[lit-ideas] Re: QPR v Chelsea
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 17:17:15 +0100 (BST)
On the contrary, the point of my post never changed but Judith's initial line
of quotation-based 'defence' clearly has. It is almost a sin not to acknowledge
this.
As to whether everyone gets a senior police officer to apologise for their
wrongful arrest, the answer must be no. And? The treatment in this case is
explained by the fact that drawing lines between what is acceptable and
unacceptable in this kind of area is fraught, likely to be highly controversial
and subject to great public and media scrutiny. I do not know what level of
seniority was involved in the decision to pay out compensation, apologise etc.,
but we might imagine that it might be advised that it would be a PR disaster
not to back away fully from the arrest having decided charges were not worth
pursuing (rather than, say, drop the charges but, and without apology, leave it
for the arrestee to sue for wrongful arrest - as happens in many other cases
which will not attract anything like the same public scrutiny or support for
the arrestee).
This kind of law puts the police between a rock and a hard place as regards
enforcement. The public scrutiny means a senior police officer may see fit to
get involved. and indicate, in effect, that in this particular case an arrest
should not have been made, and that this is understood 'high-up'. That is a
something of a concession and a conciliatory approach, and one intended to
maintain public confidence, and probably a right approach in this particular
case - and it would seem that it how the police saw it.It is hardly much of a
criticism to say other persons do not get the same apology, as in other cases
different considerations may apply.
We should be clear: That it should be criminal to suggest homosexuality is a
sin, is ridiculous a restriction of so-called "freedom of expression", even if
the suggestion it is a sin is ridiculous. But then as the loaded term "hate
speech" indicates, this area has long been hi-jacked by voices of unreason on
all sides ["Speech SomeWill Inevitably Take Offence At", being closer to the
mark in this case].
Donal
London
________________________________
From: Judith Evans <judithevans001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, 27 October 2011, 16:01
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: QPR v Chelsea
OK he should never have been arrested/the police were totally out of line etc.
etc., or so I assume (on the basis of the rather strange story). Is that
acceptable?
But I see the point of your post has changed, that you now wish to know what
list members may infer from my
>>he was
subsequently paid £7,000 in compensation and his legal costs, and a senior
>>police officer went to see him to apologise.
>?!, you think? So do I
You may infer that I am surprised that a senior police officer went to see him
to apologise. But perhaps all wrongfully arrested persons receive both such
compensation plus £10000 legal costs and an apologetic visit from a senior
police officer.
Should I infer that they do?
Judy Evans, Cardiff
--- On Thu, 27/10/11, Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: QPR v Chelsea
>To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Date: Thursday, 27 October, 2011, 13:50
>
>
>Two points this self-quotation fails to address:-
>
>
>One is that, because there is a distinction in law and logic between "wrongful
>arrest" and "it not being proper to pursue a charge" (so that charges can be
>rightly dropped without, ipso facto, that making the arrest wrongful), a
>quotation saying the "charge was dropped, quite rightly" does not actually
>tell us whether the arrest was lawful or not - nor does it ground any
>'inference' one way or the other afaik. So how the quotation gives us
>something solid from which perhaps "we" can infer whether his arrest was
>wrongful (or not) escapes me.
>
>
>
>The second is that it remains unclear (to me) what the "?!" pertains too.
>(Which "we" might infer was the point of my post).
>
>
>Donal
>London
>
>
>
>
>________________________________
>From: Judith Evans <judithevans001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Sent: Wednesday, 26 October 2011, 15:36
>Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: QPR v Chelsea
>
>>so are we meant to "think" he was not wrongfully arrested
>
>perhaps "we" can infer that from my
>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>In McAlpine's case, there wasn't a court, the charge was dropped; quite
>rightly, it really doesn't fall
under the provisions of the Public Order Act etc..
><<<<<<<<<<
>
>Judy Evans, Cardiff
>
>--- On Wed, 26/10/11, Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: QPR v Chelsea
>To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Date: Wednesday, 26 October, 2011, 15:12
>
>
>
>From: Judith Evans <judithevans001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
>>he was
subsequently paid £7,000 in compensation and his legal costs, and a senior
police officer went to see him to apologise.
>
>?!, you think? So do I. >
>
>"?!" = "Goodness gracious, whatever next?!"?
>
>But "think" (so surprised/nonplussed?) about what? That he received as much as
>£7,000 (iwcase, what should he have received)? That he got his legal costs?
>That he was given an apology?
>Compensation, costs and an apology might seem in order if he was wrongfully
>arrested, so are we meant to "think" he was not wrongfully arrested and that
>the result is simply because "there's been a fair amount of yelling and
>screaming by Christians here about the infringement of their rights to foist
>themselves on people..."?
>
>Donal
>1-6, 1-6
>London
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
>digest on/off), visit
www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
>
>
>
Other related posts:
