![Faceplam (facepalm)](./images/smilies/facepalm.jpeg)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-no ... e-35472617" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Yes, I understand how it works. There are a million ways that further evidence could have been produced if the filth weren't a bunch of lazy twats intent on easy convictions to keep up the numbers and their choice not to pursue this further is, frankly, bullshit.Kwacky wrote:They were charged for failing to say who was driving. The criminal courts require a conviction based on a beyond reasonable doubt verdict, which a jury can't give as there will always be doubts about who was driving.
Sounds like a "win win" situation,,,, for the solicitors.Kwacky wrote:I presume there's a civil claim being made. With money being no object his solicitors should soon get to the bottom of things. Maybe then the CPS can review it.
Will you be less dissatisfied, if it transpires that the 54yo vehicle keeper is not: A politician, a Retired/Senior policeman, Judge, Mason, relative of someone in the CPS , etc etc etc...dogbot wrote:..........I look forward to the unfortunate leaking of the hirer's name online.
As long as they get what they deserve, I will be, yeah.StMarks wrote:Will you be less dissatisfied, if it transpires that the 54yo vehicle keeper is not: A politician, a Retired/Senior policeman, Judge, Mason, relative of someone in the CPS , etc etc etc...dogbot wrote:..........I look forward to the unfortunate leaking of the hirer's name online.
Ummmmm, actually my point was that those were (possible factors) that could have enabled them to avoid "getting what they deserve"dogbot wrote:........As long as they get what they deserve, I will be, yeah.