Absolutely disgusting!

giant_man

Why the hell the case was dropped is anyone's guess but why the hell should he get away with it?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tay ... 445567.stm

deptfordmarmoset

Didn't have enough evidence to...er...nail him?

teagar

How do you know he did it?

"After full and careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances by Crown counsel, it was decided there should be no further proceedings."

Are you privy to information they weren't?

dennisn

giant mancp wrote:

Why the hell the case was dropped is anyone's guess but why the hell should he get away with it?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tay ... 445567.stm

Maybe, just maybe, THINKING he did it is not quite the same as him actually doing it.

cougie

I'm guessing there may not be enough evidence. Then again - that never stopped the witch trials did it ?

Lets burn him ! Burn I say !!

MadammeMarie

deptfordmarmoset wrote:

Didn't have enough evidence to...er...nail him?

Then why don't they say that there is no enough evidence? Why there's no explanation?

Isn't there a Freedom of Information Act somewhere that gives the people the right to know why they dropped the charges? I'm just asking b/c I'm not familiar with the legalities.

I find this a bit confusing.... :?

nicensleazy

Pretty bad!

northernneil

doesnt stop people affected filing a civil claim against him

afx237vi

MadammeMarie wrote:

deptfordmarmoset wrote:

Didn't have enough evidence to...er...nail him?

Then why don't they say that there is no enough evidence? Why there's no explanation?

Isn't there a Freedom of Information Act somewhere that gives the people the right to know why they dropped the charges? I'm just asking b/c I'm not familiar with the legalities.

I find this a bit confusing.... :?

Because the CPS are hardly likely to say "the police gave us a shonky case with no solid evidence against the accused".

softlad

northernneil wrote:

doesnt stop people affected filing a civil claim against him

if there is insufficient evidence for the CPS to proceed, then civil cases are unlikely to fare any better...

STEFANOS4784

No proof thus no conviction, seems pretty clear and fair to me :?

GavH

Well if it WAS him, he'll likely do it again this year, safe in the knowledge they'll not do him for it! :roll:

bexley5200

tacky thing to do

Buckled_Rims

Freemasons

Want a bet?

STEFANOS4784

Right quick everyone we need to get these puns nailed down sooner rather than later IMO :roll:

smihy

Check PJRay's comment at the end of http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/etape-caledonia-saboteur-cleared-24537

He bought the tacs (allegedly), maybe he's short of a ball pein hammer... :shock:

He's a councillor: http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/updated-man-arrested-in-etape-caledonia-sabotage-21678. The plot thickens...

deptfordmarmoset

afx237vi wrote:

MadammeMarie wrote:

deptfordmarmoset wrote:

Didn't have enough evidence to...er...nail him?

Then why don't they say that there is no enough evidence? Why there's no explanation?

Isn't there a Freedom of Information Act somewhere that gives the people the right to know why they dropped the charges? I'm just asking b/c I'm not familiar with the legalities.

I find this a bit confusing.... :?

Because the CPS are hardly likely to say "the police gave us a shonky case with no solid evidence against the accused".

I'm on no way an expert about the law but I could imagine that FOI wouldn't apply - because it would mean disclosing all the evidence they do have and if this were in the public domain it could jeopardise his chances of a fair trial should any further evidence come to light.

Captain Fagor

deptfordmarmoset wrote:

I'm on no way an expert about the law but I could imagine that FOI wouldn't apply - because it would mean disclosing all the evidence they do have and if this were in the public domain it could jeopardise his chances of a fair trial should any further evidence come to light.

I'm no lawyer either, but now that he's been cleared I don't think he can face trial in Scotland for the same charges. I think this particular law is under review though, following the collapse of the World's End murder case against Peter Tobin.

softlad

GavH wrote:

Well if it WAS him, he'll likely do it again this year, safe in the knowledge they'll not do him for it! :roll:

I think you've missed the point....

Stuey01

Captain Fagor wrote:

deptfordmarmoset wrote:

I'm on no way an expert about the law but I could imagine that FOI wouldn't apply - because it would mean disclosing all the evidence they do have and if this were in the public domain it could jeopardise his chances of a fair trial should any further evidence come to light.

I'm no lawyer either, but now that he's been cleared I don't think he can face trial in Scotland for the same charges. I think this particular law is under review though, following the collapse of the World's End murder case against Peter Tobin.

Not pursuing a case to trial is not the same as being tried and cleared.

Pross

softlad wrote:

northernneil wrote:

doesnt stop people affected filing a civil claim against him

if there is insufficient evidence for the CPS to proceed, then civil cases are unlikely to fare any better...

Not sure about Scottish law but in England and Wales a civil claim is based on reasonable probability burden of proof rather than beyond reasonable doubt.

pepelepew

afx237vi wrote:

MadammeMarie wrote:

deptfordmarmoset wrote:

Didn't have enough evidence to...er...nail him?

Then why don't they say that there is no enough evidence? Why there's no explanation?

Isn't there a Freedom of Information Act somewhere that gives the people the right to know why they dropped the charges? I'm just asking b/c I'm not familiar with the legalities.

I find this a bit confusing.... :?

Because the CPS are hardly likely to say "the police gave us a shonky case with no solid evidence against the accused".

CPS don't prosecute in Scotland. Maybe there was little prospect of conviction, doesn't mean the police presented a 'shonky' case. I wouldn't want my taxes wated on flogging a dead horse.

priory

if he did buy bags of tacks then even if the courts will not do anything the facts could at least be made public. The implications are pretty clear.

But we need to know for sure what the evidence is that he did buy them.

perhaps the ctc lawyers might be able to request the evidence and accounts of investigations, or an investigative journalist.

bompington

Buckled_Rims wrote:

Freemasons

Want a bet?

Certainly what local gossip is saying