[ Login ]  [ Register ]  Skip to: [ search ] [ menus ] [ content ] Select style [ Aqua ] [ Lemon ] [ Lime ] [ Orange ] [ Cherry ] [ show/hide more content ]


on BBC 606: I was in contempt but only of common sense


After many months I decided to write again on BBC 606.
My article was to be in continuation of an article on the coroner’s inquest on Bob Woolmer.

Last night, I find this in my Inbox. I had to read it twice to confirm it was not a hoax.
It wasn’t.
But what it is, I will leave it to you to decide.

This is the exact text of that email:

Dear BBC Community member,
Thank you for contributing to a BBC community site. Unfortunately we’ve had to remove your content below because it contravened one of our House Rules.

Postings to BBC messageboards will be removed if they:
* Break the law, or condone or encourage unlawful activity.
This includes defamation and contempt of court.
Your message has been removed because of the ‘contempt of court’ section of the above House Rule.

Once a suspect is arrested for an offence, or offences, legal restrictions apply. The 1981 Contempt of Court Act makes it a serious criminal offence, once someone’s been arrested, to publish anything which could prejudice their trial.

Being arrested doesn’t in itself indicate guilt, so messages posted to the board which presume guilt on behalf of specific individuals may need to be removed for legal reasons. Your post has been removed for this reason.

Please do not reply to this email because your response will not be read.
If you have any questions, please consult our FAQs page http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/606/5257104.stm from where you can also access a feedback form.

You can read the BBC messageboards House Rules in full here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/messageboards/newguide/popup_house_rules.html

Please be careful when you copy the text of someone else’s message into your post. If their posting is subsequently removed, your posting may also have been removed, as it contained a copy of their failed text.

If you can rewrite your contribution to remove the problem, we’d be happy for you to contribute it again.

Please note that anyone who seriously or repeatedly breaks the House Rules may have action taken against their account.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/messageboards/newguide/popup_breaking_rules.html

Regards,
The BBC Communities Team
http://www.bbc.co.uk/messageboards/newguide/

They, ofcourse, reminded me, that if I respond to the email, it “will not be read”.
How convenient.

I thank the BBC Moderator, for including the original article with their mail.
Now I can republish it here for everyone to read.

URL of content (now removed):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/A28441776

Subject: Bob Woolmer: Coroner’s Inquest

Content:
http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20071025/lead/lead2.html

Reported in Jamaica Gleaner

Questioned by Director of Public Prosecutions Kent Pantry, Dr. Seshaiah said he received the toxicology report from the police, after several requests, on June 21. He did not say if the report showed traces of the pesticide in Woolmer’s body.

Dr. Seshaiah stated that the reaction from Woolmer’s body was consistent with the consumption of cypermethrin, which is usually used in Asian countries where cotton is grown. “If taken orally it metabolises rapidly and excretes from the body quickly. There is increased salivation, vomiting, diarrhoea, muscular incoordination and tremors,” he explained.

Dressed in a dark suit, the diminutive Dr. Seshaiah sat throughout his three-hour testimony. He spoke of getting indifferent treatment from local law enforcement, starting on March 22 when he gave his post-mortem report.

Bob Woolmer: inquest raises more questions
http://www.thesillypoint.com/blogs/2007/10/27/bob-woolmer-inquest-raises-more-questions/

If Woolmer was indeed murdered, why such a determined effort to cover up? Who is the mastermind that needs to be protected at all cost?

The truth, it is obvious, will not come out;
will cricket ever be clean?

No, BBC was not kidding.

What I had published, was a verbatim copy of the report from Jamaica Gleaner,
the text of which is published on the net.
Along with the weblink to the original article.

This is a Coroner’s inquest, for God’s sake, (being held in Jamaica, not UK),
in an open court, where every testimony is in the public domain.

NO ONE HAS BEEN ARRESTED, NO ONE IS BEING TRIED.

One would expect BBC to employ moderators who understands what constitutes “defamation” or “contempt of court”.
What BBC have really done is denied my freedom of expression.

By, God I am glad I left the 606, it appears to be an intelligence free zone.
As for “contributing again”, not in this lifetime, or the next, or the next, or the next…

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments to “on BBC 606: I was in contempt but only of common sense”

  ( feed for these comments)

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

 Powered by FireStats