Kent to Purkiss. A proven mad man addressing an imbecile.

Vic Pur



> Could we re-present the petition to the MOJ? Wouldnt they have to include


> it in papers present to the judge?


 Kent Parker


> No it is not relevant to the case. But it gives members of the public an


> opportunity to express their opinions about it. Any kind of criminal trial


> is a public event and all members of the public are entitled to


> participate or give an opinion if they wish. This is a basic right.

The ever hopeful Purkiss imagines that a petition which numerous people have signed more than once, which was in the control of a illegitimate 'hate site' might somehow be worthy of consideration when deciding Bain's compensation bid. He obviously imagines that a petition that managed to at least find a few hundred nutters that might sign it, and who in the majority are sicko hate-siters, is of some material value. The poor sad bloke, I wonder if shock treatment might help after a plant transplant from a snail as a donor?
 
Kent, sly devil he is, paranoid self-lover, knows there's no chance because the Ministry have already told him they don't deal with nutters who can't control the urge to sign petitions in as many names they can think of before starting again on the next page in the same manner. So he explains a current delusion that 'all members of the public' are entitled to 'participate' in a criminal trial. Why yes Kent, I seem to recall you sitting on the bench waving at the TV cameras during the Bain  trial in Christchurch, pushing the Judge out of his seat in your excitement, and I also recall Christine Williams and Annette Curran holding effigies aloft in from of the Jury and trying to set them alight as an expression of their opinion and their public 'rights.'
 
Old Kenty has no idea at all, the public don't take part in trials, the public also don't have the right to express opinions in a way that is defamatory or hateful. If the world was, and how Kenty now, wishes us somehow to believe, that the hate-siters were good folk, simply expressing an informed opinion based on facts and of public importance he and Purkiss would not be facing 100s of defamation charges while 16 others wait in the wings ever-hopeful they'll not be dragged further into the litigation than just by name - another interesting story yet to be revealed.