• Welcome to DOSBODS

     

    DOSBODS is free of any advertising.

    Ads are annoying, and - increasingly - advertising companies limit free speech online. DOSBODS Forums are completely free to use. Please create a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

     

Sign in to follow this  
spunko

James Bulger killer and High Court

Recommended Posts

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6631515/Shameless-star-Tina-Malone-summonsed-appear-High-Court.html

Actress Tina Malone could face two years in jail for re-tweeting photo of 'James Bulger's killer Jon Venables'

  • Tina Malone revealed on Facebook she had been served papers by High Court

 

Silly woman. Her ignorance that she isn't "au fait" with the law - not really a valid defence, suspect she'll get a suspended sentence. Interesting development nonetheless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, ignorance of the law is no defense and can never be so.

I can completely understand that people would share the photo without any realisation they were breaking the law. Mitigation may be in the form of if she was asked to remove the photo and complied (or maybe didn't).

Many will be shocked by this and see it as the law being used to protect a nasty and evil person. But that's how it has to be, the law has to be applied equally to poor, rich, smart, dumb, white, black, religious, atheist, kind or cruel.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, null; said:

Yes, ignorance of the law is no defense and can never be so.

I can completely understand that people would share the photo without any realisation they were breaking the law. Mitigation may be in the form of if she was asked to remove the photo and complied (or maybe didn't).

Many will be shocked by this and see it as the law being used to protect a nasty and evil person. But that's how it has to be, the law has to be applied equally to poor, rich, smart, dumb, white, black, religious, atheist, kind or cruel.

 

Thank god I'd just got my sandwich and coffee down in time! The laptop screen would have been a right mess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Democorruptcy said:

Thank god I'd just got my sandwich and coffee down in time! The laptop screen would have been a right mess.

Not clear on your line of thinking on this, but I'll just add, I'm saying that the law should be applied equally, not that it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, null; said:

Not clear on your line of thinking on this, but I'll just add, I'm saying that the law should be applied equally, not that it is.

Sorry, I thought you meant it is applied equally. I just remember reading something once or a million times, that made me think it wasn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Democorruptcy said:

Sorry, I thought you meant it is applied equally. I just remember reading something once or a million times, that made me think it wasn't.

Cool, thought that was your thinking and realised my post could have been clearer in that respect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, spunko said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6631515/Shameless-star-Tina-Malone-summonsed-appear-High-Court.html

Actress Tina Malone could face two years in jail for re-tweeting photo of 'James Bulger's killer Jon Venables'

  • Tina Malone revealed on Facebook she had been served papers by High Court

 

Silly woman. Her ignorance that she isn't "au fait" with the law - not really a valid defence, suspect she'll get a suspended sentence. Interesting development nonetheless.

Exhibit no. 5765490876 of why celebrities and Twitter don't mix.

Especially not very smart ones.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that 'ignorance of the law' is often talked about - not least by me - but it is also worth pointing out that the law is considered so complex that not only do legal professionals earn some of the highest sums in the country, but they have an elite club at the top of the profession via which you can only do the job.

Just saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The Masked Tulip said:

I know that 'ignorance of the law' is often talked about - not least by me - but it is also worth pointing out that the law is considered so complex that not only do legal professionals earn some of the highest sums in the country, but they have an elite club at the top of the profession via which you can only do the job.

Just saying.

True, but this example was pretty clear-cut. She would have known it was a bad idea and risked a legal bollocking at the very least.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The worldwide injunction bans any images or information relating to their identities being published or shared online.

Thats wroong.

UK law stops in the mid atlantic, or best Europe wide.

Despite the harumping and claims otherwise, anyone could have posted piccies on a web server in iceland or the arseend of nowhere.

 

 

Edited by spygirl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect she thought that there was safety in numbers and that because she's mates with the Bulger mum she'd be immune. I'm sure a lot of people have seen 'that' purported photo - no idea if it's real or not - but can understand why the lawyers want to make an example of her rather than some Joe Bloggs as she's at least semi-famous.

 

Just now, Democorruptcy said:

Oscar Wilde:

"There is only one thing in life worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about"

The jungle or ballroom beckons now after this  mistake?
 

Yes, I thought that. It does seem rather self-promotional but then I am a big cynic. As it says in the article she's friends with the Bulger mum - not a huge fan of her either but I'll keep my opinions on her to myself as I know this case makes people froth easily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, The Masked Tulip said:

I know that 'ignorance of the law' is often talked about - not least by me - but it is also worth pointing out that the law is considered so complex that not only do legal professionals earn some of the highest sums in the country, but they have an elite club at the top of the profession via which you can only do the job.

Just saying.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.  

It doesn't make much sense for the reasons you mention.  It's a backstop principle so that people can't always be let off a charge by saying they didn't know the law.  It's a simple principle that saves the judiciary money and indeed probably helps the judiciary to create more income.  

Like with so many other things there must be a better way but I suppose it works to some extent.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, twocents said:

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.  

It doesn't make much sense for the reasons you mention.  It's a backstop principle so that people can't always be let off a charge by saying they didn't know the law.  It's a simple principle that saves the judiciary money and indeed probably helps the judiciary to create more income.  

Like with so many other things there must be a better way but I suppose it works to some extent.   

Depends what it is, I can't see many people being in favour of a man or woman being let off for raping a child because they "didn't know" it was against the law. Unless there's diminished responsibility etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, spygirl said:

The worldwide injunction bans any images or information relating to their identities being published or shared online.

Thats wroong.

UK law stops in the mid atlantic, or best Europe wide.

Despite the harumping and claims otherwise, anyone could have posted piccies on a web server in iceland or the arseend of nowhere.

 

 

Indeed.  Unless they've sneaked in a new globalist law without telling anyone.  That sort of thing doesn't seem to be unknown now - how many people knew of the new treaty about merging France and Germany until reading about it on this forum.

If there aren't worldwide injunctions already I bet they would like there to be and have aspirational plans for it.

Edited by twocents

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, spunko said:

Depends what it is, I can't see many people being in favour of a man or woman being let off for raping a child because they "didn't know" it was against the law. Unless there's diminished responsibility etc.

Indeed some things are clearly wrong and against the law - although we already know that some places around the world seem to view differently what would be considered a blatantly serious offence in the west - not necessarily the crime you mention.  Indeed hasn't that defence been attempted by some from overseas committing serious offences in Britain at least as a mitigating factor. 

Ignorance of the law is no excuse is a backstop when things aren't so clear - for example there are plenty of instances when a law is just a bureaucratic rule which isn't an obvious one.  

Edited by twocents

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When my bank changes its T&Cs it emails me with what’s changing. I don’t think I’ve ever had one from the Ministry of Justice to let me know what laws are changing, or giving me the option of opting out of the changes. Perhaps I just haven’t ticked the right box.

If they can’t explain the new law in a simple way that a typical member of the public can understand then they can’t expect people to obey it.

Edited by Wheeler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, null; said:

Yes, ignorance of the law is no defense and can never be so.

I can completely understand that people would share the photo without any realisation they were breaking the law. Mitigation may be in the form of if she was asked to remove the photo and complied (or maybe didn't).

Many will be shocked by this and see it as the law being used to protect a nasty and evil person. But that's how it has to be, the law has to be applied equally to poor, rich, smart, dumb, white, black, religious, atheist, kind or cruel.

 

While it may be no excuse. In reality one possibly cannot know all laws. Even the finest legal minds dispute elements of laws. It is just too complex, mostly on purpose. 

The bloke deserves a bullet he is beyond repair.

The other one though seems to have led a normal life. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, spunko said:

Yes, I thought that. It does seem rather self-promotional but then I am a big cynic. As it says in the article she's friends with the Bulger mum - not a huge fan of her either but I'll keep my opinions on her to myself as I know this case makes people froth easily.

I know exactly what you mean spunkers. Look at Stephen Lawrence's mum - she's now a peer in the house of Lords FFS. I really am sorry about the loss of your child and justice should prevail. But for you to gain financially in ways you could only of dreamt of before the murder... That's just wrong.

But no one beats the McCann's...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, null; said:

Yes, ignorance of the law is no defense and can never be so.

I can completely understand that people would share the photo without any realisation they were breaking the law. Mitigation may be in the form of if she was asked to remove the photo and complied (or maybe didn't).

Many will be shocked by this and see it as the law being used to protect a nasty and evil person. But that's how it has to be, the law has to be applied equally to poor, rich, smart, dumb, white, black, religious, atheist, kind or cruel.

 

But - there have been multiple cases in the UK in the past 5 years (and across europe) where ignorance of the law HAS been used in mitigation where migrants have had sexual emergencies  If I was her defence lawyer I would be using every single one of those cases in court to show precedent.  With a jury trial she'd get a lot of sympathy (and exposure)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, wherebee said:

But - there have been multiple cases in the UK in the past 5 years (and across europe) where ignorance of the law HAS been used in mitigation where migrants have had sexual emergencies  If I was her defence lawyer I would be using every single one of those cases in court to show precedent.  With a jury trial she'd get a lot of sympathy (and exposure)

Yes, it can be used as mitigation, but not defence. It's something for the judge to consider when deciding the sentence but makes no difference to the decision on guilt.

I'm not aware of any case where someone has been found not guilty on the basis of not understanding the law.

As we all know, its not a perfect system, but to date no one has managed to come up with something better.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, null; said:

Yes, it can be used as mitigation, but not defence. It's something for the judge to consider when deciding the sentence but makes no difference to the decision on guilt.

I'm not aware of any case where someone has been found not guilty on the basis of not understanding the law.

As we all know, its not a perfect system, but to date no one has managed to come up with something better.

 

There have been several cases.  I can;t be arsed to dig them out, but they have been covered on here before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, wherebee said:

There have been several cases.  I can;t be arsed to dig them out, but they have been covered on here before.

Well, if you or anyone else can be arsed to find an example, I would be interested to know.

I could be arsed to search for the sexual emergency case. Firstly, it was in Germany (unless there was another case in the UK?) and I could find no mention of him not knowing the law being the reason the sentence was overturned (he was found guilty initially). The reason it was overturned was because of it not having being proved that the migrant was aware the child did not consent, this being the difference between sexual abuse and rape.

I'll mention one other thing here, don't confuse 'not guilty' with 'innocent'. And on occasions it works the other way as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.