MCP quoted the article:
> http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=4112058
>
> By John Aston, PA News
>
> A Fathers 4 Justice campaigner today angrily refused to defend
himself
> against moves by the Attorney General to punish him for revealing
full
> details of a private county court judgment relating to contact with
his son.

IOW, he told them to piss off.

[...]

> The Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith QC, says the 55-year-old, a
co-founder
> of the Campaign for Open Justice, named parties and published
"sensitive
> details" about family proceedings in breach of strict privacy laws.

You mean in breach of government censors.

> Lord Justice Laws, sitting with Mr Justice Pitchford, said full
reasons for
> the decision not to allow cross-examination would be given when the
court
> rules in the near future on whether or not Dr Pelling is guilty of
contempt.

Well that makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?  "We'll let you cross
examine witnesses after the verdict is read.  Aren't we generous?"

The decision to allow cross-examination shouldn't even be a decision.
That's like deciding wheher to allow .... free speech.

[...]

> Today, on the second day of the hearing, after an adjournment to
consider
> his position, a furious Dr Pelling told the court: "I am not
continuing with
> this case."

So polite, the English.  Translated to American English, this would
read, "You can all send me a postcard from hell."

> He told the judges: "You may proceed in due course to give whatever
judgment
> you wish to give.
>
> "I am quite happy to appear for sentence. It is not necessary to send
the
> tipstaff to arrest me."

Translation: Do your worst, assholes.

> Lord Justice Laws advised Dr Pelling that it would be in his best
interests
> to submit his defence and said the court had not yet come to any
conclusion
> about whether or not he was guilty of contempt.

As if Lord Injustice Laws has any concern whatsoever for the interests
of this backtalking, uppity father.

> But Dr Pelling refused to remain in court and the judge announced
that
> judgment would be given "in due course".

Yeah yeah.  I've got a course for you.

> Outside court he said: "The fundamental unfairness is that this is a
> criminal trial, but the court was not prepared to have the evidence
against
> me read out and reported in open court and exhibits made available
for
> public inspection.
>
> "The last straw was that I am not even going to be allowed to cross
examine
> my accusers."
>
> "The principle in criminal cases is that justice must be seen to be
done,
> and that is a fundamental human right."

This is why trials are supposed to be public.  Then the infallible
judges can't do anything they want.

[...]

> Despite Dr Pelling's objections, the judges ordered that details of
the Bow
> County Court judgment at the centre of the alleged contempt must not
be
> revealed in reports of today's hearing.

Translation: Open court not helpwise.  Thoughtpol say doubleplusungood.

[..]

> But the judges said there was no court order preventing the press and
media
> now identifying Dr Pelling's son, Alexander, now aged 14, who is a
King's
> scholar at Eton.

Way to go kid!  Despite their best efforts, Dad turned out a smart
young man after all.

> Andrew Caldecott QC, appearing for the Attorney General, argued that
the
> case raises important issues of principle.
>
> Privacy laws governing family cases - widely attacked by groups such
as
> Fathers 4 Justice - must be obeyed, even though they are
controversial, he
> said.

That's what they told Rosa Parks about the bus, massah.  But as MLK and
his colleages knew, some laws must not be obeyed.  They must be broken.

[...]



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/11/05 2:44:25 PM ---