Skip to main content

CTB and Identification

Here is a question. What is the public interest in identifying CTB?

The answer is very clear. Anyone who believes they have a legal right of access to Kelvin Mackenzie's emails should not be anonymous.

Similarly if they are going to hunt down and attempt to imprison people who tweet on twitter they should not do this anonymously.

Personally I believe that trying to get journalists emails is an anti-democratic action.

Comments

michelle said…
Well done!! what a farce - I am grateful that finally someone has had the sense to put an end to this. What a mockery this how fuss has madde of our judicial system and our country a laughing stock!! Now if we could just get rid of this stupid judge that has allowed this to continue I would be a lot happier - what an earth was he thinking, obviously Ryan Giggs senseless lawyers have been paid lots but what about the judge - can see no other reason for him being so bloody minded. Once again well done for finally putting this sorry story to bed (so to speak) now maybe we can have the important issues discussed.
Fergus said…
"Anyone who believes they have a legal right of access to Kelvin Mackenzie's emails should not be anonymous"

But presumably you think it's perfectly alright for tabloid newspapers to tap into celebrity mobile phones because it's in the 'public interest?"

Why not be honest and admit that you are an attention-seeking nonentity who is trying to garner publicity for yourself and a political party which the nation now knows is a pathetic excuse for one.
Jerry said…
So the basis of the elusive initials C.B.T actually stood for "Caution, Be careful, Twitter" the initials should now be changed on all future Hyper/Super injunctions to "CJH", As in "Caution, John Hemming", he is listening you know!!!!

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).

KING’S BENCH DIVISION

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

LORD HEWART CJ:
It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…