Tuesday, April 04, 2006

defiant blogger chickens out - kind of


The offending blogger who posted on the Louise Nicholas case has taken her contemptous posts down on both her sites . Her reasoning?
"I would take these posts down if there was any chance it could make things [better] for Louise Nicholas, or anyone else who was trying to get justice.

I now believe there is a possibility that this might be the case, so I have taken the comments down.It's not a decision I made easily."

Rubbish! It was an easy decision, and a decision made after multiple bloggers pointed out the contemptious posts, warning that she`d get into trouble. It doesn`t help when you are being investigated by the Police, either, and I have heard that at least one blogger is being investigated by police.

David Farrar, on Breakast TV this morning commented on the blog without naming or identifying it, and said he had never seen anything so blatant in terms of contemptious posts, and I`d agree with him.

Trouble is, she hasn't taken down enough comments so I cannot even link to her site as I`d still be breaking suppression orders.

What's the point of deleting posts, but not all contemptous comments?

Blatant disregard for court suppression is a little different than, say,pointing out the drop in Charlies share prices prior to the lifting of suppression of Mark Ellis, after he was busted for drugs - or commenting on the CHP policy after Capills appearance in court.

Buit whether it is blatant or not, it is still against the law and all contemptious comments shold be deleted.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hey,Dave,when you say against the law,do you mean the same law that just let these rapist go,.someone in the know.

Dave said...

No different law actually - one is contempt of court, the other is the law of natural justice...

Anonymous said...

Inasmuch as I understand what the suppressed details pertaining to the Rickards, Shipton and Schollum case (n.b. not the 'Louise Nicolas Trial', as it has often been referred to...) were I am utterly astounded that these facts could have ever been deemed inadmissible to a court in this country. In fact, a procedural self-contradiction seems to have been effected with the suppression of thse facts. In the wake of thse events I would say it is a citizen's duty to be in contempt of court.

Anonymous said...

Incidentally, while I get slightly hung up on semantics, did anyone else catch the extraordinary Freudian slip Rickards kept on committing throughout the trial? I mean his constant reference to Nicholas as 'the victim' rather than 'the plaintiff'...