oldace Posted October 11, 2013 Report Share Posted October 11, 2013 I am not Posting anything about this until the FULL facts are known and the Verdict given to the Court by the Jury. Not actually posting anything is usually enough for people to know you are not posting anything. You don't really need to make a post announcing that you are not posting anything 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The White Knight Posted October 11, 2013 Report Share Posted October 11, 2013 Not actually posting anything is usually enough for people to know you are not posting anything. You don't really need to make a post announcing that you are not posting anything No - and you don't have to reply to it either. :rofl: I Posted as I did as I was attempting to back up the stance that the Mods had taken. That is the way it was meant. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nw42 Posted October 11, 2013 Report Share Posted October 11, 2013 (edited) Not actually posting anything is usually enough for people to know you are not posting anything. You don't really need to make a post announcing that you are not posting anything Fair point but what about those of us who may have missed the fact that he wasn't posting, surely we deserve to know that he's not posting. I for one only became aware that he wasn't posting when he said as much edit, he's posting again now Edited October 11, 2013 by nw42 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The White Knight Posted October 11, 2013 Report Share Posted October 11, 2013 Fair point but what about those of us who may have missed the fact that he wasn't posting, surely we deserve to know that he's not posting. I for one only became aware that he wasn't posting when he said as much Eeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. :unsure: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldace Posted October 11, 2013 Report Share Posted October 11, 2013 Fair point but what about those of us who may have missed the fact that he wasn't posting, surely we deserve to know that he's not posting. I for one only became aware that he wasn't posting when he said as much edit, he's posting again now I know he is, and he didn't even make a post announcing that he was going to be posting. The forums going to the dogs. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mudflaps Posted October 11, 2013 Report Share Posted October 11, 2013 I have met and chatted with Michael on several occasions and found him a quiet, knowledgeable and decent guy. I hope he is proven to be found innocent of all charges Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LagutaRacingFan Posted October 11, 2013 Report Share Posted October 11, 2013 Why is this thread still open. It's basically inviting some fool to post a libelous comment. How can you have a discussion about this topic without knowing any of the facts. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Leslie Posted October 11, 2013 Report Share Posted October 11, 2013 It's basically inviting some fool to post a libelous comment. Go on then 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E I Addio Posted October 11, 2013 Report Share Posted October 11, 2013 Load of bunkum being posted by the barrack-room lawyers on here Nobody has posted any facts that prejudice the case. If they do the mods will remove them. Until then we have freedom of speech in this country and are entitled to discuss the fact that it is indeed an unhappy episode in his life, and there have been other unhappy episodes, none of which are relevant to this case and therefore discussing them doesn't prejudice it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Stadia Posted October 11, 2013 Report Share Posted October 11, 2013 Load of bunkum being posted by the barrack-room lawyers on here Nobody has posted any facts that prejudice the case. If they do the mods will remove them. Until then we have freedom of speech in this country and are entitled to discuss the fact that it is indeed an unhappy episode in his life, and there have been other unhappy episodes, none of which are relevant to this case and therefore discussing them doesn't prejudice it. I understand, allegedly, Michael Lee stole 3 black jacks from his local sweet shop, when he was 7 years old. I hope the black jack theft won't come back and haunt him! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The White Knight Posted October 11, 2013 Report Share Posted October 11, 2013 Load of bunkum being posted by the barrack-room lawyers on here Nobody has posted any facts that prejudice the case. If they do the mods will remove them. Until then we have freedom of speech in this country and are entitled to discuss the fact that it is indeed an unhappy episode in his life, and there have been other unhappy episodes, none of which are relevant to this case and therefore discussing them doesn't prejudice it. You could be wrong about that E I Addio. Isn't there something in Law that states - Previous Convictions are NOT to be taken in to account or even mentioned until AFTER the Jury has pronounced it's Verdict in a Trial? This is done so as not to prejudice the Jury. Mentioning them on here could therefore prejudice the Jury should any one of them read about it on here. A Billion to One chance I admit - but - it IS possible. I understand, allegedly, Michael Lee stole 3 black jacks from his local sweet shop, when he was 7 years old. I hope the black jack theft won't come back and haunt him! COR!!! Black Jacks - I loved them. :approve: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Leslie Posted October 11, 2013 Report Share Posted October 11, 2013 Black Jacks - I loved them. :approve: I believe we are supposed to call them "Ethnic minority Jacks" now in the new all P.C. forum. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blazeaway Posted October 11, 2013 Report Share Posted October 11, 2013 I know he is, and he didn't even make a post announcing that he was going to be posting. The forums going to the dogs. I blame the Islams... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemini Posted October 11, 2013 Report Share Posted October 11, 2013 Why? I blame Matt Ford. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The White Knight Posted October 11, 2013 Report Share Posted October 11, 2013 I believe we are supposed to call them "Ethnic minority Jacks" now in the new all P.C. forum. CLASSIC!!! You are right JL. I blame the Islams... I don't say this often Blazeaway - BUT - you are right too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E I Addio Posted October 11, 2013 Report Share Posted October 11, 2013 You could be wrong about that E I Addio. Isn't there something in Law that states - Previous Convictions are NOT to be taken in to account or even mentioned until AFTER the Jury has pronounced it's Verdict in a Trial? This is done so as not to prejudice the Jury. Mentioning them on here could therefore prejudice the Jury should any one of them read about it on here. A Billion to One chance I admit - but - it IS possible. Lees previous convictions are in the public domain. Most speedway fans know about them anyway and its highly unlikely that a non-speedway fan will be looking on here. The jury system is very robust and you can't stop others talking about a case. Nobody is suggesting he has any relevant previous history of similar offences/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Leslie Posted October 11, 2013 Report Share Posted October 11, 2013 Why? I blame Matt Ford. I don't blame anybody. It's what all the young kids are doing these days 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E I Addio Posted October 11, 2013 Report Share Posted October 11, 2013 I believe we are supposed to call them "Ethnic minority Jacks" now in the new all P.C. forum. Whats wrong with "Ethnic Minority Jacks and Jills" you bigoted misogynist? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Leslie Posted October 11, 2013 Report Share Posted October 11, 2013 Whats wrong with "Ethnic Minority Jacks and Jills" you bigoted misogynist? Why does it have to be a stereotypical "Jack & Jill"? Why can't it be Jack and Jeffrey if he feels that way inclined? #Homophobe! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nw42 Posted October 11, 2013 Report Share Posted October 11, 2013 Why does it have to be a stereotypical "Jack & Jill"? Why can't it be Jack and Jeffrey if he feels that way inclined? #Homophobe! The pair of you are a disgrace to the forum, why the names? 26 & I have been happy for years, we've never needed names, #tetraphobe! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.