Anthony Charles Lynton Blair & Co.

deno, 04 Sep 2006 19:03:12

In a message dated 03/09/2006 20:08:42 GMT Standard Time,
demolitionred@yahoo.com writes:

> Seriously though, can anyone advise about the possibility of a legal
> challenge regarding the fake consultation. Waste of public time and
money and
> reflects on the integrity of those involved.

We have had advise.. this would be a waste of time and resources given we're
struggling to keep even the main campaign going

Also if we have a lawyer (Spanner
> Trust?) could he demand a tight definition of
> extreme pornography?


>That's what we did at the HO meeting which is why the definition is so much
tighter than it was in the consultation.
Now we have to keep the pressure up about the risks of the vague definition.
a lobyist can't demand a govt do anything....what would the world be like if
they could?<

Hope you didn't think I was critical of your handling of our cause. At
times, in property, have sued people myself and other times instructed solicitors
to send letters to persons blocking rights of way, etc.
Maybe events have moved on since your HO meeting and it is now a different
ball game.
Along with others I heard "Croaker" lie about the aye's and no's in the
consultation.
From today's posts there seem to be several who doubt the legality of his,
and the joke governments position especially if, in their troubled minds, they
believe that poor people are actually lured on to a film set to be really
raped and murdered! Given their record, though, this could be spin to try and
justify the proposed legislation.

My idea was, if we have a friendly tame solicitor (Spanner?) to seek fresh
advice
about the legality of the current situation and possibility of sending a law
firms letter to Croker and officials concerned at HO possibly hinting at
future legal action.
With the consultation now obviously ignored and seemingly a con, plus other
anomilies, this seems to be the next best step.

deno posted 4 Sept

Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)