Friday, April 07, 2006

suppression and contempt: Police say you won't be charged


This post has been updated
Okay lawbreakers, post away*. Post anything you like on any Internet site about the Louise Nicholas case. Email anyone - even me. You will be breaking the law if the information has been suppressed, but only if the recipient is not aware of the suppressed information disclosed. However you are not likely to be either charged or prosecuted for breach of suppression or even contempt.

That I have been told from the police today.

update It is my view that the police made a conscious decision from a high level not to prosecute, just "investigate", and "put on file" from day one. Now the police is saying that it did not prosecute because 10,000 others are spreading suppressed info via email and the Internet. What utter rubbish.

Had police done its job properly and acted promptly, arresting and charging the initial offenders when they spoke to them instead of "warning" them, like they did with Helen Clark and Labour's pledge cards, contempt may not have been widespread.

If the judge decides to lift suppression - and he may as well - it will not be the activists fault - it will be the fault of the police farce for not doing its job. The weaird thing is, that if I knew that everyone who has visited this blog knew of the suppressed information, I could legally publish it as I would not be saying anything new from a readership point of view. But I am sure that even 99 percent of the hundreds of people who have visited this blog every day this week are aware of all the information I could post. That, and that alone, is the only reason why I am not revealing the suppressed information.

*PS, no don't break the law. It is still wise not to be an idiot, and distribute suppressed info and be in contempt of court. The police may change it's mind,(heh). So may the judge who imposed the suppression order in the first place, thanks to certain idiots who remain nameless.

PPS. Feel free to read the rest of the posts on this issue

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Well Doh! Of course they/we won't be prosecuted!
as *if* the poice seriously have the resources to go after every anonymous blogger hosted on OS ISPs ...I mean really.
I wouldn't be surprised if quite a few police themselves believe Shipton Rickards and Scholum are just lowlife scum who give their occupation a bad name anyway.
After all,,, didn't a couple of plain-clothed police dish a bit more dirt directly to the ladies giving out the pamphlets on the first day they gave them out???

Murray said...

No idiot, if the police had imediately arrested those publicly handing out the information then it would have sent a clear message that such action would not be tolerated.

Instead their pro-feminaze approch simply made it clear it was open season and men are not entitled to a fair trial in this country.

What are you going to do when a wmoans history of sexual promiscuity is suppressed but every arsehole with a keyboard decides to share it with world during a rape trail?

Does that suit your agenda?

Didn't think so.

No principles, all agenda. You all think the law is some minor inconvience made to be ignored when doesn't suit you.

Helen Clarks true legacy.

chuck said...

Dave

I would suggest you and other readers of you blogr check out

http://capitalismbad.blogspot.com

Second most misogynist man in Wellington

Maia who runs the blog admitted that she is a lesbian.

Do you think the reason she was not prosecuted was that she has friends in high places?