Bonkers' update on Sir Olly Cromwell

[The Bald Eagle]

So let's get this straight. The cops arrested Olly for “pursuing a course of conduct of harassing various Bexley councillors on social networking sites” (see link http://www.bexley-is-bonkers.co.uk/blogs/2011/november.shtml#07pt2), charged him, summoned him to appear in front of the beak (twice!!!), but then couldn't quite put their finger on exactly what they had arrested him for in the first place?

I am not the biggest fan of Olly's style on his blog, but as long as he publishes the truth, how can the actions of the council or the police be justified in trying to censor him in this way? So the question has to be asked.

Exactly who is “pursuing a course of conduct of harassing" here?

12 December (Part 3) - Olly Cromwell’s court appearance
 
A bit of a non-event in some ways but interesting nevertheless…

When Olly was last in court it was clear - in fact it was written in the police files - that he was expected to plead guilty. For things he hadn’t done? No way. But that was the prosecution’s excuse for providing no evidence. The District Judge told the prosecution that they must “particularise” Olly’s alleged offences and told them to get it done by today.

In court today was councillor and magistrate Don Massey; obviously he had to agree to stand aside. Bexley council may well be bent but for Massey to hear the case would be a bit too obvious even for them. The proposed solution was that the case should be transferred to the same District Judge who heard the case last time but in the event we never got that far today. Why? Because the prosecution owned up to the fact they had been unable to ‘particularise’ Olly’s offences, in fact the prosecutor didn’t seem to know anything about the case at all. Admitted to not having even read it at one stage. The Judge seems to have the patience of Job as she has allowed the prosecution another week to get their act together, a new date has been set for 21st December.

Olly’s barrister has put in a claim against the prosecutor for wasting his time to the tune of £600. So that’s another bill landed on the taxpayer because Bexley council wants to see bloggers in jail. Actually I think it is me they are really after, I’ll tell you why tomorrow.

[Ewan Hoosami]

It is bonkers they are really after. All Sir olly has ever done is called them 'c  nts.' Bonkers, however, has caused them no end of embarrassment by publishing their numerous misdeeds all over the internet. If they thought about it, they could easily shut bonkers down.

Stop supplying him with material!

Sir olly's description may be a little crude but is blindingly accurate.

[Nigel W]

The only way that they could stop supplying anyone with material (to be used against them) is for them to shut the council down.

The fact that they even go into 'work' is enough to keep Bonkers going.

"If they thought about it, they could easily shut bonkers down".  There lies the problem. It is blatantly obvious that they are incapable of any rational thought processes.

[Ewan Hoosami]

Bang on really Nigel. I did actually see the flaw in my reasoning as I was writing it, but carried on anyway.