Author Topic: A GENTLE REMINDER  (Read 5750 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

John

  • Guest
Re: A GENTLE REMINDER Updated!
« Reply #15 on: October 18, 2014, 02:47:PM »
Of course you would include Taff Jones in that comment, who has been called many things since?

Difficult without a doubt as he has been dead for over 20 years.

Offline ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4607
Re: A GENTLE REMINDER Updated!
« Reply #16 on: October 18, 2014, 03:12:PM »
I'm sure you will agree that any attempt to malign a Crown witness even after 28 years is a serious matter?  Does this extend to former senior police officers who were involved in the Bamber case and who now find themselves the subject of unwanted attention in their retirement?

In what way?  There is no difference between someone who has been a prosecution witness and any other person.  If they are defamed they have the right to sue for slander, or in the case of something on the internet, for libel.  If they have sufficient grounds they can obtain an injunction (now called a restraining order), damages and costs. 

I very much doubt if Julie Mugford will sue anyone for libel, for various reasons.


Mr. Gee

  • Guest
Re: A GENTLE REMINDER Updated!
« Reply #17 on: October 18, 2014, 03:15:PM »
In what way?  There is no difference between someone who has been a prosecution witness and any other person.  If they are defamed they have the right to sue for slander, or in the case of something on the internet, for libel.  If they have sufficient grounds they can obtain an injunction (now called a restraining order), damages and costs. 

I very much doubt if Julie Mugford will sue anyone for libel, for various reasons.
The main one possibly being the truth may come out? Nono I didn't say that. The divil made me do it. ;D

John

  • Guest
Re: A GENTLE REMINDER Updated!
« Reply #18 on: October 18, 2014, 03:16:PM »
In what way?  There is no difference between someone who has been a prosecution witness and any other person.  If they are defamed they have the right to sue for slander, or in the case of something on the internet, for libel.  If they have sufficient grounds they can obtain an injunction (now called a restraining order), damages and costs. 

I very much doubt if Julie Mugford will sue anyone for libel, for various reasons.

Is that your professional opinion as a member of the English bar?

John

  • Guest
Re: A GENTLE REMINDER Updated!
« Reply #19 on: October 18, 2014, 03:19:PM »
In what way?  There is no difference between someone who has been a prosecution witness and any other person.  If they are defamed they have the right to sue for slander, or in the case of something on the internet, for libel.  If they have sufficient grounds they can obtain an injunction (now called a restraining order), damages and costs. 

I very much doubt if Julie Mugford will sue anyone for libel, for various reasons.

So it is ok to malign Julie Mugford on here because she testified against Jeremy Bamber?  Are you really saying that?
« Last Edit: October 18, 2014, 03:20:PM by John »

Offline ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4607
Re: A GENTLE REMINDER Updated!
« Reply #20 on: October 18, 2014, 03:20:PM »
Is that your professional opinion as a member of the English bar?

It is my opinion.  What point are you trying to make?


John

  • Guest
Re: A GENTLE REMINDER Updated!
« Reply #21 on: October 18, 2014, 03:23:PM »
It is my opinion.  What point are you trying to make?

The point is very simple.  Jackie Preece is attempting to smear Julie Mugford by introducing recent personal events which have absolutely no relevance to or bearing on the WHF murders.  Julie has worked extremely hard over the last 28 years and achieved a position of great responsibility within the Canadian education system.  Cheap-shot attempts to slur her are shameless imo. 
« Last Edit: October 18, 2014, 03:27:PM by John »

Offline ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4607
Re: A GENTLE REMINDER Updated!
« Reply #22 on: October 18, 2014, 03:23:PM »
So it is ok to malign Julie Mugford on here because she testified against Jeremy Bamber?  Are you really saying that?

Any discussion about the case is likely to involve criticism of people involved in the case.  In the case of Julie Mugford even those who believe Jeremy Bamber to be guilty have strong criticisms of her conduct.  She does not come out of this well at all and it is perfectly permissable to express opinions on this.

Offline ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4607
Re: A GENTLE REMINDER Updated!
« Reply #23 on: October 18, 2014, 03:27:PM »
The point is very simple.  Jackie Preece is attempting to smear Julie Mugford by introducing recent personal events which have absolutely no relevance to the WHF murders.

I have already said that if anyone including Jackie Preece has any relevant information it should be posted, rather than hints being dropped which are liable to misinterpretation.  If anything is posted about people not connected with the case, such as Julie Mugford's husband and children, that will be removed.

 
« Last Edit: October 18, 2014, 03:38:PM by ngb1066 »

Offline ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4607
Re: A GENTLE REMINDER Updated!
« Reply #24 on: October 18, 2014, 03:31:PM »
The point is very simple.  Jackie Preece is attempting to smear Julie Mugford by introducing recent personal events which have absolutely no relevance to or bearing on the WHF murders.  Julie has worked extremely hard over the last 28 years and achieved a position of great responsibility within the Canadian education system.  Cheap-shot attempts to slur her are shameless imo.

If the Canadian authorities had known of the matters which have come to light about her conduct she would not have been allowed into Canada and would certainly not have been able to achieve a responsible position with the education system.  She was extremely lucky not to have been prosecuted for several serious criminal offences.

John

  • Guest
Re: A GENTLE REMINDER Updated!
« Reply #25 on: October 18, 2014, 03:35:PM »
If the Canadian authorities had known of the matters which have come to light about her conduct she would not have been allowed into Canada and would certainly not have been able to achieve a responsible position with the education system.  She was extremely lucky not to have been prosecuted for several serious criminal offences.

You cant honestly believe that for a moment?  Don't you realise she would have been assisted in her emigration by the witness protection programme.

Remind me, what crimes was she was convicted of?
« Last Edit: October 18, 2014, 03:38:PM by John »

Offline ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4607
Re: A GENTLE REMINDER Updated!
« Reply #26 on: October 18, 2014, 03:37:PM »
You cant honestly believe that for a moment?  Don't you realise she would have been assisted in her emigration by the witness protection programme.

I certainly do believe it.

I have never heard anything about her entering a witness protection programme.  What is your evidence for that?  Who was she being protected from - Jeremy Bamber was serving a life sentence!

« Last Edit: October 18, 2014, 03:40:PM by ngb1066 »

John

  • Guest
Re: A GENTLE REMINDER Updated!
« Reply #27 on: October 18, 2014, 03:39:PM »
I certtainly do believe it.

I have never heard anything about her entering a witness protection programme.  What is your evidence for that?  Who was she being protected from - Jeremy Bamber was serving a life sentence!

Why did she require a very public police escort during the trial?

Offline ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4607
Re: A GENTLE REMINDER Updated!
« Reply #28 on: October 18, 2014, 03:39:PM »

Remind me, what crimes was she was convicted of?

None, because she was given immunity from prosecution in return for giving evidence against Jeremy Bamber.


Offline ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4607
Re: A GENTLE REMINDER Updated!
« Reply #29 on: October 18, 2014, 03:41:PM »
Why did she require a very public police escort during the trial?

They were keeping her very close to them.  They wanted to make sure she stuck to her text.