• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.

Anything but murder

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #11
    But OwlHoot, you miss the point: how many bites of the cherry do the lawyers get by doing things this way? In the past it would have been one, fairly short, case. Now the whole circus gets paid at least three times for the same job!
    Insanity: repeating the same actions, but expecting different results.
    threadeds website, and here's my blog.

    Comment


      #12
      Originally posted by AtW
      There is something wrong with this civil crap - you either guilty of criminal offence or you not - this should be done on the basis of "beyond reasonable doubt", however bankrupting someone after he/she was judged not guilty by sueing in civil case that will be judged on "balance of probabilities" is just plain wrong, regardless of technicality or not that was responsible for not guilty verdict.
      I'd agree wholehearedly if the verdict had been "not guilty". But I think the jury found him guilty, and it was only the CPS cock up with some paperwork that allowed him to get off on a technicality.
      Work in the public sector? Read the IR35 FAQ here

      Comment


        #13
        Originally posted by OwlHoot
        I'd agree wholehearedly if the verdict had been "not guilty". But I think the jury found him guilty, and it was only the CPS cock up with some paperwork that allowed him to get off on a technicality.
        I think this "technicality" was something like "lack of evidence" - remember that guy did not kill himself, there was no gun or knife in his hands, he was linked to two scumbags who actually did the murder (and were convicted in due term) and what linked this (admittedly nasty) guy to the victim was their previous fall out.

        The bottom line is this - using civil proof of guilt to doubly prosecute those who failed to be proven guilty beyond reasonably doubt under criminal law should be banned in principle.

        Comment


          #14
          Not a nice man

          Have a dig about in the history of this man he isn't eaxctly a saint.
          "If you didn't do anything that wasn't good for you it would be a very dull life. What are you gonna do? Everything that is pleasant in life is dangerous."

          I want to see the hand of history on his collar.

          Comment


            #15
            Originally posted by vetran
            Have a dig about in the history of this man he isn't eaxctly a saint.
            He could be the last scumbag on earth, but if criminal charges against him did not succeed, then using civil proceedings with much lower standard of proof "on balance of probabilities" to bankrup him is just totally wrong - this effectively amounts to double prosecution for the same crimes.

            Yes, he is scum and probably did it - but if you start using civil proceeding after criminal cases fail then the system will collapse - balance of probabilities is just way too low standard of proof for serious things like murder.

            Comment

            Working...
            X