Originally posted by MarillionFan
View Post
- 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.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Reply to: McAlpine to take legal action
Collapse
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
- You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
- You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
- If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
Logging in...
Previously on "McAlpine to take legal action"
Collapse
-
...
We don't know yet, we are waiting for Pretty Boy Schofield and his biatch to tell us on Monday morning. Just have the stake and 'fork ready for we are going witch-dipping down the pond.
-
Mind control?Originally posted by KentPhilip View PostI think it's possible that McAlpine is the guy responsible, and that they've paid off the guy who accused him, and/or threatened to bump him off, in order to change his testimony.
They do say that the rich and powerful are above the law; maybe this is the mechanism by which this happens, and all you lot suckers on here criticising what happened to him are part of that process
Leave a comment:
-
Theres a mob?? Who are we against and where do I get my pitchfork?Originally posted by tractor View PostI think you will find that many of us are criticising the populist mob or the outspoken (daft as a brush) expert process, not the result.
Leave a comment:
-
...
I think you will find that many of us are criticising the populist mob or the outspoken (daft as a brush) expert process, not the result.Originally posted by KentPhilip View PostI think it's possible that McAlpine is the guy responsible, and that they've paid off the guy who accused him, and/or threatened to bump him off, in order to change his testimony.
They do say that the rich and powerful are above the law; maybe this is the mechanism by which this happens, and all you lot suckers on here criticising what happened to him are part of that process
Leave a comment:
-
I think it's possible that McAlpine is the guy responsible, and that they've paid off the guy who accused him, and/or threatened to bump him off, in order to change his testimony.
They do say that the rich and powerful are above the law; maybe this is the mechanism by which this happens, and all you lot suckers on here criticising what happened to him are part of that process
Leave a comment:
-
Holy sh!t....now there's the strongest case yet for selective breeding that I've ever seen. These people cannot be allowed to exist in the gene pool.Originally posted by tractor View PostAt the other (neanderthal) end of the scale you have a mob who don't know the difference between paediatrician and paedophile terrorising a doctor
.
Stunned.
Leave a comment:
-
...
These mob-led, media fuelled witch hunts are really getting out of hand but it's not something new. As far as the experts go, I remember well the Orkney event of the 80's
. At the other (neanderthal) end of the scale you have a mob who don't know the difference between paediatrician and paedophile terrorising a doctor
.
The media are most of the problem and in the case of the BBC they are damned if they do (MacAlpine) and damned if they don't (Savile). The lesson for them really is, if they have any evidence it should go to the police, not the public. They can report all they like after the court case. I sincerely hope those responsible for yesterday's news are pilloried like MacAlpine would have been, had it been true.
Our society has been going backwards for years, very soon we will be burning people at the stake for homeopathy because anything that starts with hom- must be sexual deviance
Leave a comment:
-
He is saying that he was never at the location but I think we can find out where he was with his mobile phone records. They do it all the time on CSI
"wat! u nvr had mobs in the 80s?!?!? wat did u do brov? 4 like, meetin the crew an that"
Leave a comment:
-
What was all the more worrying about the Sally Clark case was that there was no-one on the defence team (including Clark herself, who was a solicitor) that had even the basic grasp of statistics to blow apart Meadow's testimony.
Leave a comment:
-
Isn't the legal definition of an expert "someone who knows more about a subject than anyone else in the room".Originally posted by Gentile View Post... I'm just adding that sometimes Court-appointed experts are worse and do even more harm to justice than a few internet loud-mouths...
The Sally Clark case and others are truly terrifying. I'm glad I live in a civilised country.
Leave a comment:
-
Yes, but would you have guessed he was a devil worshipper? It's always the last person one expects.Originally posted by EternalOptimist View PostI watch a lot of Columbo on the telly, so I am a bit of an expert on forensic science, and detective logic.
What I want to know is this. If he was being bummed by a peer of the realm, surely he had his face in the pillow, or at least he was looking the other way
so THEREFORE, how could he know what the perp looked like ????
It really makes you wonder what journalistic standards are being used these days, when such an obvious error is allowed to slip through the editorial net

I can't wait to tell everyone down at the pub
Leave a comment:
-
all the more so as the prosecution's case, based on twat Roy Meadow's testimony, hinged on that very fact, a sort of argument by contradiction with the conclusion that the common cause could only be her abuse. All the defence had to do was point out that there could be some _other_ common cause.Originally posted by xoggoth View PostTotally agree. Nobody thought to say it was only correct to multiply up the chance of a baby dying ONLY if there was no common cause. Why was her defence quite so ignorant that they did not to point that out? ...
WHS - Shame I'm maxxed out Gentile rep wisePS Another very sane comments Gentile.
Leave a comment:
-
The jury of twitter is out of control, if he is guilty bang him up and cut his nads off as far as I am concerned but let's do this through the courts first.
Not heard the PM thing on ITV from the other day but the girly said the PM dealt with it very well, she strongly dislikes Cameron as well.
Leave a comment:
-
I watch a lot of Columbo on the telly, so I am a bit of an expert on forensic science, and detective logic.
What I want to know is this. If he was being bummed by a peer of the realm, surely he had his face in the pillow, or at least he was looking the other way
so THEREFORE, how could he know what the perp looked like ????
It really makes you wonder what journalistic standards are being used these days, when such an obvious error is allowed to slip through the editorial net
Leave a comment:
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Should a new limited company not making much money pay a salary/dividend? Feb 13 08:43
- Blocking the 2025 Loan Charge settlement opportunity from being a genuine opportunity is… HMRC Feb 12 07:41
- How a buyer’s market in UK property for 2026 is contractors’ double-edge sword Feb 11 07:12
- Why PAYE overcharging by HMRC is every contractor’s problem Feb 10 06:26
- Government unveils ‘Umbrella Company Regulations consultation’ Feb 9 05:55
- JSL rules ‘are HMRC’s way to make contractor umbrella company clients give a sh*t where their money goes’ Feb 8 07:42
- Contractors warned over HMRC charging £3.5 billion too much Feb 6 03:18
- Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) for umbrella company contractors: an April 2026 explainer Feb 5 07:19
- IR35: IT contractors ‘most concerned about off-payroll working rules’ Feb 4 07:11
- Labour’s near-silence on its employment status shakeup is telling, and disappointing Feb 3 07:47

Leave a comment: