Advice is what we seek when we already know the answer - but wish we didn't
I'd rather have a full bottle in front of me than a full-frontal lobotomy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ kirkstaller wrote: "All DNA shows is that we have a common creator."
cod'ead wrote: "I have just snotted weissbier all over my keyboard & screen"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "No amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin." - Aneurin Bevan
I wonder whether being compelled to name names might leave Mulcaire open to being sued for breach of any confidentiality agreement he may have signed in order to get his legal fees paid?
I thought his legal fees were only in respect of any criminal proceedings against him. This seems to centre around civil proceedings
I would have thought that a court order would take precedence over any contractual agreement and render it void.
AFAIK - I'm sure the lawyers on here will correct me if I'm wrong - no contract my bind it's parties to an unlawful act. Disobeying a court order would be an unlawful act. Therefore …
I thought his legal fees were only in respect of any criminal proceedings against him. This seems to centre around civil proceedings
No. As I said earlier in the thread, Mulcaire has won his case against News group newspapers that NGN must indemnify him in respect of the costs and damages arising from litigation to which they were jointly sued, on the terms contained in an indemnity letter.
An indemnity against civil or criminal liability resulting from the deliberate commission of a crime would certainly not be enforceable by a criminal, but that did not apply to subsequent agreements in relation to civil proceedings arising out of the criminal conduct. So NGN's indemnity to Mulcaire was not void as contrary to public policy. The court declared that there was a valid contract of indemnity which had not been determined and was still subsisting, so if he is ordered to pay, they pay it.
On the other point, you could clearly not commit a civil wrong by obeying an order of the court. In this instance, it's the perfect Nuremberg defence.
Advice is what we seek when we already know the answer - but wish we didn't
I'd rather have a full bottle in front of me than a full-frontal lobotomy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ kirkstaller wrote: "All DNA shows is that we have a common creator."
cod'ead wrote: "I have just snotted weissbier all over my keyboard & screen"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "No amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin." - Aneurin Bevan
NI's MSC has been busy handing over incriminating evidence to the Met, including one expense claim that read "£500 to pay a police officer". What's the betting that, once again, the foot soldiers take the brunt of any sanctions and the management who presided over the whole sorry mess, escape scot free?
NI's MSC has been busy handing over incriminating evidence to the Met, including one expense claim that read "£500 to pay a police officer". What's the betting that, once again, the foot soldiers take the brunt of any sanctions and the management who presided over the whole sorry mess, escape scot free?
NI's MSC has been busy handing over incriminating evidence to the Met, including one expense claim that read "£500 to pay a police officer". What's the betting that, once again, the foot soldiers take the brunt of any sanctions and the management who presided over the whole sorry mess, escape scot free?
I think the handing over of sacrificial victims as a policy is pretty clear. Right up to some quite senior people, it seems.
NI's MSC has been busy handing over incriminating evidence to the Met, including one expense claim that read "£500 to pay a police officer". What's the betting that, once again, the foot soldiers take the brunt of any sanctions and the management who presided over the whole sorry mess, escape scot free?
I think the handing over of sacrificial victims as a policy is pretty clear. Right up to some quite senior people, it seems.
Advice is what we seek when we already know the answer - but wish we didn't
I'd rather have a full bottle in front of me than a full-frontal lobotomy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ kirkstaller wrote: "All DNA shows is that we have a common creator."
cod'ead wrote: "I have just snotted weissbier all over my keyboard & screen"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "No amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin." - Aneurin Bevan
"Yet in what would at any other time cause uproar in Parliament and among civil liberty and human rights campaigners, its journalists are being treated like members of an organised crime gang. "
Well stop acting like an organised criminal gang then. When don Rupo Murdochoni flies in, you lot had best get the KY ready for a right royal shafting. Even that little schoolkid Dominic Mohan thinks it won't be long before he gets his collar felt.
I was nearly sick when I read that rant (can't call it an article). I wonder if anyone has any sypmathy for them?
Well, 'Trevor Kavanagh' is trending on Twitter, so you can find lots of responses – some of which think he's brill and what he said is superb.
I'm currently having a 'debate' with one idiot who started by tweeting at me that Tom Watson isn't an MP.
Now, people are entirely within their rights not to like Watson – or any other MP – but to claim he isn't an MP because you don't like him or what he has campaigned on is just stupidity.
The same twerp then announced that Watson et al don't care about preventing terrorism because a few police have apparently been transferred from such duty to this case.
And were this not evidence enough of idiocy, added that people like me and Watson are corrupt because we're more interested in who is accused of being corrupt than in the corruption.
Oh, it just gets better: my cretinous little defender of the Sun has now announced that my describing his comments as "crass claims" is an insult on a par with calling someone a "fat tw @t". And then called me exactly that.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 53 guests
REPLY
Please note using apple style emoji's can result in posting failures.
Use the FULL EDITOR to better format content or upload images, be notified of replies etc...