What Comes Around, Goes Around #2


By Jonathan Hoffman
January 30, 2012
Share

http://hurryupharry.org/2012/01/28/carole-swords-chair-of-tower-hamlets-...

Swords also stated that Mr Garfield spat in her face, and mimed wiping spittle away with her hand. Swords claimed that Mr Garfield had lifted her off her feet and swung her round and had bruised her arm.

Perjury in other words

It's typical. The Israel-bashers all lie through their teeth.

COMMENTS

Mary in Brighton

Mon, 01/30/2012 - 18:18

Rate this:

-1 points

Jonathan dear ......

<<<<<<<< shakes head in despair.


Advis3r

Mon, 01/30/2012 - 18:52

Rate this:

1 point

Not quite accurate some lie through their dentures!


Real Real Zionist

Thu, 12/06/2012 - 15:10

Rate this:

-2 points

Mary in Brighton

Thu, 12/06/2012 - 16:13

Rate this:

-2 points

Tut tut Harvey


Real Real Zionist

Thu, 12/06/2012 - 18:29

Rate this:

0 points

The problem with views from the bowl is the curvature.


Mary in Brighton

Thu, 12/06/2012 - 18:53

Rate this:

0 points

If a strange man were following me around a supermarket so close it was " as if he were stuck like glue " and the worst that happened to him was that his glasses fell off, he could count himself very lucky indeed.


Real Real Zionist

Thu, 12/06/2012 - 18:59

Rate this:

0 points

And they don't come any stranger than Harv.


happygoldfish

Thu, 12/06/2012 - 19:02

Rate this:

0 points
jonathan's original post (of 10 months ago) …

Jonathan Hoffman: January 30, 2012

Perjury in other words

was an accurate report of the original trial in the magistrates' court

the magistrates found beyond reasonable doubt that she was guilty (and therefore that she had perjured herself)

the appeal (a complete re-hearing, with the witnesses giving their evidence again) was before a barrister and two magistrates

the barrister, delivering the court's reasons, said “It’s clear" [from the cctv, that] "Ms Swords raised her arm with her hand carrying a number of leaflets. What’s not clear is whether the hand or arm ever came into contact with Mr Garfield’s face. How his glasses came off we cannot say. ”

this reasoning is odd … that, although the cctv shows the glasses coming off after she raised her arm, the fact that the cctv is viewing from "behind" the head and therefore does not show the actual point of contact, means it is possible they came off without any contact

but anyway, the position now is only that the original court held that there was no reasonable doubt, while the appeal court has held that there is

having said that, the jc report is unsatisfactory … it says "has been cleared of hitting …", ie of assault, but the original conviction was not for assault, it was for using threatening and abusive words or behaviour likely to cause harassment (an offence under the public order act 1986) …

so it is not clear that the reporter has reported the relevant part of the judgment

does anyone know where we can see the cctv footage?

POST A COMMENT

You must be logged in to post a comment.