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
-
...
-
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:
-
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:
-
...
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:
-
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:
-
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:
-
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:
-
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? ...
PS 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
- Reeves sets Spring Statement 2025 for March 26th Today 09:18
- Spot the hidden contractor Dec 20 10:43
- Accounting for Contractors Dec 19 15:30
- Chartered Accountants with MarchMutual Dec 19 15:05
- Chartered Accountants with March Mutual Dec 19 15:05
- Chartered Accountants Dec 19 15:05
- Unfairly barred from contracting? Petrofac just paid the price Dec 19 09:43
- An IR35 case law look back: contractor must-knows for 2025-26 Dec 18 09:30
- A contractor’s Autumn Budget financial review Dec 17 10:59
- Why limited company working could be back in vogue in 2025 Dec 16 09:45
Leave a comment: