http://www.mediawatchwatch.org.uk/2007/02/02/cv-blasphemy-case-detailed-review/ Watching. Pointing. Laughing. Wed, 02 Nov 2011 13:09:32 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 http://www.mediawatchwatch.org.uk/2007/02/02/cv-blasphemy-case-detailed-review/comment-page-1/#comment-178857 MediaWatchWatch: report on refused Springer blasphemy case | nullifidian Fri, 23 Jan 2009 00:03:44 +0000 http://www.mediawatchwatch.org.uk/?p=655#comment-178857 [...] Full article and commentary over at MediaWatchWatch. [...] [...] Full article and commentary over at MediaWatchWatch. [...]

]]> http://www.mediawatchwatch.org.uk/2007/02/02/cv-blasphemy-case-detailed-review/comment-page-1/#comment-110660 mediawatchwatch.org.uk » JS: TO court show is ON! Thu, 26 Apr 2007 15:06:53 +0000 http://www.mediawatchwatch.org.uk/?p=655#comment-110660 [...] High Court judge has overturned the magisrate’s decision not to issue the prosecution, and a new date for the hearing will be announced in a couple of [...] [...] High Court judge has overturned the magisrate’s decision not to issue the prosecution, and a new date for the hearing will be announced in a couple of [...]

]]> http://www.mediawatchwatch.org.uk/2007/02/02/cv-blasphemy-case-detailed-review/comment-page-1/#comment-60198 Marc Sun, 04 Feb 2007 02:11:24 +0000 http://www.mediawatchwatch.org.uk/?p=655#comment-60198 Maybe Green's god is trying to tell him something. Clearly the "saintly" Steve isn't paying attention. ;-) Maybe Green’s god is trying to tell him something. Clearly the “saintly” Steve isn’t paying attention.

]]> http://www.mediawatchwatch.org.uk/2007/02/02/cv-blasphemy-case-detailed-review/comment-page-1/#comment-59234 Joe Fri, 02 Feb 2007 16:25:32 +0000 http://www.mediawatchwatch.org.uk/?p=655#comment-59234 From that link - "(1) District Judge Tubbs held that blasphemous liable is an offence known to law." I'm willing to bet he said no such thing, because there is no such offence in law as "blasphemous liable" . It's "blasphemous libel", and that Green's crew can make such a childish error in their own press release speaks volumes for the quality of their case, their arguments and, I think we are entitled to infer, their legal advice on the matter. From that link – “(1) District Judge Tubbs held that blasphemous liable is an offence known to law.” I’m willing to bet he said no such thing, because there is no such offence in law as “blasphemous liable” . It’s “blasphemous libel”, and that Green’s crew can make such a childish error in their own press release speaks volumes for the quality of their case, their arguments and, I think we are entitled to infer, their legal advice on the matter.

]]>