Hairy Cornflake (DLT) NOT GUILTY

[pcvdriver]

sparkythecat said:

CAPP0 said:

dandarez said:

Wonder what Rolf is thinking this afternoon?

At a guess:

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

Top reply !

The impatient will be asking...."Can you tell if 'e did it yet?" - just to paraphrase...

[turbobloke]

supertouring said:

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.

Chill. The parrot wasn't yours

[Pesty]

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.

Two parrots please stat


Take a swap breath and read again from the start

[aw51 121565]

I'm not going to say "I told you so...", but I have predicted in the past that some of these "celebrity abuse" trials would go the same way as that of Michael Le Vell .

Glad to be so thoroughly vindicated in my view .

And OH! CPS - what were you thinking of in deciding to send these cases to Crown Court???

[anonymous-user]

turbobloke said:

supertouring said:

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.

Chill. The parrot wasn't yours

Serves me right for being bone idle and quoting the quoter instead of going to the sure source.

[Justin Cyder]

Feeling slightly depressed at the realisation that Max Clifford may not actually automatically go to jail forever and ever.

[Scuffers]

really pleased for DLT, as others of said i can't believe the cps carry on with this my question is this who is next?

[turbobloke]

Breadvan72 said:

turbobloke said:

supertouring said:

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.

Chill. The parrot wasn't yours

Serves me right for being bone idle and quoting the quoter instead of going to the sure source.

[littleowl]

Quack-Quack! OOOPS!

[anonymous-user]

Another sad indictment of our broken legal system IMO. Unnamed plaintiffs get the media and lawyers falling over themselves to bring a case that isn't provable, ruining the reputation and finances of the innocent party.

I only hope they have to pay their own legal costs and they bankrupt them.

One has to wonder why the hell the CPS thought these cases were worth bringing; but then again, their mates all get a feed don't they?

[Bill]

REALIST123 said:

Another sad indictment of our broken legal system IMO. Unnamed plaintiffs get the media and lawyers falling over themselves to bring a case that isn't provable, ruining the reputation and finances of the innocent party.

I only hope they have to pay their own legal costs and they bankrupt them.

One has to wonder why the hell the CPS thought these cases were worth bringing; but then again, their mates all get a feed don't they?

I can't say from what I heard in the media I thought the CPS were right to go after DLT but why should the accuser be punished? Do you think they made it up completely (and how do you prove that?) or do you think the prosecution failed to prove the case "beyond reasonable doubt"?

Edited by Bill on Thursday 13th February 19:09

[anonymous-user]

There were no plaintiffs here as this was a criminal trial and the prosecution costs are paid by the taxpayer. The complainants did not have lawyers in the case - the prosecution was handled by the Crown. Note that in France "parties civile" may be heard a criminal trials, but here a complainant just gives evidence and, if there is a conviction or guilty plea, can give a victim statement. The complainant is not a party to the case. It's Regina vs whoever it is.

[Oakey]

REALIST123 said:

Another sad indictment of our broken legal system IMO. Unnamed plaintiffs get the media and lawyers falling over themselves to bring a case that isn't provable, ruining the reputation and finances of the innocent party.

I only hope they have to pay their own legal costs and they bankrupt them.

One has to wonder why the hell the CPS thought these cases were worth bringing; but then again, their mates all get a feed don't they?

How much legal costs do you think the accusers have?

[anonymous-user]

Realist's unrealistic comments reinforce(I think) the good sense of having citizenship classes in schools, to teach people some basics about the Government, Parliament, and (of present relevance) the legal system.

[Willy Nilly]

Would Mr Cornflake be able to recover enough costs via the medium of selling his story? It's a sad state of affairs when you have to sell everything to prove your innocence or not guiltyness for the pedants.

[Oakey]

Breadvan72 said:

Realist's unrealistic comments reinforce(I think) the good sense of having citizenship classes in schools, to teach people some basics about the Government, Parliament, and (of present relevance) the legal system.

It's absurd that grown adults apparently have zero concept of how the British legal system works.

[voyds9]

Poor sod lost his house but kept his wife. When it rains it pours.

[skwdenyer]

Oakey said:

It's absurd that grown adults apparently have zero concept of how the British legal system works.

Indeed. Who'd have thought that you'd be accused, found not guilty, and still be £100k+ down as a result?

[rohrl]

Oakey said:

Breadvan72 said:

Realist's unrealistic comments reinforce(I think) the good sense of having citizenship classes in schools, to teach people some basics about the Government, Parliament, and (of present relevance) the legal system.

It's absurd that grown adults apparently have zero concept of how the British legal system works.

Just like the other day when so many on this site read Bill Roache's acquittal as code for the court judging his accusers to be (and I quote) "lying scum". All I can think is that they haven't watched enough episodes of The Bill, LA Law or Judge John Deed, from whence I dun gleaned my legal knowhow.

[Oakey]

skwdenyer said:

Indeed. Who'd have thought that you'd be accused, found not guilty, and still be £100k+ down as a result?

Well who knows, he could have saved himself a shed load of money and opted to defend himself and maybe instead he'd have been found guilty?