On Feb 6, 5:32 pm, contrex wrote:
On 6 Feb, 14:12, wrote:

On Feb 6, 2:06 pm, wrote:

What case?

Just found it.

Hmm.

B2003

do share.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...g-by-laws.html

B2003

"John Rowland" wrote:

I think it's very ungentlemanly for us to sit here speculating away like
crazy while Colin sits gagged in the corner.

I've heard the other side have engaged some hotshot ambulance-chasing
lawyers.

If Mr R is gagged in the corner, his hands obviously remain untied, as he
managed to post the local authority by-election results to
uk.politics.electoral a little earlier.

Chris

In article ,
(Chris Read) wrote:

"John Rowland" wrote:

I think it's very ungentlemanly for us to sit here speculating
away like crazy while Colin sits gagged in the corner.

I've heard the other side have engaged some hotshot
ambulance-chasing lawyers.

If Mr R is gagged in the corner, his hands obviously remain untied,
as he managed to post the local authority by-election results to
uk.politics.electoral a little earlier.

I posted this in another forum when discussion started:

I could say more but *I'm* not going to abuse a quasi-judicial process by
conducting a trial by media before the hearing which is on Wednesday
*next* week.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 7 Feb, 00:00, wrote:

I could say more but *I'm* not going to abuse a quasi-judicial process by
conducting a trial by media before the hearing which is on Wednesday
*next* week.

What do you mean, "quasi-" judicial? It's basically just a
disciplinary at work, isn't it?

Ian

On 6 Feb, 13:14, "John Rowland"
wrote:
I know I was the first to comment, and my comment was derogatory without
being in any way informative, but now that Colin has revealed legal reasons
why he can not comment on the case ...

Has he? Where? He is certainly refusing to talk about it, but I
haven't seen him give any legal reason why he could not do so.

Ian

Mizter T wrote:
On 6 Feb, 17:10, "Andrew Heenan" wrote:
wrote:
I know I was the first to comment, and my comment was derogatory
without being in any way informative, but now that Colin has
revealed legal reasons
why he can not comment on the case, I think it's very
ungentlemanly for us
to sit here speculating away like crazy while Colin sits gagged in
the corner.

What case pending?
So far as I've read, there is no prosecution happening or planned.
(my first post on this matter).


Why reply to my post when what you quote is what the starter of this
thread (John Rowland) said?

Maybe I'm in his killfile?

gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

I know I was the first to comment, and my comment was derogatory
without being in any way informative, but now that Colin has revealed
legal reasons why he can not comment on the case ...

Has he? Where? He is certainly refusing to talk about it, but I haven't
seen him give any legal reason why he could not do so.

He doesn't want to talk about - wisely, imho - in the run-up to his
standards board hearing. It's not a court case, true.

In article ,
(Adrian) wrote:

gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

I know I was the first to comment, and my comment was derogatory
without being in any way informative, but now that Colin has revealed
legal reasons why he can not comment on the case ...

Has he? Where? He is certainly refusing to talk about it, but I
haven't
seen him give any legal reason why he could not do so.

He doesn't want to talk about - wisely, imho - in the run-up to his
standards board hearing. It's not a court case, true.

It's a hearing by a panel of the City Council's Standards Committee. When
the Standards Board considered these sorts of things you wouldn't have
read about it until after the hearing.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Feb 6, 1:14*pm, "John Rowland"
wrote:
I know I was the first to comment, and my comment was derogatory without
being in any way informative, but now that Colin has revealed legal reasons
why he can not comment on the case, I think it's very ungentlemanly for us
to sit here speculating away like crazy while Colin sits gagged in the
corner.

For some reason I am reminded of Alison Steadman's dreadful character
in Mike Leigh's "Nuts in May".

"They're ignoring you, Keith."

On 7 Feb, 10:52, wrote:
In article ,

(Adrian) wrote:
gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

I know I was the first to comment, and my comment was derogatory
without being in any way informative, but now that Colin has revealed
legal reasons why he can not comment on the case ...

Has he? Where? He is certainly refusing to talk about it, but I
haven't
seen him give any legal reason why he could not do so.

He doesn't want to talk about - wisely, imho - in the run-up to his
standards board hearing. It's not a court case, true.

It's a hearing by a panel of the City Council's Standards Committee. When
the Standards Board considered these sorts of things you wouldn't have
read about it until after the hearing.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Well, Colin, of course I shouldn't comment upon the case, but I hope
it's all right to say that I'm sorry to hear about your spot of
trouble, and I hope it all goes all right for you. You seem like a
decent fellow, and I wish you well.