[Florrie]

@forumhostpb wrote:

You’re quite right – it doesn’t. What I was driving at was this … when a Police officer (of any rank) is considered for prosecution, the . This is because Police officers can often be the target of malicious or totally unfounded allegations – especially by the ‘criminal fraternity’ who often have a grudge to bear.

Although the previous Court cases returned a ‘Not Guilty’ verdict against Desai, for him to be actually taken to Court in the first place meant that the CPS believed that there was enough hard evidence to secure a conviction.

Unfortunately for Desai’s later victims, the jury was not persuaded.[/color]

PB It doesn’t matter who the person is that is being considered to be brought before a court of law by the CPS – they have to believe they have enough evidence to bring the person to trial.

[Florrie]

@tictax wrote:

thats funny u never mentioned the only word women ever say to me, NO !!!

:)

You lost your touch them tictax ?

[Florrie]

@forumhostpb wrote:

.

Remember that the CPS ONLY prosecute if they are satisfied that there is sufficient evidence against the accused for a reasonable prospect of conviction in Court. When prosecuting a high ranking Police officer, the amount of evidence would have to be particularly compelling for a procecution to be authorised.

“

PB It doesn’t make any difference in a court of law what rank the officer is when up on criminal charges.

[Florrie]

Wonder if I go out will I be able to get back home Its snowing heavily :x

[Florrie]

Myra Hindley only became a born again christian on the teachings of Lord Longford, Hindley along with Longford thought it would get the parole she longed for.

[Florrie]

So Kraft is going to close the factory at Bristol which will put 400 people out of work.

On the takeover bid they said that no one would lose their job – typical.

[Florrie]

A long time coming but, at last he’s got his just rewards. A bully and a hubris man.
Hopefully they will give him the sack and strip him of his pension rights., before he puts in an appeal.

[Florrie]

@pete wrote:

@gazlan wrote:

Im just a good old naturalist……to give an opinion without justification is as pathetic as equating animal behaviour to justify humankinds deviance………in my opinion :P :wink:

Exactly in your opinion. Natural was your yardstick, cant get more natural than nature. And humans have a lot in common with animals as far as behaviour goes, were probably the most territorial of animals for a start. Take away any restraints and we’d descend back to animal behaviour

Oh heck Peter don’t start him on bestiality or we will be here all night :D/

[Florrie]

@gazlan wrote:

I better think twice before i Arrrrrsk any opinions…heheheheheh :lol:

Gazlan now you appear to find the whole thread amusing which I find very strange. Your views have been very strong you are a homophobic.
And putting your views out in the public domain could have dire consequences for you.

[Florrie]

@pete wrote:

As long as your copy book isnt a euphemism :shock:

was a freudian slip :?

[Author]

Posts