FUCKING WHAT !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sometimes...............someday, something happens that makes my even my urine boil with rage.

Well guess what ............... Today is one of those days.

We learn here that ..........Sharon Shoesmith the ex-children's services director of Haringey Council says she is "thrilled" to have won an appeal against a ruling that her sacking after Baby Peter's death was lawful.

Court of Appeal judges allowed Sharon Shoesmith's challenge against a High Court ruling that cleared former children's secretary Ed Balls and Haringey Council of acting unlawfully.

Her appeal against watchdog Ofsted was dismissed.

Baby Peter Connelly was found dead in August 2007 with more than 50 injuries.

A subsequent Ofsted report exposed failings in her department.

In December 2008, Ms Shoesmith was sacked, bringing her 35-year career to an abrupt end.

She first heard of her dismissal when then children's secretary Ed Balls announced she would be removed from her post with immediate effect in a live press conference on television.

She said after the hearing: "I'm over the moon. Absolutely thrilled.

"I am very relieved to have won my appeal and for recognition I was treated unfairly and unlawfully."

She said the sorrow of Peter's death would "stay with me for the rest of my life".

Ms Shoesmith had asked Lord Neuberger, Master of the Rolls, sitting with Lord Justice Maurice Kay and Lord Justice Stanley Burnton, to rule that her sacking without compensation was so legally flawed as to be null and void.

Her lawyers had argued that she was the victim of "a flagrant breach of natural justice" after she lost her £133,000-a-year post amid a media storm.

Ms Shoesmith also argued she was entitled to her full salary and pension from Haringey up to the present day.

'Tainted by unfairness'

The judges said they were allowing Ms Shoesmith's appeal against Mr Balls because "the secretary of state did not afford Ms Shoesmith the opportunity to put her case".

In the case of Haringey, the judges said: "We were unanimously of the view that Haringey's procedures were tainted by unfairness."

Lawyers for Ms Shoesmith said the ruling meant she could now launch appeals against Ed Balls and Haringey Council.

The BBC's education correspondent Reeta Chakrabarti said the Court of Appeal had indicated there was no question of Ms Shoesmith returning to her position at Haringey Council.

The matter of compensation or lost earnings would need to be considered by another court, she added.

Seventeen-month-old Baby P, subsequently named as Peter Connelly, was found to have suffered fractured ribs and a broken back after months of abuse at home. His mother, her partner and a lodger were all jailed for causing or allowing his death.

Peter had been seen by health and social services professionals from Haringey council 60 times in the eight months before he died.

THE WOMAN'S LACK OF PROFESSIONAL ETHICS, STANDARDS AND ABILITY WHERE COMPLICIT IN THAT BABIES DEATH !!!!!!!!

This is unbelievable ........... I am telling you now people the UK is a joke, a laughing stock. Our legal system is a farce and joke.

And now.............and fucking now she is arguing she should get paid her full salary and pension up to today's date and and AND then gets to go for compensation at a later date.

Can someone give me a reason why I should stay living here !!!

Also go to CF's spot here and read up on the rest !!!!!

Then pour a big drink and take a deep breath !!

Ryan Giggs, The Law and Crap Timing !!

Everyone knew it was Ryan Giggs who was banging that Welsh bird weeks ago.

You hardly needed to be Sherlock Holmes to uncover that crime.

The right of the rich to buy privacy, and for the poor to be silenced, is not a law that should ever be tolerated in a free, fair and equal society.

You insert your penis into something or someone you know you should not be inserting your penis into - then do not expect the law to protect you from ridicule and exposure if that is discovered.

Keep it in your pants in the first place and save yourself a load of money, hassle and inconvenience.

If Imogen was your No1 choice then do the right thing about your wife and children you cowardly bastard. If she was just a play thing then you are also a totaly bastard. You cant win !!!!!!

And peeerrrlllleeeaaasssseee do not parade yourself around Old Trafford displaying the children like some sort of demi-god of all things moral ............ indeed you just look bloody stupid now !!


However watching the weekends football unfold and the story bubbling in the background I must ask this...........courtesy of The Eye !!


Is this the worst timing in the history of journalism? Probably not, but in the history of the Yorkshire Post it's got to be damn close.

Dated yesterday...oh yes...yesterday. Indeedy.

Go follow the link and read the vomit inducing bile !!!




The best bits of the article are worth quoting because it's bound to get pulled.


RYAN Giggs is widely seen as one of the finest modern-day role models for his sport.

He is also a family man, marrying his long-time partner Stacey Cooke in September 2007 in a ceremony attended by close relatives and friends. The couple’s children, Liberty and Zach, were part of the congregation.

There have been calls from politicians for him to receive a knighthood, and Sir Alex wrote in his foreword to Giggs’s autobiography Ryan Giggs: My Life, My Story, published last year: “How I would love to adorn my team sheet with the words ‘Sir Ryan Giggs’.”

“I hardly drink any alcohol these days. I have taken up yoga, which is great. I just lead a more boring life.”




Rather good was:


“Early this year he launched his contribution to the world of workout DVDs, releasing his Giggs Fitness: Power & Strength Through Yoga DVD.”


Well at least we know that it works!

Published yesterday! Bwhahahaha

Oh FFS ........... well seem like nice boys !

Oh superly duper.

A pair of "nice guys" have won a court battle because they are gay!

Well no not really.
Well yes really !!

Basically the owners of a hotel who refused to allow a gay couple a double room acted unlawfully, a judge has ruled.

Peter and Hazelmary Bull, of the Chymorvah Hotel, near Penzance, said as Christians they did not believe unmarried couples should share a room.

Martyn Hall and his civil partner Steven Preddy, from Bristol, said the incident in September 2008 was "direct discrimination" against them.

They were awarded £1,800 each in damages at Bristol County Court.

"When we booked to stay at the Chymorvah Hotel this was not, as some have suggested, a set up sponsored by a pressure group, we just wanted a relaxing weekend away - something thousands of other couples in Britain do every weekend," Mr Preddy said.


"Because we wanted to bring our new dog we checked he would be welcome. It didn't even cross our minds that in 2008 in Britain we needed to ask if we would be.

He said that the judgement showed that civil partnerships were legally the same as marriages.


Hazelmary Bull said the double bed policy was based on "sincere beliefs"

"Judge Rutherford has found that our treatment was an act of direct discrimination and therefore a breach of the law," he added.

OK

Now if you read further here into this you will see the now famous "Human Rights Bill" was used.


So the question I ask is .............

Are the human rights of sexual preference stronger in law than the human rights of religious expression????????

I mean we roll over and take it up the ass every day to pacify the ranks of the Islamic faith (excuse the pun) but now we are saying that being gay, and being of any other religious belief is greater than being Christian.



IMHO..............There is no other section of our society that is pandered to, bowed down too and generally given as much freedom and air time as that of the gay and lesbian movement.............Bloody ridiculous !!

Tommy Sheridan...........Verdict ?

I would categorise the polarities of the reactions – media and individual -to the verdict in the Tommy Sheridan perjury trial as follows -


1. Justice has been served – he brought it upon himself. Sheridan was undoubtedly guilty. Perjury is a serious offence, and has the capacity to seriously damage the criminal justice system – it must be feel the full force of the law and be punished severely. It was not a political trial – it was public money well spent.


2. It was a political trial – a show trial – designed to satisfy News International, Rupert Murdoch, those who detest socialists of whatever ilk, and it was also a valuable smokescreen to cover the much more serious questions hanging over Andy Coulson, former editor of the NotW, now a senior advisor in the ConLib Government, over the phone tapping scandal by the News of the World. Tommy Sheridan is innocent of all the charges brought against him. There was a wide-ranging conspiracy to bring him down, one that included most of his former Scottish Socialist Party colleagues, News International, the Scottish Police and the Scottish justice system.


The truth, as always, probably lies somewhere in between, and that is the area I find myself in, much as I would like to be absolutely clear-cut in my view.



Let’s try to nail a few things down …


Did Tommy Sheridan bring it upon himself?

Leaving aside for the moment the question of his guilt or innocence (the Law has spoken but in a free country we may express our doubts over its verdict), Tommy Sheridan faced two crucial decision points – one when the News of the World’s made allegations about his private life, and the second when the Crown Office launched a prosecution for perjury against him and his wife, Gail Sheridan.

The original choice was to either ignore or contest the NotW allegations. To ignore them would undoubtedly have cost him his leadership of the SSP, and perhaps ultimately his parliamentary seat, but he could have survived that, diminished but not destroyed. His enemies would have claimed that his failure to contest the allegations was tantamount to an admission of guilt. His wife, the staunchly loyal - and in my book, wholly admirable - Gail Sheridan, would have stood by her husband. He could have rebuilt his career, perhaps with a new, Jack-the-Lad dimension to it, and could even have enhanced a media profile.


THE ORIGINAL CHOICE

If Tommy knew the allegations were true, he was extremely unwise to pit himself against the Murdoch empire, and in choosing to do so, he was following the paths of Aitken and Archer, both of whom destroyed their political careers and were imprisoned as a result of their choice. Only cynical self-interest, the instincts of a gambler and vanity could have led him to contest allegations that he knew were true.

If Tommy was innocent of the charges, then given his personality and the core of his political convictions, he was inevitable going to engage in the fight, even though the risks were appalling.

My advice to him, regardless of his guilt or innocence of the charges would have been – don’t do it, Tommy.

Nobody expected him to win, and there is some evidence that he did not expect to win against such a powerful adversary. Although he trumpeted his win in typical barnstorming, populist style, he must have know the inevitability of what would follow. The die had been cast, and a 21st century tragedy was about to unfold.


THE SECOND CHOICE

The second choice was whether or not to defend himself against the perjury charges laid by the Crown. Here, in my view, he had no real choice, whatever his private knowledge of guilt or innocence – he had to defend himself. To suggest as some have done, that he should not have defended himself to save the public purse the expense of a trial is utter nonsense. It is the legal system and the nature of the police investigations that create these enormous cost, estimated at £1m for the police investigation and £4m for the trial.

Sheridan was facing the inevitability of prison and crippling costs that would lead to bankruptcy. In my view, he had to fight, guilty or innocent. Most importantly, it would have been a betrayal of his wife’s unflinching loyalty and commitment to give up. There was no way back.


SHOULD THE PROSECUTION HAVE BEEN INITIATED AND HAS JUSTICE BEEN SERVED?

I say no to both questions. It should have been left the News International to decide what their remedies were after losing the initial civil action for damages.

Perjury, an offence that is committed countless times in every court daily throughout the land, is almost never prosecuted, and the egregious exceptions to this have been political – notably the Jonathan Aitken and Jeffrey Archer (Baron Archer of Weston-super-Mare) perjury prosecutions.

In both these case, the prosecutions were justified by the rationale that these were powerful politicians and public figures – both Tories – who could not be seen to flout the law. Jonathan Aitken was seen as a future Prime Minister: Archer was a life peer and had been Chairman of the Conservative Party.

The same arguments and justification have been applied to the Sheridan prosecution. Why therefore was it wrong to prosecute him?

My answer is that in the Aitken and Archer cases, only they had been accused of perjury – in the first Sheridan trial, the Crown believed that many witnesses must have perjured themselves, but they only chose to prosecute Tommy and Gail Sheridan? Why not the others? Why not the ones who had testified against Sheridan? Why was a police investigation launched that appeared to focus solely on the Sheridans?


WAS THIS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

Where did the public interest lie under these circumstances, and where did the other, shadowy interests lie? In a time of economic stringency, was it wise or prudent to divert substantial police resource to investigating allegations of three-in-a-bed sex? To incur a cost of millions to the public purse for a long-drawn out show trial?




© Copyright Peter Curran 2010 in part with Thanks