You are so wet.
Tommy LOSES court case. __Thread Moved to GD__
- Thread starter gasbusters
- Start date
Sponsored Links
When did he attack someone while swimming?
B
Bodd
Says the wet girls blouse.
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 7 Oct 2006
- Messages
- 9,430
- Reaction score
- 4,018
- Country
I must be as the wet expert said so
Apparently there will now be a further hearing to 'consider the consequences of the judgement'.
I,m not sure what that's all about but the case seems a little strange. One of the main witnesses in court was an 18 year old girl (Charly Mathews) who was a 16 year old at the same school who claims Jamal Hijazi beat her across the back with a hockey stick causing lasting injuries.
If Robinson has been judged to have lied, by default this girl has lied in court and has to be charged with perjury.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Hijahzi-v-Yaxley-Lennon-judgment-220721.pdf
Last edited:
You're assuming that the judicial system works and all offences are prosecuted and result in a conviction.
You couldn't be more wrong.
The link (which doesn't deem to work but copy it and paste it into your browser) details all the evidence, which evidence was not accepted and why. It's an interesting read.
It does seem to back up the assertion that young Hijhazi was a little bit rough with the girls and younger pupils, and was prone to carrying a screwdriver (and possibly a knife) in his school bag.
Copy and paste does not work, either.............
C
Captain Nemesis
Was that post meant for somewhere else?
C
Captain Nemesis
More interesting than you wish.
Not had a chance to check that yet but...
It absolutely does not back that up.
Not in the slightest.
WOE made you think you would get away with a lie like that?
(4) The Claimant’s alleged possession of a screwdriver and/or a knife 85. The Defendant has advanced this allegation solely on the basis of an entry in the minutes of a meeting at the School, on 9 November 2018. During the meeting, the Claimant’s father complained of several incidents of bullying against his son. The minutes recorded the following words attributed by the Claimant’s father in the meeting: “Jamal was told to go to the House Office to check he had anything sharp in his bag. A knife and a screwdriver were found. Jamal said they were not his. School did not take any precautions.” 86. In their evidence, both the Claimant and his father explained what had happened. The Claimant said that, at the end of a PE lesson, he found a small silver screwdriver in his bag. It was not his, and he believed that it had been put there by someone else. He reported what he had found to his head of house, who had told him not to worry and that it would be sorted out. The Claimant took the screwdriver home and showed it to his father, telling him what happened. Jamal said that his head of house later told him that he had identified the person involved and had punished him. He did not tell the Claimant who it was. The Claimant’s father had raised the issue at the meeting because he was concerned that the screwdriver had not been confiscated by the School and that the Claimant had been allowed to keep it and bring it home. Cross-examined by the Defendant, the Claimant’s father was adamant that there was only a screwdriver; there was no knife
Of course this is a separate matter to the 'stabbing hands with a compass' incident.
(3) The alleged incidents of the Claimant stabbing a pupil with a sharp-pointed object 80. The Defendant relies upon two incidents: i) An occasion, recorded in an incident report dated 20 September 2017, when the Claimant was joking around with other pupils, slapping hands together with a sharp object placed between his fingers. ii) The occasion alleged by MVY (see [53] above), in which MVY claims that the Claimant used a compass to stab the hands of some 5 pupils including MVY. 81. In respect of the first occasion, the incident report contains what the Claimant told the teacher, who completed the report, as follows: “Nothing has happened. I was just joking with [redacted]. We just tapped fists to say ‘hi’. Jamal admitted to me that he had a board pin, from the library, in between his fingers pointing towards [redacted] when he ‘tapped hands’. The pin has resulted in a stab mark on the back of [redacted’s] hand.” There are also two further entries in other incident reports from the other pupils involved that corroborate what is recorded in the teacher’s report
It does clearly say:
"The Court’s decision on the defence of truth
10. The Court found that the Defendant had failed to prove each of the seven incidents
upon which he had relied for his defence of truth [55]-[148]. In consequence, the
Defendant’s defence of truth failed.
“The Defendant took on the burden of proving his allegations to be true. He failed. In reality…
his evidence fell woefully short.” [163]"
It does clearly state that John, but bearing in mind many of the incidents are recorded in minutes of meetings and school records, plus sworn evidence from victims in court, I just find that a bit surprising don't you?
Look, we all know what Yaxley-Lennon is and what he stands for, I think that's influenced the verdict in this case, it shouldn't. The case isn't about whether or not he's a racist, it's about defamation, reading the evidence, I don't think there was a case to answer.
Maybe a legal eagle could give us their opinion.
Sponsored Links
