Despite clear *individual* illegal/unlawful behaviour. Behaviour that
would see anyone else of the c. 70,000,000 who live in the UK going to
jail. No one will be found guilty or culpable of anything.

Sorry - tell lies in court and go to jail.

Alternatively, how can I now be sure than any government agency that
happens to be in court isn't lying ? Remember you have lost the "it
couldn't happen" rationale.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0572v3j7dvo

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

Despite clear *individual* illegal/unlawful behaviour. Behaviour that
would see anyone else of the c. 70,000,000 who live in the UK going to
jail. No one will be found guilty or culpable of anything.

Sorry - tell lies in court and go to jail.

Alternatively, how can I now be sure than any government agency that
happens to be in court isn't lying ? Remember you have lost the "it
couldn't happen" rationale.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0572v3j7dvo

What’s the problem? People lie in court all the time. Some of them aren’t even judges.

We’ve all heard the tales of police peppering sleeping people, tazering quadriplegics, etc etc because the officers later played the ’afraid for their (own) lives’ card.

Oh! And those sorts of things weren’t going to happen because tazering was meant to be the last resort before opening fire.

Nope, nothing new to see here, move along…

--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

Despite clear *individual* illegal/unlawful behaviour. Behaviour that
would see anyone else of the c. 70,000,000 who live in the UK going to
jail. No one will be found guilty or culpable of anything.

Sorry - tell lies in court and go to jail.

Alternatively, how can I now be sure than any government agency that
happens to be in court isn't lying ? Remember you have lost the "it
couldn't happen" rationale.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0572v3j7dvo

Unless I’ve missed something, the initial ‘lie(s)’ were to the BBC, NOT to,
for example the police or an official ‘body’ investigating the individual in question.

The BBC’s history is far from impressive when it comes to the truth - especially investigating individuals. It has ‘history’ for covering up and, if not false accusations, certainly suggesting innocent people are up to something.

In the circumstances, perhaps MI5 simply decided to avoid them.

I am certainly not condoning covering up illegal activities, a most
certainly any of the type suggested, but the BBC would be near the bottom
of my list of trusted organisations to be involved in investigating them.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2025-07-02, Brian <noinv@lid.org> wrote:

Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

Despite clear *individual* illegal/unlawful behaviour. Behaviour that
would see anyone else of the c. 70,000,000 who live in the UK going to
jail. No one will be found guilty or culpable of anything.

Sorry - tell lies in court and go to jail.

Alternatively, how can I now be sure than any government agency that
happens to be in court isn't lying ? Remember you have lost the "it
couldn't happen" rationale.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0572v3j7dvo

Unless I’ve missed something, the initial ‘lie(s)’ were to the BBC, NOT to,
for example the police or an official ‘body’ investigating the individual in question.

You have missed something. The lies were to the courts, not to the BBC.

The BBC’s history is far from impressive when it comes to the truth - especially investigating individuals. It has ‘history’ for covering up and,
if not false accusations, certainly suggesting innocent people are up to something.

In the circumstances, perhaps MI5 simply decided to avoid them.

But they didn't avoid them, that's the whole point. If they had, none of
this would have happened. In fact they contacted them and told them that
the person was indeed an MI5 asset. You can disbelieve that if you like,
but it has been confirmed by multiple independent investigations.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8d6e4d8v8mo

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In message <mcl0evFhpkuU1@mid.individual.net>, Spike
<aero.spike@mail.com> writes

Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

Despite clear *individual* illegal/unlawful behaviour. Behaviour that
would see anyone else of the c. 70,000,000 who live in the UK going to
jail. No one will be found guilty or culpable of anything.

Sorry - tell lies in court and go to jail.

Alternatively, how can I now be sure than any government agency that
happens to be in court isn't lying ? Remember you have lost the "it
couldn't happen" rationale.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0572v3j7dvo

What’s the problem? People lie in court all the time. Some of them aren’t >even judges.

We’ve all heard the tales of police peppering sleeping people, tazering >quadriplegics, etc etc because the officers later played the ’afraid for >their (own) lives’ card.

Oh! And those sorts of things weren’t going to happen because tazering was >meant to be the last resort before opening fire.

Nope, nothing new to see here, move along…

From what you see in those 'cops versus villains' action programmes on
TV (notably on Channel 5) it's pretty obvious that tasers, while usually
not the first weapon of choice, is frequently far from the last.
--
Ian
Aims and ambitions are neither attainments nor achievements

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Ian Jackson" <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote in message news:wdZhhwB01maoFwNc@brattleho.plus.com...

From what you see in those 'cops versus villains' action programmes
on TV (notably on Channel 5) it's pretty obvious that tasers, while
usually not the first weapon of choice, is frequently far from the
last.

If you get a visible arc, they probably make for good TV.

They certainly do on "Mrs Brown's Boys"


bb

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 02 Jul 2025 14:32:49 +0000, Jethro_uk wrote:

Despite clear *individual* illegal/unlawful behaviour. Behaviour that
would see anyone else of the c. 70,000,000 who live in the UK going to
jail. No one will be found guilty or culpable of anything.

Sorry - tell lies in court and go to jail.

Alternatively, how can I now be sure than any government agency that
happens to be in court isn't lying ? Remember you have lost the "it
couldn't happen" rationale.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0572v3j7dvo

I am still standing by my prediction that no individual will be
convicted. Even if there were a possibility (there isn't) we will hear
that all our spies will go on strike if any of them has to face the law.
(See also: police officers).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3w4nwdwywno

But on Wednesday, the High Court ruled that these inquiries were
"deficient", ordering a new "robust" investigation. A panel of judges
said they would consider the issue of contempt of court proceedings
against individuals once that was complete.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message news:104e5ir$u00q$4@dont-email.me...

On Wed, 02 Jul 2025 14:32:49 +0000, Jethro_uk wrote:

Despite clear *individual* illegal/unlawful behaviour. Behaviour that
would see anyone else of the c. 70,000,000 who live in the UK going to
jail. No one will be found guilty or culpable of anything.

Sorry - tell lies in court and go to jail.

Alternatively, how can I now be sure than any government agency that
happens to be in court isn't lying ? Remember you have lost the "it
couldn't happen" rationale.

How could you ever be sure of that, following the Post Office Scandal ?

The most extensive Miscarriage of Justice in History ?

Who do you imagine ultimately owned the Post Office ?

And has anyone been convicted over that, yet ?

The only reason anyone is hearing about this - in the way they never
heard about the Post Office over decades, is simply because

*This is all about the BBC".

When they were told the attacker was an MI5 asset and so to back
off their "scoop", they simply refused.

Being simply to stupid to nail Jimmy Savill, when he'd been getting
away got with all sorts for decades, *under their very own noses*,
when this particular victim brought them her story, *on a plate*,
they simply refused to give it up.

In the real world, both the police and to a lesser extent the Security
Services can only ever hope to catch anyone *worth catching* by using informers. Which except in the case of major defectors, or supergrasses
is not by offering them large sums of cash, new identities etc; but
either by blackmailing them or losing evidence, which would
otherwise result in serious convictions.


bb

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0572v3j7dvo

I am still standing by my prediction that no individual will be
convicted. Even if there were a possibility (there isn't) we will hear
that all our spies will go on strike if any of them has to face the law.
(See also: police officers).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3w4nwdwywno

But on Wednesday, the High Court ruled that these inquiries were
"deficient", ordering a new "robust" investigation. A panel of judges
said they would consider the issue of contempt of court proceedings
against individuals once that was complete.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 06/07/2025 13:35, Ian Jackson wrote:

In message <mcl0evFhpkuU1@mid.individual.net>, Spike
<aero.spike@mail.com> writes

Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

Despite clear *individual* illegal/unlawful behaviour. Behaviour that
would see anyone else of the c. 70,000,000 who live in the UK going to
jail. No one will be found guilty or culpable of anything.

Sorry - tell lies in court and go to jail.

Alternatively, how can I now be sure than any government agency that
happens to be in court isn't lying ? Remember you have lost the "it
couldn't happen" rationale.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0572v3j7dvo

What’s the problem? People lie in court all the time. Some of them aren’t
even judges.

We’ve all heard the tales of police peppering sleeping people, tazering
quadriplegics, etc etc because the officers later played the ’afraid for >> their (own) lives’ card.

Oh! And those sorts of things weren’t going to happen because tazering
was
meant to be the last resort before opening fire.

Nope, nothing new to see here, move along…

From what you see in those 'cops versus villains' action programmes on
TV (notably on Channel 5) it's pretty obvious that tasers, while usually
not the first weapon of choice, is frequently far from the last.

The last would be a firearm, wouldn't it?


--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)