What a huge waste of public money
Discussion
Rovinghawk said:
Rise to mine then- how could she possibly be mistaken about what she alleges happened?
You'd have to ask her or anyone else thats ever made a nistakeI posted earlier ( check out the first few pages) about a police office who's genuinely believed he'd seen something, but the evidence showed he hadnt. He was mistaken.
You cant take him to court for making a mistake.
The courts are there to weed out mistakes, which they've done in this case.
Whats more more worrying is if they fail and just take one word against another.
In the other thread there was an article on the radio about a woman who's husband had been found guilty of a sexual assault and she'd had to pull everything together to prove him innocent
It shouldn't have got that far.
The court should have seen the evidence didnt stack up- it was never there
As I opened - if there was no CCTV would this have been thrown out?
Or would her 'he done it' have overridden his 'not me guv'
Where was the evidence?
TTmonkey said:
irocfan said:
Halb said:
irocfan said:
Bring on the clowns said:
Halb said:
longshot said:
Are we any the wiser regarding who she is?
No.If 'she' is innocent, and not the one, why hasn't she replied to polite questions on her now moribund t
tter feed to say, "No, it wasn't me."? One just needs to look at this thread as an example of the type of bile that excretes instantly. I would give no-one any traction on my feed if people started asking looney questions...especially if I was gonna be in the world's biggest programme this year.
s off sooner or later" is true. However in this era of twitter lynch mob mentality it would make sense to say "steady on people, it's not me" - especially as they do actually have a ttface account. Idiotboy naming and shaming needs to be careful though one would have thought?She's been named by someone from abroad publicly, outside of the British courts jurisdiction. However, British media isn't allowed to even report that she's been named world wide.
Early reports said 'major BBC star'. I think that's misleading. However, she has a role coming up in a popular TV program which will probably make her a house hold name.
saaby93 said:
Rovinghawk said:
Rise to mine then- how could she possibly be mistaken about what she alleges happened?
You'd have to ask her or anyone else thats ever made a nistakeI call bulls
t on it being any kind of mistake- it's not exactly something you'd misinterpret. I'll call it a simple malicious lie on her part. saaby93 said:
no not deliberate but shows I'm not immune either.Good point though
You may get some people thinking it was deliberate
Rather than discuss the point you seem to want to imply they can't. Odd. I'll leave you to it.
saaby93 said:
You'd have to ask her or anyone else thats ever made a nistake
I posted earlier ( check out the first few pages) about a police office who's genuinely believed he'd seen something, but the evidence showed he hadnt. He was mistaken.
You cant take him to court for making a mistake.
The courts are there to weed out mistakes, which they've done in this case.
I'm sure many people mistakenly think they saw something they didn't. It's a common mistake humans make and there are countless studies which give a sound scientific rationale for why and how this can occur.I posted earlier ( check out the first few pages) about a police office who's genuinely believed he'd seen something, but the evidence showed he hadnt. He was mistaken.
You cant take him to court for making a mistake.
The courts are there to weed out mistakes, which they've done in this case.
Mistaking somebody brushing past your shoulder for a fraction of a second in a busy station - with them inserting one or more fingers into an intimate orifice for several seconds......is not a mistake I think many (if any) people genuinely make.
Can you really equate the two scenarios?
La Liga said:
Rovinghawk said:
And yet they went ahead despite even a cursory examination showing that it's bullst. Your 'additional safeguards' are worthless.
They're not mine. They belong to the accused. t. Your 'additional safeguards' are worthless.Email his defence solicitor and ask him why he didn't apply to have the matter discontinued. It's easy to find him.
From the Telegraph article:
"The lawyer said: "Before the trial this storyboard was served to the CPS with a request that they review their decision to go ahead with the prosecution. They went ahead anyway. "
I suggest you stop trying to defend the indefensible.
PurpleMoonlight said:
La Liga said:
Rovinghawk said:
And yet they went ahead despite even a cursory examination showing that it's bullst. Your 'additional safeguards' are worthless.
They're not mine. They belong to the accused. t. Your 'additional safeguards' are worthless.Email his defence solicitor and ask him why he didn't apply to have the matter discontinued. It's easy to find him.
From the Telegraph article:
"The lawyer said: "Before the trial this storyboard was served to the CPS with a request that they review their decision to go ahead with the prosecution. They went ahead anyway. "
I suggest you stop trying to defend the indefensible.
BTW:
La Liga said:
What's your excuse for these prosecutions, including nearly all they instigated?
http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/dec/01/109-wom...
http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/dec/01/109-wom...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff