As some of you may know, a certain
individual whom I shall not name—and as it happens have at all times taken
at the very least reasonable care not to name, though he himself has been less careful in concealing his
true identity—has commenced defamation proceedings against me in the District
Court in Perth.
It goes without saying that I shall contest
his action with all the vigour I can muster.
Meanwhile, I have today deleted from the
blog every post and comment that refers to him. I apologise to the authors of such comments, but as the old
saying goes, ‘needs must when the devil drives’. My having made those deletions should not be construed as an admission of liability.
I have little doubt that I shall have to
invest much time and energy in refuting my adversary’s untenable claim that I
have defamed him. That is time and
energy I would much rather spend on writing the blog and otherwise enjoying
life, but that can’t be helped.
My thanks and good wishes go to everyone
who has taken time and trouble to read my posts, even to those readers who
disliked them and in various ways, not only in hostile comments—most of which I
posted—gave the impression that given the opportunity they would cheerfully
have wrung my neck, pulled out my fingernails or hauled me before the Human
Rights Commission (said to be the most horrible torture of all).
Cheers, JP
One person caring about another represents life's greatest value.
ReplyDeleteJim Rohn
A person who stands up for the truth sends an enduring ripple of hope through the community. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteBest wishes for a good outcome.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThanks for all your hatd work James and good luck in court.
ReplyDeleteWhen a person threatens legal action, it's a ploy they use to block the truth and control those they fear.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteOver the years I have read your blog with interest & appreciation. However, at times i have thought some of your comments somewhat patronising in tone & respect. Living in a very small town it is sometimes wise to bite ones tongue about ones neighbours activities.
ReplyDeleteHold your head high James and be proud of your blog. York is fortunate to have someone prepared to stand for what is fair and right!
ReplyDeleteStaying silent when something wrong is being done is equivalent to condoning it.
You must come out of retirement and give us your take on the ongoing Paul Crewe saga. There will be plenty to write about in a couple of weeks after the trial on the 26 October.
ReplyDeleteWell, since you ask...
DeleteMy first response is to say that Mr Crewe must be presumed innocent until proven guilty. To date he hasn't entered a plea, so we don't know yet if he intends to plead guilty or go to trial.
If a person pleads not guilty, but is in fact guilty as charged and found to be so, things are unlikely to go well for him. A guilty person who knows himself to be guilty and also knows that the evidence against him is strong is usually best advised to plead guilty at the earliest opportunity. If he does that, thereby saving the state the trouble and expense of a trial - and saving witnesses the embarrassing ordeal of giving evidence and being cross-examined - he may be eligible for a reduction of his sentence.
What surprised me about Paul Crewe's predicament is the number of charges he is facing - according to the Sunday Times, seven counts of committing an indecent act in public and one of common assault. In my naivety, I thought there had been just one alleged incident involving several witnesses. On that basis, and having assumed the incident to have resulted from some kind of mental breakdown, I didn't in my earlier writings on the topic take the allegations as seriously as I should have.
So if he's found guilty of those charges, or pleads guilty to them, I shall owe the women concerned a huge apology. I had no idea that what the women alleged wasn't a one-off (as I had mistakenly assumed) but a pattern of conduct, namely serial flashing. As for the assault charge, I hope it's not alleged that one of the women was assaulted.
What doesn't surprise me, I'm sorry to say, is how the Shire appears to have mishandled the women's complaints.
Unless I'm much mistaken, Mr Crewe was not summarily dismissed as one might have expected but instead was given the opportunity to resign. Furthermore, he was permitted to continue to reside for several weeks in a Shire-owned property and for the same period had the use of a Shire vehicle (and who paid for his petrol, I wonder?).
It seems that the Shire acted secretively on the advice of WALGA, leaving it to the women involved to complain to the police. Not a good look, in my opinion.
Not only 'secretively', but 'deceitfully' as well. See my post 'Legal Eagle Flies Undone' of 31 December 2017.
DeleteDid our councillors know what was really going on? If they did, why didn't they tell us? When did 'protecting the organisation' become more important for our Shire President and his loyal entourage than being honest with the folk they were elected to serve?
York has gone backwards with freedom of speech once again under threat.
DeleteThe two Blogs are vital to this Town and both Blog Masters can take a much deserved bow for their determination to keep us informed by exposing the truth.
Some years ago 'certain ego driven people' attempted to control this Town using fear tactics and stymieing freedom of speech.
The individuals under attack resorted to circulating documents and the truth through the community using 'other' methods. We can do it again!
The underground network has just been rebooted!
DeleteAnd unfortunately there is plenty to report
DeleteNot too many comments posted of late. Why may that be?
ReplyDeleteThe most obvious answer is the correct one, namely that people haven't of late submitted too many comments. A second reason may be that I've ceased posting fresh articles, at any rate for the time being.
DeletePlease don't gloat, I'm not dead yet and neither is the blog. I'm thinking of putting together a detailed critique of submissions provided to Council regarding the future of Chalkies aka the old convent school.
NEWSFLASH 27 October 2018
ReplyDeletePaul Crewe was due to appear yesterday in Central Law Courts to face seven charges of 'flashing' and one of assault.
It now appears that all eight charges have been dropped.
I've no idea at present how this came about.
Thank you for keeping us informed James. Unbelievable!
ReplyDeletePerhaps the people who pressed charges either settled out of court, removed their complaints or he pleaded guilty?
ReplyDeleteOnly civil cases are 'settled out of court'. Mr Crewe was facing a criminal prosecution, not a civil suit.
DeleteI suppose it's possible that the witnesses withdrew their complaints, in which case they would have had their own private reasons for doing so.
My information was that the prosecution did not proceed because the prosecutor had decided that the evidence against the accused wouldn't stand up in court. If so, it's very unlikely that the accused would have had the chance to enter a plea, or if he had, that he would have pleaded guilty (why would the prosecution walk away from a case if the alleged malefactor had previously pleaded guilty as charged?).
I wasn't there, so I accept that my information might be wrong, and the accused might have pleaded guilty and was sentenced accordingly - but I doubt it. What we have here is a mystery cloaked in an enigma. We may never know the truth.
The answer may be in the advert for proposed changes to Local Laws (page 9) latest edition Community Matters.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous19 October 2018 at 07:04 0- Don't fret, comments and documents are still being circulated.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 19 October 2018. If you have to ask that question, it means you are not included in the circulation of comments and documents.
DeleteWhy may that be?
The comment you have responded to consisted of an injunction followed by a statement. It wasn't a question.
DeleteThe people involved in the failed court case should seriously consider lodging Worker's Compensation stress claims against the Shire of York.
ReplyDelete