FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Kevin Webster

Kevin Webster

Jump to: Newest in thread

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

Kevin Webster not guilty

Now offering free M.O.T s all week

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Cleared of all charges, who would believe he would come out of this smelling of Rosie :0)

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *imnher2Woman over a year ago

watford

goes to show what money can buy

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *oxerjoshleeMan over a year ago

Sheffield

Money cant buy you a not guilty sentence.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Money cant buy you a not guilty sentence. "

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *cottishrichMan over a year ago

Here and there

"goes to show what money can buy"

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"goes to show what money can buy"

What a stupid thing to say!!

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"goes to show what money can buy

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"goes to show what money can buy

I agree as there are some ignorant people who will always like to think the worst of people.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"goes to show what money can buy

I agree as there are some ignorant people who will always like to think the worst of people."

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *ickndomCouple over a year ago

Wimborne

Maybe he innocent.

Just read a thread on quotes you like, here's one I don't, There's no smoke without fire.

just because someone says something doesn't make it true, but hey we all love some juicy gossip.

sorry but this trial by social media does my head in

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *RYBBWCouple over a year ago

Leeds.

"goes to show what money can buy

I agree as there are some ignorant people who will always like to think the worst of people."

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"goes to show what money can buy

What a stupid thing to say!!"

As a potential juror I second that. We ordinary people are not as stupid as to be influenced by money or fame.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"goes to show what money can buy

Its sad really that some people take such a dislike to someone they delight in blackening them at every opportunity. To me it says so much about the person who does it and how malicious they can be.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *illwill69uMan over a year ago

moston

"goes to show what money can buy

Unfortunately people are always going to think this despite the not guilty verdict. The guy is always going to have this hanging over him even though the allegations were found to be malicious. Defendants should have the same rights to anonymity as the victims do until a verdict has been reached. "
No they should not. Justice must not just be done it must be seen to be done, and for this to happen the accused must be named. However when the verdict is acquittal then the accusers should be named and charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice, fraud and perjury rather than being allowed to hide behind their right to anonymity.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *ouple in LancashireCouple over a year ago

in Lancashire

"goes to show what money can buy"

not true, suppose that's one way of showing your total ignorance of the way the justice system works..

hey ho

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *illwill69uMan over a year ago

moston

"not true, suppose that's one way of showing your total ignorance of the way the justice system works..

hey ho"
I would disagree with that too.

The police/home office have fitted up many innocent people over the last 40/50/60/70 years (normally because of political pressure to get a result).

And they have also turned blind eyes to serious criminal activity by the police, the rich and powerful.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"not true, suppose that's one way of showing your total ignorance of the way the justice system works..

hey hoI would disagree with that too.

The police/home office have fitted up many innocent people over the last 40/50/60/70 years (normally because of political pressure to get a result).

And they have also turned blind eyes to serious criminal activity by the police, the rich and powerful.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"not true, suppose that's one way of showing your total ignorance of the way the justice system works..

hey hoI would disagree with that too.

The police/home office have fitted up many innocent people over the last 40/50/60/70 years (normally because of political pressure to get a result).

And they have also turned blind eyes to serious criminal activity by the police, the rich and powerful.

What percentage of people were fitted up and how many blind eyes have been turned?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Money talks,

I imagine ITV Granada paid to defend its "stars"

The BBC paid to defend its stars, and yes that's right, you the license payer,!

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Money talks,

I imagine ITV Granada paid to defend its "stars"

The BBC paid to defend its stars, and yes that's right, you the license payer,!"

Which stars has ITV paid to defend? I was under the impression Michael Le Vell has been left with a large legal bill?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *cottishrichMan over a year ago

Here and there

"goes to show what money can buy

Unfortunately people are always going to think this despite the not guilty verdict. The guy is always going to have this hanging over him even though the allegations were found to be malicious. Defendants should have the same rights to anonymity as the victims do until a verdict has been reached. No they should not. Justice must not just be done it must be seen to be done, and for this to happen the accused must be named. However when the verdict is acquittal then the accusers should be named and charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice, fraud and perjury rather than being allowed to hide behind their right to anonymity. "

I agree that justice has to be seen to be done but unfortunately when the defendant is a celebrity the media jump all over it and it becomes difficult to guarantee a fair trial. As for charging the accusers in the event of a not guilty verdict, I fear that that may put off genuine victims from coming forward in the first place.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *ouple in LancashireCouple over a year ago

in Lancashire

"not true, suppose that's one way of showing your total ignorance of the way the justice system works..

hey hoI would disagree with that too.

The police/home office have fitted up many innocent people over the last 40/50/60/70 years (normally because of political pressure to get a result).

And they have also turned blind eyes to serious criminal activity by the police, the rich and powerful.

in relation to the actual topic the statement about 'money' is ignorant and incorrect..

yes in some cases the wealth of one party versus another will be influenced by the affordability with a top QC etc..

but not in the Webster case, the Crown isn't going to allocate a beginner at that level to state its case..

the playing field was equal..

miscarriages of justice etc have occurred and will continue to do so as we as humans are not infallible and mistakes happen..

any 'fit ups' would have had many factors, bad detective work, laziness indeed pressure from the media and Government to get a result..

blind eyes have always been turned, way of the world since year dot..

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *nnyMan over a year ago

Glasgow

"goes to show what money can buy

What a stupid thing to say!!

As a potential juror I second that. We ordinary people are not as stupid as to be influenced by money or fame."

Juries are impressed by high profile QCs, like Fairbairn or Findlay.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *illwill69uMan over a year ago

moston

"What percentage of people were fitted up and how many blind eyes have been turned? "

Dont know about percentages, but will name some high profile miscarriages of justice where innocent people have spent years locked up because they were fitted up!

Lets start with the Guildford 4 who the police suppressed alibi evidence and a confession by one of the bombers.

Then we can move on to the Birmingham 6, 1 of whom died in prison before the fact that the home office had falsified the forensic evidence. I will further remind you that The Lord Chief Justice Lord Lane said after dismissing the appeals of both the above "that if we had the death sentence they would all have been executed and the state would be saved the cost of their appeals and keeping them imprisoned.

Then we can move on to the continuing revelations about police actions at and after Hillsborough.

What about all the cases of pedophilia in children's homes and schools that are continually coming to light. And of course there was Jimmy SaVILE. Where the police and BBC refused to "believe" all the allegations about him until a year after he died!

And no prosecutions for any of the above!

I could continue but if the above is not enough for you to question your assumptions then no matter what I say you will not see that there is something quite rotten in our justice system

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *illwill69uMan over a year ago

moston

"miscarriages of justice etc have occurred and will continue to do so as we as humans are not infallible and mistakes happen..

any 'fit ups' would have had many factors, bad detective work, laziness indeed pressure from the media and Government to get a result..

blind eyes have always been turned, way of the world since year dot.."

I agree that there will always be some genuine mistakes that lead to miscarriages of justice. But in every case I have quoted there have been conspiracies to pervert the course of justice by the police and Home Office. And yes you are correct there has always been corruption and it will continue until we change our attitude to the rich and powerful misusing and abusing their positions of privilege. And I find it outrageous that those that wield power have the right to give themselves immunity by the use of public immunity Certificates!

I for one believe that those we pay to guard our interests be they politicians, civil servants or police should be prosecuted and get automatic maximum sentences (to run consecutively) and have all their property sized by the state when caught.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *nnyMan over a year ago

Glasgow

" ............

Why not just sell their first-born children into slavery?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *illwill69uMan over a year ago

moston

" ............

Why not just sell their first-born children into slavery?"

Ah how I love the way our lords and masters manipulate the prols!

Tell me where do you stand on the seizure of property under the serious and organized crime act? Do you think that it wrong for drug dealers and criminal gangs to have their property seized by the state?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *nnyMan over a year ago

Glasgow

" ............

Why not just sell their first-born children into slavery?

Ah how I love the way our lords and masters manipulate the prols!

....... "

You can only manipulate those who allow themselves to be manipulated.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *nnyMan over a year ago

Glasgow

" ............

I think it's wrong that there are so many loopholes like hiding assets in the wife or children's name, or an offshore registered company etc.

First sign of anything iffy? Take it off them and make them prove its legit.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *he Enigmatic MagnetMan over a year ago

Glasgow West

"Money cant buy you a not guilty sentence. "

It did for Michael Jackson.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *illwill69uMan over a year ago

moston

" ............

I think it's wrong that there are so many loopholes like hiding assets in the wife or children's name, or an offshore registered company etc.

First sign of anything iffy? Take it off them and make them prove its legit."
Ah right so if its a criminal take everything but if its corrupt public officials or politicians...

And of course you are not being manipulated...

So which are you?

A politician, public official or are you in the police?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *illwill69uMan over a year ago

moston

"Money cant buy you a not guilty sentence.

It did for Michael Jackson."

And dont forget OJ, or Rodney King!

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *nnyMan over a year ago

Glasgow

" ............

I think it's wrong that there are so many loopholes like hiding assets in the wife or children's name, or an offshore registered company etc.

First sign of anything iffy? Take it off them and make them prove its legit.Ah right so if its a criminal take everything but if its corrupt public officials or politicians...

And of course you are not being manipulated...

So which are you?

A politician, public official or are you in the police?"

I don't know where you get the notion that I see a distinction between 'proper' criminals and corrupt public officials etc.

Crime for crime they're equally worthy of punishment.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *illwill69uMan over a year ago

moston

"I don't know where you get the notion that I see a distinction between 'proper' criminals and corrupt public officials etc.

Crime for crime they're equally worthy of punishment."
From here:

I said:

You replied: "

Why not just sell their first-born children into slavery?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *illwill69uMan over a year ago

moston

And now that I am quoting you back at yourself I think it's time to stop as I will never get through to you.

Which is a real shame ...

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *nnyMan over a year ago

Glasgow

I couldn't bear to have them all killed and couldn't find the Dog smiley.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Strange thought but maybe he was innocent

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"miscarriages of justice etc have occurred and will continue to do so as we as humans are not infallible and mistakes happen..

any 'fit ups' would have had many factors, bad detective work, laziness indeed pressure from the mediated and Government to get a result..

blind eyes have always been turned, way of the world since year dot..

What a load of shite. What offences would necessitate the complete and total destruction of a persons and their families lives in your reactionary opinion?

And does this opinion go for anyone who is in the employ of the state, firemen, soldiers, nurses etc? Or just ones you don't like, politicians, civil servants, police?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *nnyMan over a year ago

Glasgow

"miscarriages of justice etc have occurred and will continue to do so as we as humans are not infallible and mistakes happen..

any 'fit ups' would have had many factors, bad detective work, laziness indeed pressure from the mediated and Government to get a result..

blind eyes have always been turned, way of the world since year dot..

What a load of shite. What offences would necessitate the complete and total destruction of a persons and their families lives in your reactionary opinion?

...."

Voting Tory.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *illwill69uMan over a year ago

moston

"miscarriages of justice etc have occurred and will continue to do so as we as humans are not infallible and mistakes happen..

any 'fit ups' would have had many factors, bad detective work, laziness indeed pressure from the mediated and Government to get a result..

blind eyes have always been turned, way of the world since year dot..

What a load of shite. What offences would necessitate the complete and total destruction of a persons and their families lives in your reactionary opinion?

And does this opinion go for anyone who is in the employ of the state, firemen, soldiers, nurses etc? Or just ones you don't like, politicians, civil servants, police?"

All! And especially those who swear oaths of loyalty and fidelity and then corrupt them. And I would have thought that I had made it plain what offences have brought me to my reactionary opinion. But I will again quote myself:

"But in every case I have quoted there have been conspiracies to pervert the course of justice by the police and Home Office. And yes you are correct there has always been corruption and it will continue until we change our attitude to the rich and powerful misusing and abusing their positions of privilege. And I find it outrageous that those that wield power have the right to give themselves immunity by the use of public immunity Certificates!

The sad fact is that until the punishments for corruption (or covering up corruption) in public office become so draconian that only a moron would risk being caught it will continue.

I find the standards of some in public life to be despicable, and the ones I dont like are the likes of police that within hours of the Hillsborough disaster were destroying and manufacturing evidence have spent the last 24 years smearing Liverpool supporters in order to cover up their incompetence and massive fraud.

I find it even more galling that because of the lack of action against the guilty that all police get tarred with the same brush.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Awesome trollfight! Just not sure to bet on who has the biggest club?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *illwill69uMan over a year ago

moston

"miscarriages of justice etc have occurred and will continue to do so as we as humans are not infallible and mistakes happen..

any 'fit ups' would have had many factors, bad detective work, laziness indeed pressure from the mediated and Government to get a result..

blind eyes have always been turned, way of the world since year dot..

What a load of shite. What offences would necessitate the complete and total destruction of a persons and their families lives in your reactionary opinion?

....

Voting Tory."
Who? You, JustJ0die, or both of you?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *illwill69uMan over a year ago

moston

"Awesome trollfight! Just not sure to bet on who has the biggest club?

I do like to provoke a reaction.

I find it amusing to see the things people will defend

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Awesome trollfight! Just not sure to bet on who has the biggest club?

I do like to provoke a reaction.

I find it amusing to see the things people will defend

Do you see me complaining? I fucking love to watch a heated debate here it's no different to going to watch a boxing match. Well as long as one isn't Audley in the ring.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *illwill69uMan over a year ago

moston

"Awesome trollfight! Just not sure to bet on who has the biggest club?

I do like to provoke a reaction.

I find it amusing to see the things people will defend

Do you see me complaining? I fucking love to watch a heated debate here it's no different to going to watch a boxing match. Well as long as one isn't Audley in the ring.

"
LoL

Well lets see how they react to my next 3 blows! As I think its tim to go for the knkockout combination!

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *illwill69uMan over a year ago

moston

Lord Justice Taylor said that "policing on 15 April broke down" and "although there were other causes, the main reason for the disaster was the failure of police control."[49] There was considerable treatment over some aspects of the disaster; in particular, attention was focused on the decision to open the secondary gates. Moreover, the kick-off should have been delayed, as had been done at other venues and matches.

Sheffield Wednesday was criticised for the inadequate number of turnstiles at the Leppings Lane end and the poor quality of the crush barriers on the terraces, "respects in which failure by the Club contributed to this disaster."[50]

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

So whatt you are suggesting is that anyone who takes the government shilling, should they be found guilty of corruption, should have anything they own taken from them and be imprisoned for life?

Yep, that doesn't sound like an actual opinion. Sounds more like someone was bored waiting for the 3 billygoats gruff to appear and magicked some bullshit out of thin air. I'd be interested in seeing you defend your unreasonable and contra-human rights stance before you ask me to defend mine.

Oh and FYI, I'm better at this than you so do think about it.....

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *illwill69uMan over a year ago

moston

Lord justice Stuart-Smith said:

I have come to the clear conclusion that there is no basis upon which there should be a further Judicial Inquiry or a reopening of Lord Taylor's Inquiry. There is no basis for a renewed application to the Divisional Court or for the Attorney General to exercise his powers under the Coroners Act 1988. I do not consider that there is any material which should be put before the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Police Complaints Authority which might cause them to reconsider the decisions they have already taken. Nor do I consider that there is any justification for setting up any further inquiry into the performance of the emergency and hospital services. I have considered the circumstances in which alterations were made to some of the self-written statements of South Yorkshire Police officers, but I do not consider that there is any occasion for any further investigation.[76]

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *illwill69uMan over a year ago

moston

The Hillsborough Independent Panel concluded that no Liverpool fans were responsible in any way for the disaster,[82] and that its main cause was a "lack of police control" and crowd safety was "compromised at every level" and overcrowding issues had been recorded two years earlier. The panel concluded that "up to 41" of the 96 who perished might have survived had the emergency services' reactions and co-ordination been improved.[83] The number is based on post mortem examinations which found some victims may have had heart, lung or blood circulation function for some time after being removed from the crush. The report stated that placing fans who were "merely unconscious" on their backs would have resulted in their deaths.[84]

The findings concluded that 164 witness statements had been altered and 116 statements unfavourable to South Yorkshire Police had been removed. South Yorkshire Police had performed blood alcohol tests on the victims, some of them children, and ran computer checks on the national police database in an attempt to "impugn their reputation".[85] The report concluded that the then Conservative MP for Sheffield Hallam, Irvine Patnick, passed inaccurate and untrue information from the police to the press.[86][87]

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Michael Le Vell has been found innocent, He is not a rich and powerful corrupter of the legal system, just a jobbing actor who has been suspended for 2 years pending trial.

I feel it's well out of order taking this thread down the line it's going with even the slightest implication that this jury was wrong, corrupted, bought or whatever.

If you wish to discuss the topic then please do so under a more appropriate title, and let this man get on with whatever threads his life can pick up.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *illwill69uMan over a year ago

moston

"So whatt you are suggesting is that anyone who takes the government shilling, should they be found guilty of corruption, should have anything they own taken from them and be imprisoned for life?

Oh and FYI, I'm better at this than you so do think about it....."
No I have never said that, again I will quote myself and hopefully this time you will take the time to inwardly digest what I have said:

"I for one believe that those we pay to guard our interests be they politicians, civil servants or police should be prosecuted and get automatic maximum sentences (to run consecutively) and have all their property sized by the state when caught."

I went on to mention the Serious and organized crime act which allows for the seizure of ALL property that the convicted can not prove was gained by honest means. Therefore at no time have I proposed that anyone's human rights be violated.

In fact I all I am proposing is that those who's positions demand the highest probity should be subject to the maximum punishment when they are caught using their positions of trust to commit crimes.

Now will you explain to me why you think that it is OK for public servants to use the power we give them to corrupt their offices, avoid prosecution for and to keep their ill-gotten gains while the rest of us are subject to the consequences of our actions?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *ingdong91Man over a year ago

shropshire

HES NOT GUILTY

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *illwill69uMan over a year ago

moston

My first post was in answer to this:

"goes to show what money can buy

My answer was:

"No they should not. Justice must not just be done it must be seen to be done, and for this to happen the accused must be named. However when the verdict is acquittal then the accusers should be named and charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice, fraud and perjury rather than being allowed to hide behind their right to anonymity."
I think that that was to the point, from there the debate has grown and it has not been about Hillsborough (although I have used that as a prime example), it has been about the manipulation of justice and corruption in public office. Rightly or wrongly Michael Le Vell is just one of a number who are having their lives destroyed by a baying mob because "there's no smoke without fire". Who when faced with absolute proof of corruption in public institutions refuse to speak out or in some cases jump to the defense of the indefensible.

I'm sorry you feel that it is wrong to challenge that mindset.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Well firstly, maximum sentences to run concurrently sounds to me like life. Explain it better next time.

And corruption in a public official is not the same as organised crime. For example, the corruption you were posting away about on the Hillsborough case is not financial. So how would that fall into your ill-gotten gains scenario?

If you feel strongly that public officials get away with things while you don't, can I suggest you work to change the system rather than bitch about it? Become a journalist and expose it where you know it to be happening rather than poorly expressing it in someone elses words here.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I'm sorry you feel that it is wrong to challenge that mindset."

I do not feel that it is wrong to challenge that mindset, just think it's highly unfair to meander on about how justice is corrupt with random unconnected cases under this particular thread title. I fear that Not Guilty will never be innocent for this particular actor, or indeed anyone charged with these type of offences, though without the media it is a smaller problem.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

And also, just because someone loses a case in court does not mean that they wasted a courts time, or lied. It just means they didn't prove their case.

Why do you feel they should be prosecuted for that?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *illwill69uMan over a year ago

moston

"Well firstly, maximum sentences to run concurrently sounds to me like life. Explain it better next time.

As for your point about the corruption at Hillsborough not being financial that is a total red herring, and please tell me what taking over a sports hall and calling in senior officers to examine and change the records of all officers present is if it is not serious and organizing corruption of a public office?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *illwill69uMan over a year ago

moston

"I'm sorry you feel that it is wrong to challenge that mindset.

My objection to your use of this thread for a valid but unconnected topic is that it is not helpful to call into question the fairness and impartiality of the legal system under an emotive (and probably due to the words in the OP, a joke thread title)."
sorry I have no sense of humor when peoples lives are being ruined by misuse of the judicial system. There are many public figures being offered up as a knee-jerk reaction to the revelations about saVile

none of whom will ever be really able to clear themselves and will all be open to the same smoke and fire smears. But you must admit that it has been convenient for GMP to have been able to charge a corry star and divert attention away from the fact that they repeatedly failed to investigate complaints from young girls (13 to 15) who were being abused in Rochdale.

Or am I just being cynical?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)