lost the vote. Something about Tories and balls in bags… And that’s how the system is supposed to work. The line that Hume would have flounced out of the club if even one black ball had been found in the bag for Savile – in other words he took a ‘fuck the lot of you’ attitude, at the Athenaeum!!! – is ridiculous! I smell the royal family here, but I can believe Hume was involved in formally proposing him.

    Which club was it where the Tory scum stood in the doorway and pelted the Jarrow marchers with bread rolls? I think it was one of the others on Piccadilly.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s