|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
£80k of cyclists own money ****ed up the wall. Love it.
On 13/04/17 17:21, JNugent wrote:
On 13/04/2017 13:49, TMS320 wrote: On 13/04/17 11:24, JNugent wrote: On 13/04/2017 08:36, TMS320 wrote: She did do it. As you know, that is 100% gold-plated tripe. The inescapable result is that you are accusing the experts that work out the sequence of events and present technical facts to the court of lying. The Cyclists' Defence Fund, you mean? Stop being so utterly thick. |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
£80k of cyclists own money ****ed up the wall. Love it.
On 13/04/2017 23:44, TMS320 wrote:
On 13/04/17 17:21, JNugent wrote: On 13/04/2017 13:49, TMS320 wrote: On 13/04/17 11:24, JNugent wrote: On 13/04/2017 08:36, TMS320 wrote: She did do it. As you know, that is 100% gold-plated tripe. The inescapable result is that you are accusing the experts that work out the sequence of events and present technical facts to the court of lying. The Cyclists' Defence Fund, you mean? Stop being so utterly thick. Who else brought the case? |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
£80k of cyclists own money ****ed up the wall. Love it.
On 13/04/2017 23:44, TMS320 wrote:
On 13/04/17 17:21, JNugent wrote: On 13/04/2017 13:49, TMS320 wrote: On 13/04/17 11:24, JNugent wrote: On 13/04/2017 08:36, TMS320 wrote: She did do it. As you know, that is 100% gold-plated tripe. The inescapable result is that you are accusing the experts that work out the sequence of events and present technical facts to the court of lying. The Cyclists' Defence Fund, you mean? Stop being so utterly thick. Don't be so obtuse. It was *you* who brought them into it when you mentioned "the experts that work out the sequence of events and present technical facts to the court". It was a private prosecution brought by the CDF. But you inadvertently raise an interesting point. Do you really say that when an "expert" (whoever it might be) pronounces on something in evidence, that's the case open and shut, game set and match because he may not be challenged and cannot be wrong? --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
£80k of cyclists own money ****ed up the wall. Love it.
On 13/04/2017 23:46, MrCheerful wrote:
On 13/04/2017 23:44, TMS320 wrote: On 13/04/17 17:21, JNugent wrote: On 13/04/2017 13:49, TMS320 wrote: On 13/04/17 11:24, JNugent wrote: On 13/04/2017 08:36, TMS320 wrote: She did do it. As you know, that is 100% gold-plated tripe. The inescapable result is that you are accusing the experts that work out the sequence of events and present technical facts to the court of lying. The Cyclists' Defence Fund, you mean? Stop being so utterly thick. Who else brought the case? There will be no answer to that. --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
£80k of cyclists own money ****ed up the wall. Love it.
On 14/04/17 01:16, JNugent wrote:
On 13/04/2017 23:44, TMS320 wrote: On 13/04/17 17:21, JNugent wrote: On 13/04/2017 13:49, TMS320 wrote: On 13/04/17 11:24, JNugent wrote: On 13/04/2017 08:36, TMS320 wrote: She did do it. As you know, that is 100% gold-plated tripe. The inescapable result is that you are accusing the experts that work out the sequence of events and present technical facts to the court of lying. The Cyclists' Defence Fund, you mean? Stop being so utterly thick. Don't be so obtuse. I stand my ground. It was *you* who brought them into it when you mentioned "the experts that work out the sequence of events and present technical facts to the court". It was a private prosecution brought by the CDF. The technical details would have been established long before the CDF got involved. But you inadvertently raise an interesting point. Do you really say that when an "expert" (whoever it might be) pronounces on something in evidence, that's the case open and shut, game set and match because he may not be challenged and cannot be wrong? You are confusing two different things. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
£80k of cyclists own money ****ed up the wall. Love it.
On 14/04/2017 10:52, TMS320 wrote:
On 14/04/17 01:16, JNugent wrote: On 13/04/2017 23:44, TMS320 wrote: On 13/04/17 17:21, JNugent wrote: On 13/04/2017 13:49, TMS320 wrote: On 13/04/17 11:24, JNugent wrote: On 13/04/2017 08:36, TMS320 wrote: She did do it. As you know, that is 100% gold-plated tripe. The inescapable result is that you are accusing the experts that work out the sequence of events and present technical facts to the court of lying. The Cyclists' Defence Fund, you mean? Stop being so utterly thick. Don't be so obtuse. I stand my ground. It's fairly liquid ground, capped with a layer of thin ice. It was *you* who brought them into it when you mentioned "the experts that work out the sequence of events and present technical facts to the court". It was a private prosecution brought by the CDF. The technical details would have been established long before the CDF got involved... ....where "established" means "highly tentative and ultimately to be proven to be false". The police saw no reason to prosecute, and this was later supported by both the CPS decision not to take over the private prosecution (that is always considered) and the jury's uber-fast rejection of the CDF's "case" immediately on hearing it. That does not justify the term "establish", a word which suggests that what was tendered by the CDF (and by no-one else) is the truth. Only the CDF and people like you believe that. Everyone else who was involved took the view that those "technical details" were, at best, mistaken. And at worst... well... something else. Them's the facts. These days, the police - especially the Met - and the CPS are actually trigger-happy on alleged CDBCD and CDBDD. It seems to be the policy of the police to arrest anyone even tangentially involved in a fatal traffic accident. You would not be all that surprised to hear of the arrest of a witness who sees an incident from a second-floor window. When they take no action, you can be reasonably sure that there is no case to answer. When the CPS decline to take over an ill-advised private prosecution, there is a much better chance of the case being thrown out than there is of a conviction. But you inadvertently raise an interesting point. Do you really say that when an "expert" (whoever it might be) pronounces on something in evidence, that's the case open and shut, game set and match because he may not be challenged and cannot be wrong? You are confusing two different things. I am not doing that. You are taking the line that the CDF's dodgy case has to be the truth. That was rejected as a proposition by every professional and lay part of the justice system. Which bit of "not guilty" is too difficult for you? --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
£80k of cyclists own money ****ed up the wall. Love it.
On Friday, April 14, 2017 at 11:38:48 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 14/04/2017 10:52, TMS320 wrote: On 14/04/17 01:16, JNugent wrote: On 13/04/2017 23:44, TMS320 wrote: On 13/04/17 17:21, JNugent wrote: On 13/04/2017 13:49, TMS320 wrote: On 13/04/17 11:24, JNugent wrote: On 13/04/2017 08:36, TMS320 wrote: She did do it. As you know, that is 100% gold-plated tripe. The inescapable result is that you are accusing the experts that work out the sequence of events and present technical facts to the court of lying. The Cyclists' Defence Fund, you mean? Stop being so utterly thick. Don't be so obtuse. I stand my ground. It's fairly liquid ground, capped with a layer of thin ice. It was *you* who brought them into it when you mentioned "the experts that work out the sequence of events and present technical facts to the court". It was a private prosecution brought by the CDF. The technical details would have been established long before the CDF got involved... ...where "established" means "highly tentative and ultimately to be proven to be false". The police saw no reason to prosecute, and this was later supported by both the CPS decision not to take over the private prosecution (that is always considered) and the jury's uber-fast rejection of the CDF's "case" immediately on hearing it. That does not justify the term "establish", a word which suggests that what was tendered by the CDF (and by no-one else) is the truth. Only the CDF and people like you believe that. Everyone else who was involved took the view that those "technical details" were, at best, mistaken. And at worst... well... something else. Them's the facts. These days, the police - especially the Met - and the CPS are actually trigger-happy on alleged CDBCD and CDBDD. It seems to be the policy of the police to arrest anyone even tangentially involved in a fatal traffic accident. You would not be all that surprised to hear of the arrest of a witness who sees an incident from a second-floor window. When they take no action, you can be reasonably sure that there is no case to answer. When the CPS decline to take over an ill-advised private prosecution, there is a much better chance of the case being thrown out than there is of a conviction. But you inadvertently raise an interesting point. Do you really say that when an "expert" (whoever it might be) pronounces on something in evidence, that's the case open and shut, game set and match because he may not be challenged and cannot be wrong? You are confusing two different things. I am not doing that. You are taking the line that the CDF's dodgy case has to be the truth. That was rejected as a proposition by every professional and lay part of the justice system. Which bit of "not guilty" is too difficult for you? --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com The Criminal Protection Service base their decision to prosecute on the probability of a conviction, the merits of the case are not relevant. For example, if you were on the jury you would automatically decide the cyclist was at fault. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
£80k of cyclists own money ****ed up the wall. Love it.
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
£80k of cyclists own money ****ed up the wall. Love it.
On 14/04/17 11:38, JNugent wrote:
On 14/04/2017 10:52, TMS320 wrote: On 14/04/17 01:16, JNugent wrote: On 13/04/2017 23:44, TMS320 wrote: On 13/04/17 17:21, JNugent wrote: On 13/04/2017 13:49, TMS320 wrote: On 13/04/17 11:24, JNugent wrote: On 13/04/2017 08:36, TMS320 wrote: She did do it. As you know, that is 100% gold-plated tripe. The inescapable result is that you are accusing the experts that work out the sequence of events and present technical facts to the court of lying. The Cyclists' Defence Fund, you mean? Stop being so utterly thick. Don't be so obtuse. I stand my ground. It's fairly liquid ground, capped with a layer of thin ice. If you say so. It was *you* who brought them into it when you mentioned "the experts that work out the sequence of events and present technical facts to the court". It was a private prosecution brought by the CDF. The technical details would have been established long before the CDF got involved... ...where "established" means "highly tentative and ultimately to be proven to be false". Don't be so stupid. The jury found the evidence was lacking, in their *opinion*. An absence of evidence cannot prove the evidence to be false. ... Which bit of "not guilty" is too difficult for you? The jury gave returned an *opinion* that the defendant was not guilty as charged. That is nothing more to it. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
This is what cyclists waste tax payers' money on | James Wilkinson Sword[_4_] | UK | 123 | February 12th 17 11:08 PM |
Bees love cyclists | Bertie Wooster[_2_] | UK | 4 | May 22nd 14 01:39 PM |
Panhandlers Asking Cyclists for Money for Fuel | Bret Cahill[_2_] | UK | 0 | May 22nd 13 12:18 AM |
selfish cyclists cause businesses to lose money | Mrcheerful[_2_] | UK | 19 | September 27th 10 04:06 PM |
Wow, some cyclists don't make much money... | Keith | Racing | 1 | February 2nd 10 10:51 PM |