Hairy Cornflake (DLT) NOT GUILTY

[Pothole]

supertouring said:

Can he sure the accusers?

Sue he can...erm...

[FurtiveFreddy]

sjp63 said:

not by the lawyers silly

Oh, you meant the refund-fairy?

[mgtony]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26177136

[Seight_Returns]

supertouring said:

Can he sure the accusers?

Different standard of proof in a civil rather than criminal court.

The outcome would be far from guaranteed and the potential downside (losing) would outweigh the potential upside (being awarded substantial damages against someone with no money or assets)

[Cheese Mechanic]

Very disturbing, when you consider he has had to sell his house to defend himself.

Assuming that the 2 cases he has not been fully cleared on are not continued, how can he gain recompense for his apparent loss?

[Roy Lime]

CAPP0 said:

At a guess:

woop-hibba-ha-hibba-hmm-hibba-ha-hibba......

[rfisher]

CPS must be chucking anything they can get their hand on at Freddie (hamster fiddler) Starr.

[fflyingdog]

So now he has been found not guilty ,why can they not name the people who brought the charges against him?

[anonymous-user]

Pothole said:

supertouring said:

Can he sure the accusers?

Sue he can...erm...

You can't sue someone for something said in Court (subject to some very narrow exceptions, not likely to apply here). You can only sue someone for malicious prosecution if you can prove malice, which is very hard to do.

[turbobloke]

Breadvan72 said:

Pothole said:

supertouring said:

Can he sure the accusers?

Sue he can...erm...

You can't sue someone for something said in Court (subject to some very narrow exceptions, not likely to apply here). You can only sue someone for malicious prosecution if you can prove malice, which is very hard to do.

Agreed but are you sue if parrots can sure?

[Oakey]

You're wasting your time Breadvan, it appears you're going to have to explain this to the hard of thinking each and every time we get one of these threads.

[turbobloke]

Anyway...that's a lot of not guilty there, what a surprise.

The 'surprise' bit in the statement above may not be accurate.

[bexVN]

The only result. I hope he does get something back from all this. So good that he had a lot of people prepared to take the stand and support him.

[sparkythecat]

CAPP0 said:

dandarez said:

Wonder what Rolf is thinking this afternoon?

At a guess:

woop-hibba-ha-hibba-hmm-hibba-ha-hibba......

Top reply !

[anonymous-user]

Oakey said:

You're wasting your time Breadvan, it appears you're going to have to explain this to the hard of thinking each and every time we get one of these threads.

I will wire the machine so that it can just spool out the same blah whenever any Schleb defendant is acquitted.

[rohrl]

Breadvan72 said:

You can't sue someone for something said in Court (subject to some very narrow exceptions, not likely to apply here). You can only sue someone for malicious prosecution if you can prove malice, which is very hard to do.

But he’s been found not guilty so shouldn’t his accusers, their families, the investigating police officers, CPS, both side’s barristers, the judge, clerk of the court and the court recorder all be subject to summary justice resulting in their being transported to the colonies?

It’s a Dave Lee Travisty of justice otherwise.

[supertouring]

turbobloke said:

Breadvan72 said:

Pothole said:

supertouring said:

Can he sure the accusers?

Sue he can...erm...

You can't sue someone for something said in Court (subject to some very narrow exceptions, not likely to apply here). You can only sue someone for malicious prosecution if you can prove malice, which is very hard to do.

Agreed but are you sue if parrots can sure?

Ok spelling police, it's a fair cop.

[anonymous-user]

You forgot to add the jurors, for taking so long over it and dithering a bit. To the hulks with the lot of them! Anything else would be Hairy Monstrous.

[Ozzie Osmond]

supertouring said:

Can he sure the accusers?

Only if he has been libelled...

.... and you can't be libelled,

• in parliament, or
• by someone under oath in a court of law.

I guess he could try to claim for "malicious prosecution" but that would be hard to prove.

In the same way, his accusers might try to sue him for damages on the basis their civil claim is easier to prove on "balance of probabilities" than the criminal prosecution which needed "beyond reasonable doubt". However, their claims would be time-barred unless the Court gave special permission for claims to be brought out of time.

None of this is very likely.

[Bill]

dandarez said:

Makes me (you?) wonder where this would have led had Saville still been alive and tried?

No way to know, but I'm not sure you can compare a bloke found not guilty of some office groping to someone who appears to have been the country's most prolific paedophile.