David T Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/judge-throws-out-attempt-to-attack-religious-beliefs-of-others-625567.html
why me Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 (edited) Well, I don't want to say just how I knew this would happen as I predicted on the other thread but lets just say that I was right. No UK court could ever entertain such a case without jeopardizing public peace. It had to be thrown out. Islam was also lurking in the background as cases against it would have been next. The British National Party was waiting in the wings and also other extreme right UK groups. Edited March 20, 2014 by why me
Storm Rider Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 Now is the time that the court should assess an outrageous penalty for an obvious nuisance lawsuit. Stupidity should be punished rather than just allowed to continue on its path unmolested. 3
rpn Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 Anyone have a link to the actual court decision. Haven't been able to find it online yet and it is important to any discussions about it.
David T Posted March 20, 2014 Author Posted March 20, 2014 BBC link, pretty much the same as the other... http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-26666144
rpn Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 The court read a three page decision. I'm not talking about the reports about the decision. We need to see the actual decision to speak competently about it.
Popular Post Duncan Posted March 20, 2014 Popular Post Posted March 20, 2014 (edited) The court read a three page decision. I'm not talking about the reports about the decision. We need to see the actual decision to speak competently about it. the Judge probably said, "Oi, you plucky chap, You shan't be doing this! Are you a lulu? has your lorry gone into the high street? now, get out of my court room you pillock and spend the rest of your days watching Only Fools and Horses like the rest of the old age pensioners in the UK" but for three pages Edited March 20, 2014 by Duncan 14
Kenngo1969 Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 not surprising!Well, I guess Tom Phillips is going to have to break out those Plans B1 – Z? he was crowing about. (Personally, I find it impossible to believe that a nonlawyer would have thought as far ahead as Tom Phillips claims he has; most lawyers don’t think that far ahead.)
Popular Post Scott Lloyd Posted March 20, 2014 Popular Post Posted March 20, 2014 I'm loving it:"He added: 'I am satisfied that the process of the court is being manipulated to provide a high-profile forum to attack the religious beliefs of others.'"Couldn't have said it better myself! 6
Kenngo1969 Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 (edited) Someone, who shall remain nameless (except that his initials are Kenngo1969 ) has been saying for weeks that courts are poor fora for adjudicating religious truth claims, along with many (if not most) disputes arising therefrom! (And that the court in this case should/would so conclude ...) I'm brilliant, I know! Edited March 20, 2014 by Kenngo1969 1
Scott Lloyd Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 Well, I guess Tom Phillips is going to have to break out those Plans B1 – Z? he was crowing about. (Personally, I find it impossible to believe that a nonlawyer would have thought as far ahead as Tom Phillips claims he has; most lawyers don’t think that far ahead.)It amounts to empty threats and schoolyard bluster.
Kenngo1969 Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 they probably said, "Oi, you plucky chap, You shan't be doing this! Are you a lulu? has your lorry gone into the high street? now, get out of my court room you pillock and spend the rest of your days watching Only Fools and Horses like the rest of the old age pensioners in the UK" but for three pagesOr, the judge might've said, "Courts are poor fora for adjudicating religious truth claims, along with most all disputes arising therefrom." 1
Avatar4321 Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 Now is the time that the court should assess an outrageous penalty for an obvious nuisance lawsuit. Stupidity should be punished rather than just allowed to continue on its path unmolested. I humbly disagree. mercy should be given. 1
Kenngo1969 Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 It amounts to empty threats and schoolyard bluster.Ya think?!
Duncan Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 I humbly disagree. mercy should be given. isn't it UK law for Phillips to pay for this whole thing?
Scott Lloyd Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 Someone, who shall remain nameless (except that his initials are Kenngo1969 ) has been saying for weeks that courts are poor fora for adjudicating religious truth claims, along with many (if not most) disputes arising therefrom! (And that the court in this case should/would so conclude ...) I'm brilliant, I know! I wanted to believe you, but I've seen some wrongheaded court decisions in recent times on this side of the Atlantic. When the case wasn't summarily dismissed last week, I was beginning to worry, especially after sheilauk opined that it could go further. 1
rpn Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 But we won't know what it really means until we actually read the actual decision. Mormonthink has issued a press release in which it says that the church has committed fraud. If the decision says that it has not, then then mormonthink (and the people it quotes) is likely guilty of defamation. And it would seem pretty probable to be able to prove that they knew it was false and kept doing it anyway. *Of course whether doing anything about it is useful is another question.
rpn Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 And there was apparently discussion in court about asking Phillips to pay Monson's legal fees. Apparently the judge ruled that Phillips could apply to the Crown for reimbursement of fees that arose after the court issued the summons; and told the church to go after their fees from Phillips civilly. (Is there a reason the church would have been ineligible for the same Crown payment of fees that Phillips got?)
Scott Lloyd Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 I humbly disagree. mercy should be given.With Phillips making threats about plans B, C, D etc. it needs to be clearly communicated to him that this sort of thing won't be tolerated. At the very least, let him and his supporters pay court costs and attorney fees. This is malicious prosecution. The Church spokesman had it right in calling it "mischief." 3
David T Posted March 20, 2014 Author Posted March 20, 2014 Here's the decision: http://www.deseretnews.com/media/pdf/1319054.pdf
David T Posted March 20, 2014 Author Posted March 20, 2014 (edited) "[The Church lawyer] argues that Mr. Phillips is not an authorized or exempt person under the Legal Services Act 2007, and has committed a criminal offense under s14 of that Act, punishable by imprisonment for up to two years or as a contempt of court. It is not necessary for me to decide that question now, and I do not do so." Wow. Edited March 20, 2014 by David T 1
Scott Lloyd Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 "[The Church lawyer] argues that Mr. Phillips is not an authorized or exempt person under the Legal Services Act 2007, and has committed a criminal offense under s14 of that Act, punishable by imprisonment for up to two years or as a contempt of court. It is not necessary for me to decide that question now, and I do not do so."Wow.So can the Church still go after him for that?
strappinglad Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 How about a few of us get together a suit against this ' gentleman' for pain and suffering and loss of affection over this. I think a flat 2 mil would be a good starting position. Who's with me ?
Duncan Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 How about a few of us get together a suit against this ' gentleman' for pain and suffering and loss of affection over this. I think a flat 2 mil would be a good starting position. Who's with me ? 2 million quid!
Recommended Posts