Superfluous
My Mail is Forwarded Here
- Messages
- 3,995
- Location
- Missing in action
It will be interesting to see how certain companies that have joint ventured with Alexander/Lauder will react to the conviction.
-
The Fedora Lounge is supported in part by commission earning affiliate links sitewide. Please support us by using them. You may learn more here.
Aero Leather Clothing trial update
- Thread starter Sloan1874
- Start date
Sometimes people loose their license, sometimes not. It can depends on needs if your good at 'Bull' or whether the Judge got a hard time from Mrs Judge
Dont think we actually have Sharia Law courts.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-557331/Muslim-spared-speeding-ban-drive-wives.html
Wonder how many jackets we are legally allowed to own without offending someone somewhere.? I lost a would be girlfriend when she found out I owned a jacket made from a dead horse. But we diverse haha!
Yes indeed this is what a lot of us will be watching, especially the employees that went over I imagine
Featured products
-
Alden 403 Moc Toe Boot - Brown Chromexcel - $680 The classic "Indy" style Alden Boot in the classic Horween brown Chromexcel. -
Grant Stone Diesel Boot Dark Olive Chromexcel - #395 Goodyear welted, Horween Chromexcel, classic good looks. -
Himel Bros. - The Ross Mk. 1 Leather Jacket Classic D-pocket motorcycle/aviator style jacket.
Edward
Bartender
- Messages
- 25,082
- Location
- London, UK
Before any of us gets excitable, let's also bear in mind that the legal proceedings are not fully concluded until sentence is passed, custodial or otherwise, and thus contempt of court by publication remains a live issue (per Contempt of Court Act 1981).
Aha! I wasn't aware this quote went that far back.
As noted already, Archer was well known already in the UK, both as a trashy novelist and Conservative Party politician, both member of the House of Lords and, at the time of his arrest, Conservative candidate for London Mayor in the 2000 election.
He wrote three volumes of memoir during his incarcertation (mostly at low-level, "open" prison, if memory serves). I don't know who profited from them financially (the law in the UK provides that a convicted criminal cannot financial benfit from their conviction), but it certainly got his name back in the press and bosted his reputation for further trashy novels.
As a politician, he's quite far to the right (in UK terms), but Hitler as a comparison is a bit of a Godwin.
Uk prisons no longer have punitive work regimes; the focus is mostly on education, training and rehabilitation, with good reason. Many studies (for example, as undertaken with the US prison population who manufacture the Prison Blues Denim range) have indicated that prison population given training and constructive outlets are very significantly less likely to reoffend. There are, of course, many anecdotal examples: UVF murder Michael Stone spent his years out of prison producing quit bad, but surprisingly popular, conceptual art. Which is rather better than killing people. At least the attack he was reincarcerated over turned out to be "performance art" (albeit no less legal for its lack of either actual harm to others or deadly intent!). Actor Lesley Grantham, better known to many as Eastenders' Dirty Den Watts, did time for murder in his younger days, discovered acting through a prison workshop, and has kept himself out of trouble since.
I think military prisons still go in for the stick methods in a big way, but that's a very different world.
Scotland does. It's always been a separate jurisdiction from England & Wales. (The other UK jurisdiction is Northern Ireland).
Historical, yes... They existed in England long before the US was invented.
Sharia "courts" exist in the UK, based on the same legal backdrop as the Jewish Beth Din. Neither are true courts. The Beth Din has existed in the UK for centuries, and is a dispute resolution service. In order to go before it, both parties must be Jewish and must agree to be bound by its ruling - the state supports that. The Sharia equivalent is the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal, which is established under the auspices of the Arbitration Act 1996. Both operate under the framework of UK law, and neither is a separate legal system in its own right. The courts can overrule both, and neither has the power to step outside its limited scope. The MAT is primarily concerned with family matters. It can recognise a divorce, but not grant a divorce which is recognised in England & Wales. Sharia marriage is not recognised in UK law; in order to marry one spouse validly, the UK legal marriage is necessary. (I'm not sure whether this can be incorporated into the religious ceremony, as with Christian churches, or needs be done separately). MATs have no jurisdiction in criminal law, so I'd be wary of what you might have read about them hearing a speeding case. Doubly so if it came from certain, less reliable corners of the English press.
Hmn. Hunting around, I can only find that story reported in corners of the British press which I would not trust to be objective on the issue. Reading between the lines for the fcts of the matter, however, it appears that the real court did indeed choose not to punish him for speeding by taking away his licence in order that he could see both families (only one of the marriages will be legally valid in Scots law, though). A non-story in the sense that some of these reports are trying to spin it. I've seen similarly relaxed approaches taken to punishing a speeding offence when someone's livelihood would then be at risk (such as a delivery or taxi driver), and, indeed, to Beckham when he claimed that he had to speed to stop the press taking photos of him driving out of his own gate in his car. I don't hold with that sort of leniancy myself, but that's how it goes. It should of course be noted that a ban on driving for a set period is just one of a range of possible penalties available in these situations, and while one may or may not dispute whether an individual should be banned, it is a misrepresentation to suggest they 'got off' where they are still found guilty and subject to a different form of punishment (fines, points on licence, whatever). You only tend to see this sort of thing on first offences, not for habitual offenders. It's similar to a convicted criminal being given community service instead of a custodial sentence. They'll still have a record.
Aha! I wasn't aware this quote went that far back.
As noted already, Archer was well known already in the UK, both as a trashy novelist and Conservative Party politician, both member of the House of Lords and, at the time of his arrest, Conservative candidate for London Mayor in the 2000 election.
He wrote three volumes of memoir during his incarcertation (mostly at low-level, "open" prison, if memory serves). I don't know who profited from them financially (the law in the UK provides that a convicted criminal cannot financial benfit from their conviction), but it certainly got his name back in the press and bosted his reputation for further trashy novels.
As a politician, he's quite far to the right (in UK terms), but Hitler as a comparison is a bit of a Godwin.
Uk prisons no longer have punitive work regimes; the focus is mostly on education, training and rehabilitation, with good reason. Many studies (for example, as undertaken with the US prison population who manufacture the Prison Blues Denim range) have indicated that prison population given training and constructive outlets are very significantly less likely to reoffend. There are, of course, many anecdotal examples: UVF murder Michael Stone spent his years out of prison producing quit bad, but surprisingly popular, conceptual art. Which is rather better than killing people. At least the attack he was reincarcerated over turned out to be "performance art" (albeit no less legal for its lack of either actual harm to others or deadly intent!). Actor Lesley Grantham, better known to many as Eastenders' Dirty Den Watts, did time for murder in his younger days, discovered acting through a prison workshop, and has kept himself out of trouble since.
I think military prisons still go in for the stick methods in a big way, but that's a very different world.
Scotland does. It's always been a separate jurisdiction from England & Wales. (The other UK jurisdiction is Northern Ireland).
Historical, yes... They existed in England long before the US was invented.
Sharia "courts" exist in the UK, based on the same legal backdrop as the Jewish Beth Din. Neither are true courts. The Beth Din has existed in the UK for centuries, and is a dispute resolution service. In order to go before it, both parties must be Jewish and must agree to be bound by its ruling - the state supports that. The Sharia equivalent is the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal, which is established under the auspices of the Arbitration Act 1996. Both operate under the framework of UK law, and neither is a separate legal system in its own right. The courts can overrule both, and neither has the power to step outside its limited scope. The MAT is primarily concerned with family matters. It can recognise a divorce, but not grant a divorce which is recognised in England & Wales. Sharia marriage is not recognised in UK law; in order to marry one spouse validly, the UK legal marriage is necessary. (I'm not sure whether this can be incorporated into the religious ceremony, as with Christian churches, or needs be done separately). MATs have no jurisdiction in criminal law, so I'd be wary of what you might have read about them hearing a speeding case. Doubly so if it came from certain, less reliable corners of the English press.
Hmn. Hunting around, I can only find that story reported in corners of the British press which I would not trust to be objective on the issue. Reading between the lines for the fcts of the matter, however, it appears that the real court did indeed choose not to punish him for speeding by taking away his licence in order that he could see both families (only one of the marriages will be legally valid in Scots law, though). A non-story in the sense that some of these reports are trying to spin it. I've seen similarly relaxed approaches taken to punishing a speeding offence when someone's livelihood would then be at risk (such as a delivery or taxi driver), and, indeed, to Beckham when he claimed that he had to speed to stop the press taking photos of him driving out of his own gate in his car. I don't hold with that sort of leniancy myself, but that's how it goes. It should of course be noted that a ban on driving for a set period is just one of a range of possible penalties available in these situations, and while one may or may not dispute whether an individual should be banned, it is a misrepresentation to suggest they 'got off' where they are still found guilty and subject to a different form of punishment (fines, points on licence, whatever). You only tend to see this sort of thing on first offences, not for habitual offenders. It's similar to a convicted criminal being given community service instead of a custodial sentence. They'll still have a record.
Edward
Bartender
- Messages
- 25,082
- Location
- London, UK
Sometimes people loose their license, sometimes not. It can depends on needs if your good at 'Bull' or whether the Judge got a hard time from Mrs Judge
Dont think we actually have Sharia Law courts.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-557331/Muslim-spared-speeding-ban-drive-wives.html
Ah, yes.... it seems some reports must have been confused with the MATs (not yet extended to Scotland, I believe), and, eh, a court. No ention of them at all in the Mail piece. Here's the crucial bit, though:
So no, nobody 'got off' here in any sense other than he was lucky enough not to face the full penalty of the law - and clearly for reasons that it was considered overly harsh to punish him by taking away his licence and making it hard to see his families and carry out his business. I'd have been less sympathetic with a speeder, but he's still been found guilty of a speeding offence and been punished, so. not a bad report of the facts from the Mail, though, who've never known to be particularly symapthetic in this sort of case.
:lol:
Edward
Bartender
- Messages
- 25,082
- Location
- London, UK
I should imagine we'll see statements from relevant parties, as necessary; most likely after the sentencing. As Lauder was an employee of AL rather than an owner, there's no legal reason for their trading to be affected by the outcome of the trial, though I would suspect they'll be in the market for one more employee.
Probably best we keep speculation to a minimum until sentence has been passed and the proceedings are no longer active.
I think that Lauder partially owns AL, with Alexander being the main owner of the company. But him being convicted doesn't mean the company will have legal obligations too, because its a separate juridic person. On the other hand, certainly isn't a great reference that one of the executives get involved in a grand theft.
- Messages
- 15,563
- Location
- East Central Indiana
Of storse not...
I'll be writing stuff for the newspapers over the weekend, so I'll probably do a legally cleared digest of it that will cover the stuff the FL will be interested in - ie the truth about storse, Iron Heart, and mentions of the Lounge - which was cited by Lauder as ruining his chance of becoming a director of AL, no less!
Probably best not to publish the whole blog, the civil case will be following be this result, contempt of court, case prejudicial etc.
And in other news the booty is going to put on the market shortly in the Grand Theft Aero sale! Ken said that it's going to be up for grabs at bargain price in a special event.
Otter
One Too Many
- Messages
- 1,445
tonypaj
Practically Family
- Messages
- 659
- Location
- Divonne les Bains, France
I would simply write my stuff, if it is needed by one's profession, based on facts. Pre publicity on websites as FL serves no purpose.
Agree to disagree
ProteinNerd
My Mail is Forwarded Here
- Messages
- 3,902
- Location
- Sydney
Am I right in assuming that the majority of the jackets in question we expect to go on the sale page will be the "storce" jackets that were returned and then remade? or do we think will it include the stolen merchandise as well?
- Messages
- 15,563
- Location
- East Central Indiana
It would seem that the stolen Aero property that will be released for sale was BEFORE the storse problem was discovered...but I'm sure that Ken & company will now sell it for what it really is.
I can't imagine they'd put up the storse, as who would want to buy that? I had an HWM that was apparently a total mixture, not that I knew, but Ken sussed it out quickly, and I wouldn't ever want to be reminded of the whole carry-on again.
I thought there were around a hundred proper jackets and 150 good quality pairs of jeans recovered, so that should make an interesting sale. Hopefully they'll let us know what's in the offing soonish, but they may need to wait for sentencing and the door finally slams shut on the case for good.
Edit - thanks Sloan for giving us the real numbers. Quite a haul, indeed.
I thought there were around a hundred proper jackets and 150 good quality pairs of jeans recovered, so that should make an interesting sale. Hopefully they'll let us know what's in the offing soonish, but they may need to wait for sentencing and the door finally slams shut on the case for good.
Edit - thanks Sloan for giving us the real numbers. Quite a haul, indeed.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 15,563
- Location
- East Central Indiana
I think the bigger problem with the steer jackets being sold as horse...and the mixture jackets..was that customers weren't getting what they though they were.
If the stolen jackets are now sold for what they ARE at a discount...who or why would anyone complain..??
HD
If the stolen jackets are now sold for what they ARE at a discount...who or why would anyone complain..??
HD
Similar threads
