Cycling Silk threats from driver case.

bobinski

spen666 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

...
Spen666

Does the statement of the cyclist, that a threat was made, carry any weight as evidence?

I'm thinking (in my layman's way) of comparisons to child abuse cases where there is no physical evidence, only testimony.

Obviously the 'crimes' are on a much different scale.

I think you are misleading yourself slightly.

Criminal cases have to be proved BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT.

If X says it did happen and Y says it did not - then in the absence of ANY other evidence it is almost impossible to reach this standard of proof. In the cases you refer to there is nearly always other supporting evidence - eg evidence that despite his denials, someone saw D with child that day. Or another victim saying D did things to him as well etc.

I cannot think of a single child abuse or sexual offences case where the only evidence was from V and no other evidence.

I think you may be overlooking ( understandably so as you are not a lawyer) what can and is evidence. Sometimes it is unusual what can be corroborative evidence. It is not an easy subject to explain or to understand without looking at specific examples

i am a bit stunned by this.

Spen, i have to say i wish i had come across you in my last 18 years as a criminal defence lawyer. i can think of many many cases, including a few i have now, where someone is charged where its only one persons word against another and in the absence of any corroborating evidence. when challenged over this the officer in the case or prosecutor will often say its for magistrates or a jury to decide between the 2 differing accounts. i had one recently where an 11y old kid alleged assault against a teacher, where the assault allegedly occurred in a class containing 20 plus kids and a teaching assistant, was not witnessed by anyone and there was no corroborating evidence. people are often questioned even when the police have not taken a statement from a complainant or loser.I certainly don't think you intended to mislead or obfuscate but the reality is prosecutions of the kind i have described are common place. i can give an example from a police station attendance on Friday. No complainant statement, no statements from witness an bus of incident and NO examination of cctv from bus-which should be the starting point!

so, turning back to this case, there is an account from a victim and there is some corroboration for what occurred. and an apparent admission recorded on tape! it may not be the best but it aint half bad and should prompt the questioning of the driver. he may admit, he may deny but at least a serious threat will be properly investigated. who knows he may be chastened, he may even apologise.

greg66_tri_v2.0

TailWindHome wrote:

Now I don't know who is right, who is wrong or even if it's possible to be that clear cut, but I'm interested in the edcuated opinions of these posters

Well, educated? Hmm. A couple of disclaimers: first, my contributions to this thread have been more as cyclist than lawyer; secondly, (which may explain the first point) I don't practise criminal law.

Now that aside, I think spen hit the nail on the head a couple of pages ago. The cycling silk has lost his objectivity over this. The comment that you posted is pretty condescending - we're all muddling along in our defensive ignorance. As are the CPS and the police, it seems.

Having rewatched the video, at 24-25 seconds, the cyclist says that he can't hear what the driver is saying. Skip forward, and he is able to repeat verbatim what the driver apparently said. Now, he may have the quote correctly. But would a good cross examiner be able to create reasonable doubt about the accuracy of his quotation? I would think so.

So fast forward to the denouement. It's the sort of situation where bravado and speed of exchange make people say silly things. It seems to me to be overblown to call that exchange an admission of a "threat to kill" (as it is now put). But perhaps I would be accused of being too detached from the incident. As "insulting, abusive or threatening" language or behaviour, maybe it is that as a matter of criminal law. I don't know. But there are hundreds of thousands of such incidents that take place every day in a all sorts of contexts. Prosecution isn't practical for them.

It seems that the police considered a FPN for that final incident, and decided against it. That's life. I have little idea whether a private prosecution could lay for this, but I rather think that if there is genuine issue here, that is the way forward, rather than berating the police or the CPS.

And lest anyone think I am bereft of experience in these sorts of incidents, I've had my share

spen666

bobinski wrote:

spen666 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

...
Spen666

Does the statement of the cyclist, that a threat was made, carry any weight as evidence?

I'm thinking (in my layman's way) of comparisons to child abuse cases where there is no physical evidence, only testimony.

Obviously the 'crimes' are on a much different scale.

I think you are misleading yourself slightly.

Criminal cases have to be proved BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT.

If X says it did happen and Y says it did not - then in the absence of ANY other evidence it is almost impossible to reach this standard of proof. In the cases you refer to there is nearly always other supporting evidence - eg evidence that despite his denials, someone saw D with child that day. Or another victim saying D did things to him as well etc.

I cannot think of a single child abuse or sexual offences case where the only evidence was from V and no other evidence.

I think you may be overlooking ( understandably so as you are not a lawyer) what can and is evidence. Sometimes it is unusual what can be corroborative evidence. It is not an easy subject to explain or to understand without looking at specific examples

i am a bit stunned by this.

Spen, i have to say i wish i had come across you in my last 18 years as a criminal defence lawyer. i can think of many many cases, including a few i have now, where someone is charged where its only one persons word against another and in the absence of any corroborating evidence. when challenged over this the officer in the case or prosecutor will often say its for magistrates or a jury to decide between the 2 differing accounts. i had one recently where an 11y old kid alleged assault against a teacher, where the assault allegedly occurred in a class containing 20 plus kids and a teaching assistant, was not witnessed by anyone and there was no corroborating evidence. people are often questioned even when the police have not taken a statement from a complainant or loser.I certainly don't think you intended to mislead or obfuscate but the reality is prosecutions of the kind i have described are common place. i can give an example from a police station attendance on Friday. No complainant statement, no statements from witness an bus of incident and NO examination of cctv from bus-which should be the starting point!

so, turning back to this case, there is an account from a victim and there is some corroboration for what occurred. and an apparent admission recorded on tape! it may not be the best but it aint half bad and should prompt the questioning of the driver. he may admit, he may deny but at least a serious threat will be properly investigated. who knows he may be chastened, he may even apologise.

so in these cases you refer to, in your career of 18 years ( BTW some of us have been in criminal game for some 4 decades now), thew only evidence in the crown's case was a statement from the alleged victim? No other evidence whatsoever?
No evidence to confirm parties were in location alleged, no evidence of injury, recent complaint etc

I do not believe you that the prosecution case in its entireity consisted of a statement of the accused. You are simply not telling the whole truth here. The Crown could not prove its case with only the statement of the victim and nothing else at all.

If as you claim there are current cases you have, then PM me ( away from eyes on here) the details of the case, namely the CPS Area, defendant name and the URN. I will personally look into these cases and I am certain there will be more evidence than the victim's statement.

spen666

Greg66 wrote:

[..... I have little idea whether a private prosecution could lay for this, but I rather think that if there is genuine issue here, that is the way forward, rather than berating the police or the CPS.

A goofd point Greg, the lawyer should issue a private prosecution if he really believes there is sufficient evidence.

One wonders why he won't do this, but instead chooses to publically slate the CPS for not prosecuting a case he himself won't prosecute

bobinski

spen666 wrote:

bobinski wrote:

spen666 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

...
Spen666

Does the statement of the cyclist, that a threat was made, carry any weight as evidence?

I'm thinking (in my layman's way) of comparisons to child abuse cases where there is no physical evidence, only testimony.

Obviously the 'crimes' are on a much different scale.

I think you are misleading yourself slightly.

Criminal cases have to be proved BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT.

If X says it did happen and Y says it did not - then in the absence of ANY other evidence it is almost impossible to reach this standard of proof. In the cases you refer to there is nearly always other supporting evidence - eg evidence that despite his denials, someone saw D with child that day. Or another victim saying D did things to him as well etc.

I cannot think of a single child abuse or sexual offences case where the only evidence was from V and no other evidence.

I think you may be overlooking ( understandably so as you are not a lawyer) what can and is evidence. Sometimes it is unusual what can be corroborative evidence. It is not an easy subject to explain or to understand without looking at specific examples

i am a bit stunned by this.

Spen, i have to say i wish i had come across you in my last 18 years as a criminal defence lawyer. i can think of many many cases, including a few i have now, where someone is charged where its only one persons word against another and in the absence of any corroborating evidence. when challenged over this the officer in the case or prosecutor will often say its for magistrates or a jury to decide between the 2 differing accounts. i had one recently where an 11y old kid alleged assault against a teacher, where the assault allegedly occurred in a class containing 20 plus kids and a teaching assistant, was not witnessed by anyone and there was no corroborating evidence. people are often questioned even when the police have not taken a statement from a complainant or loser.I certainly don't think you intended to mislead or obfuscate but the reality is prosecutions of the kind i have described are common place. i can give an example from a police station attendance on Friday. No complainant statement, no statements from witness an bus of incident and NO examination of cctv from bus-which should be the starting point!

so, turning back to this case, there is an account from a victim and there is some corroboration for what occurred. and an apparent admission recorded on tape! it may not be the best but it aint half bad and should prompt the questioning of the driver. he may admit, he may deny but at least a serious threat will be properly investigated. who knows he may be chastened, he may even apologise.

so in these cases you refer to, in your career of 18 years ( BTW some of us have been in criminal game for some 4 decades now), thew only evidence in the crown's case was a statement from the alleged victim? No other evidence whatsoever?
No evidence to confirm parties were in location alleged, no evidence of injury, recent complaint etc

I do not believe you that the prosecution case in its entireity consisted of a statement of the accused. You are simply not telling the whole truth here. The Crown could not prove its case with only the statement of the victim and nothing else at all.

If as you claim there are current cases you have, then PM me ( away from eyes on here) the details of the case, namely the CPS Area, defendant name and the URN. I will personally look into these cases and I am certain there will be more evidence than the victim's statement.

Spen,
Firstly,
if you are, in suggesting you do not believe me, which of course implies you think i am lying, then pm me to do it rather than on a public forum. I think that would be more appropriate .i am not suggesting a prosecution proceeds without a complainant or losers statement i am suggesting an investigation often does. does it not? there may be a report of a crime but we both know an adviser at the police station will always ask the investigating officer if the loser/complainant etc has made a s9 statement and if not will nearly always advise accordingly. in other words investigations will often take place without a proper statement. i was not suggesting a prosecution would proceed without one because we both know it cannot. it will be remedied. it may even have been late on friday. just like the cctv will be looked at. post charge. even though there are on the face of it 2 conflicting accounts and the cctv is there and NOT being looked at! i digress...cpu decision...

Secondly, in the case of the teacher that is exactly what happened. kids word against his. Allegation not made immediately at the time and no corroborating injuries. nothing. fortunately the magistrates acquitted my client at half time emphasising client left court without a stain on his character. a little unfortunate that social services had visited his home in the meantime to check his children were being properly looked after... fair play to the oic because she would not have charged him anyway. cps decision.

thirdly, i raised working in this area for 18 years because i wanted to show i have some experience of the vagaries of our criminal justice system. wasn't a case of one up manship you trump me on years served.

I will consider your offer. reality is the system tends to work but when it doesn't its often in the most obvious and ridiculous ways. but if you are able to help in the future i will happily ask.

in the meantime i again say there is a complaint, enough evidence of the complaint to merit further investigation and no reason why the driver could not have been invited in for interview. then, after interview the usual test could be applied when making a decision as to whether or not to charge or caution or pnd or nfa.

spen666

bobinski wrote:

.....

Spen,
Firstly,
if you are, in suggesting you do not believe me, which of course implies you think i am lying, then pm me to do it rather than on a public forum.

I am not accusing you of lying. In legal terms I am not attacking your character or putting my character in issue.

I have simply stated that I do not believe what you have said is the whole situation. Honest mistake, overlooking things, not appreciating things etc are all explanations that do not point to lying.

I think that would be more appropriate .i am not suggesting a prosecution proceeds without a complainant or losers statement i am suggesting an investigation often does. does it not? there may be a report of a crime but we both know an adviser at the police station will always ask the investigating officer if the loser/complainant etc has made a s9 statement and if not will nearly always advise accordingly. in other words investigations will often take place without a proper statement. i was not suggesting a prosecution would proceed without one because we both know it cannot. it will be remedied. it may even have been late on friday. just like the cctv will be looked at. post charge. even though there are on the face of it 2 conflicting accounts and the cctv is there and NOT being looked at! i digress...cpu decision...

Secondly, in the case of the teacher that is exactly what happened. kids word against his. Allegation not made immediately at the time and no corroborating injuries. nothing. fortunately the magistrates acquitted my client at half time emphasising client left court without a stain on his character. a little unfortunate that social services had visited his home in the meantime to check his children were being properly looked after... fair play to the oic because she would not have charged him anyway. cps decision.

Firstly here, if as you say there is no other evidence, then the charging decision is wrong in law. It is a code test failure. The fact the case was kicked out at 1/2 time supports this (unless witness failed to come up to proof).

That is a charging decision that is outside the code for crown prosecutors. It clearly did not meet the evidential stage of that test. BTW, I'd be interested to learn details of that case, it would be useful to know when there are such bad decisions in my role. {PM me if you want to know more]

However, I would suggest there was some other evidence supporting this allegation, such as teacher and or others accepting the 2 were in the same room. A minor point, but it is other evidence.

If I say you assaulted me this morning on my way to work- and there is no other evidence- ie nothing to even put you and I in same location, then there is insufficient evidence to bring a charge.[/quote][

thirdly, i raised working in this area for 18 years because i wanted to show i have some experience of the vagaries of our criminal justice system. wasn't a case of one up manship you trump me on years served.

I will consider your offer. reality is the system tends to work but when it doesn't its often in the most obvious and ridiculous ways. but if you are able to help in the future i will happily ask.

in the meantime i again say there is a complaint, enough evidence of the complaint to merit further investigation and no reason why the driver could not have been invited in for interview. then, after interview the usual test could be applied when making a decision as to whether or not to charge or caution or pnd or nfa.[/quote]

I note you are careful to talk about inviting driver for interview here rather than arrest :twisted:

Have you read his recent update on his blog? A new piece of information ( I think) is stated- namely the first confrontation on the video is some time after another confrontation on the road between these two. Thus the video footage, omits the 1st incident,and the events between that and 1st footage shown and between the 2 incidents on the video. A court would be concerned that they are being shown an edited version, especially when it seemingly omits incidents that may be key. It may be these are omitted for time purposes, or it may be evidence of an attempt to spin the events.

bobinski

I am not accusing you of lying. In legal terms I am not attacking your character or putting my character in issue.

I have simply stated that I do not believe what you have said is the whole situation. Honest mistake, overlooking things, not appreciating things etc are all explanations that do not point to lying.

Ok. though using the words " i do not believe you..."... but i accept things can become muddled when typed over t'internet..including by me.


However, I would suggest there was some other evidence supporting this allegation, such as teacher and or others accepting the 2 were in the same room. A minor point, but it is other evidence.

well, he could hardly deny being in the room but that is hardly evidence in support of or corroboration in the case.

I note you are careful to talk about inviting driver for interview here rather than arrest


i think i have always suggested this. i am a great fan of caution plus 3 and where a client attends by appointment rarely accept arrest and all its consequences are necessary.

re the rest will have a look at his blog shortly. i do feel though that there is tendency to fall into trap of expecting his account and the corroborating evidence having to be perfect before its necessary for the police to investigate further. you and i know that's rarely the case. or indeed necessary.

cheers

robrauy

All this talk of duff evidence, potentially edited video material etc is surely secondary to the fact that the thug happily admitted threatening to kill Mr Porter on video tape when asked, and yet the police can't be bothered to ask him again themselves...

I'm really happy to see this debate in the public realm having been on the receiving end of this sort of behaviour on several occasions.

For me it's the people that then go on to use their vehicle to intimidate further by deliberately closing gaps or overtaking in a threatening way are the ones that should have their licences taken away, and yet they seem to get away with it all the time.

Origamist

spen666 wrote:

Have you read his recent update on his blog? A new piece of information ( I think) is stated- namely the first confrontation on the video is some time after another confrontation on the road between these two. Thus the video footage, omits the 1st incident,and the events between that and 1st footage shown and between the 2 incidents on the video. A court would be concerned that they are being shown an edited version, especially when it seemingly omits incidents that may be key. It may be these are omitted for time purposes, or it may be evidence of an attempt to spin the events.

There seems to be some confusion here – the first sequence at the start of the YouTube clip is what started the chain of events. Porter, the cyclist, takes primary through a pinch-point and gets beeped at. The Golf driver pulls alongside and has a few words. Porter cannot make out what is said by the driver, but retorts about the dangers of overtaking through pinch-points - this dialogue takes place at around the 20sec mark. Further up the road, the cyclist passes the same Golf driver as he's queuing (not seen on the vid), a little later, the Golf catches up with Porter and pulls alongside him and it's at this juncture that Porter hears the threat to kill him (crucially, this threat cannot be heard at 0:37 to 0:43 on the vid when the Golf slows and pulls alongside). Porter, repeats the threat out loud immediately afterwards and quickly catches up with the driver (at the traffic lights in the video) and asks him to confirm that he had threatened to kill him - the driver duly obliges. The driver then turns left – without indicating.

Porter has made it clear that the video has been redacted (i.e there is a lack of continuity). Moreover, he has also stated that he has the entire sequence on film from the start of the incident (at the pinch point) until the driver turns left after admitting on camera that he had made the threat to kill. He has said that he will make the unexpurgated version available if requested.

spen666

Origamist wrote:

...

Porter .....quote]


Are you porter?

Origamist

spen666 wrote:

Origamist wrote:

...

Porter .....quote]


Are you porter?

LOL, I am not Martin Porter.

spen666

Origamist wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Origamist wrote:

...

Porter .....quote]


Are you porter?

LOL, I am not Martin Porter.

One of your earlier posts made me wonder?

I thought you had reversed the lawyer's approach of referring to their client in 1st person with referring to yourself in 3rd person!

Thanks for clearing that up

givecyclistsroom

post deleted

tailwindhome

No, I'm Spartacus!

jds_1981

givecyclistsroom wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Are you porter?

He isn't but I am.

givecyclistsroom - use your googlefu!

deptfordmarmoset

jds_1981 wrote:

givecyclistsroom wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Are you porter?

He isn't but I am.

givecyclistsroom - use your googlefu!

I don't understand that post. Givecyclistsroom has been on the forum for a fair amount of time and the associated profile names him as Martin Porter. Are you suggesting that someone called givecyclistsroom has retrospectively named himself Porter?

Or have I completely missed the point?

spen666

givecyclistsroom wrote:

..... You shift from questioning the reliability of my evidence to now suggesting that I should prosecute the miscreant myself. I suppose that I should not be entitled to slate a council for not fixing a pothole unless I was prepared to take the trouble to repair it myself. The police and CPS are paid from public funds respectively to investigate and prosecute crime and, as a competent lawyer, you would well know the police have greater powers of investigation than do I. ....

Of course you do not have any right to interefere with the highway, but you do have the same power as any citizen to issue a private prosecution.

If as you claim, you are so upset about the actions of the driver & thelack of action by the CPS and the police, then why not issue a summons yourself? You know as well as I do that you can issue a request to the DVLA to get registered keepers details if you h the car reg. Without the car reg, the police are unlikely to be able to do much either.

The allegation is a very minor one - the potential was for more, but fortunately it did not come to it. The police resources are finite and have to be directed to the more serious offences. A S5 POA offence is not the most serious offence.


The threats to kill guidance from the CPS is set out below.(my emphasis below)

115) Threats to kill, contrary to section 16 Offences Against the Person Act 1861. (Archbold 19-124 to 19-129);

116) Threats can be calculated and premeditated, or said in the heat of the moment. The defendant does not have to have the intention to kill but there has to be an intent that the person to whom the threat has been issued would fear it would be carried out. Where it is doubtful whether the threat carried the necessary intent a charge under section 4 Public Order Act 1986 may be appropriate. Refer also to Public Order Offences incorporating the Charging Standard elsewhere in the Legal guidance.

117) The threat accompanies an assault, adding a charge under section 16 will normally be unnecessary. There may be an exception where the severity of the threat is not matched by the physical injury sustained in the assault. The offence will be particularly appropriate if there has been no assault or if an assault has been prevented, yet the person to whom the threat was made was given real cause to believe it would be carried out.

I cannot see on the evidence produced that the necessary intention can be proven in this case. He said the words you complained of ( I will not quible with the quality of the tape or interpretation of what he said as others have previously). In the absence of anything else, and taking his reactions when you confronted him (namely the smile and the grin), I can't see the intent is able to be proven.

Sadly, this matter will probably not be progressed in terms of legal proceedings unless you choose to issue a private prosecution.


As for who I am, there is no secret about my identity. You post under a user name, so do I. If you want to know my name as per my practicing name, then it is easily accessible.

I should however say, I am not purporting to give legal advice to you or to anyone. I am however discussing my personal views on a legal topic that was raised by you into the public domain. My views are obviously going to be influenced by the years I have had as a criminal practitioner

jds_1981

deptfordmarmoset wrote:

Or have I completely missed the point?

This is the point > . < you're over here -> .

Basically saying what spen666 has said. Most of us on here are easily identifiable with a bit of google.

givecyclistsroom

post deleted

spen666

givecyclistsroom wrote:

Google? - You must mean this:
"About spen666. I’m a 40 something football fan and cyclist. I’ve been a football fanatic most of my life..."
Not much there that corroborates the claim "in criminal game for some 4 decades now".
You know my qualifications and experience; Spen666 declines to give his and continues to post inaccuracies such as that the name and address of a registered keeper is available to a member of the public on request.
I will not be wasting any more time here.

Firstly, you are wrong re the DVLA and registered keepers details.

Perhaps you should try looking at the DVLA website which states

How to find out about the keeper details of another vehicle

You can only get the name and address of the registered keeper of another vehicle if you can demonstrate ‘reasonable cause’ for needing the information. The DVLA must consider the reasons why you need the information and how it will be used before it is given to you.

It is a criminal offence under Section 55 of the Data Protection Act 1998 to unlawfully obtain or sell personal information. Unlimited fines in the Crown Court (or to a maximum of £5,000 in the Magistrates Court) exist as penalties in respect of these offences.

To check on the circumstances in which you can ask for information, what evidence you need to provide and what information will be supplied, go to:

Download 'The minimum evidence needed to demonstrate reasonable cause' (PDF, 60K) Send the V888 form and the right fee to:

Vehicles Fee Paying Enquiry Section
DVLA
Swansea
SA99 1AJ

Download 'Request for information by a member of the public' (V888) (PDF, 193K)

The page is here
How to Get details of Registered Keeper of a Vehicle

I should point out this list is not an exclusive list.

Secondly, I notice you choose to try to divert this matter away from the facts and the law and want to choose to try to take the matter into persoanl insults. Why? Could it be that you are not able to challenge the legal points?

If you want this driver prosecuted ( & no one can blame you for that) then there are ways to bring that about by doiung it yourself. If you just want to draw attention to the matter and to yourself, then again that is your right. However, if you choose to make an incident and your complaints public, then you must accept that not everyone will agree with you and those dissenting with your view/ aproach are equally entitled to express those views

deptfordmarmoset

jds_1981 wrote:

deptfordmarmoset wrote:

Or have I completely missed the point?

This is the point > . < you're over here -> .

Basically saying what spen666 has said. Most of us on here are easily identifiable with a bit of google.

Oops :oops:

iPete

FLOL, guy drove past me this morning, infact I see the car most days, never had any issues!

snailracer

spen666 wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

[..... I have little idea whether a private prosecution could lay for this, but I rather think that if there is genuine issue here, that is the way forward, rather than berating the police or the CPS.

A goofd point Greg, the lawyer should issue a private prosecution if he really believes there is sufficient evidence.

One wonders why he won't do this, but instead chooses to publically slate the CPS for not prosecuting a case he himself won't prosecute

IMO the Bar is an archaic old boys network, where who you know is more important than what you know, and remaining in the good books of those high up on the ladder is important if you want to progress. As far as I can tell, those at the top of the ladder do not approve of private criminal prosecutions, and the barrister in question knows this and would rather not crimp his career prospects:

Lord Bingham said: “A crime is an offence against the good order of the state. It is for the state by its appropriate agencies to investigate alleged crimes and decide whether offenders should be prosecuted. In times past, with no public prosecution service and ill-organised means of enforcing the law, the prosecution of offenders necessarily depended on the involvement of private individuals, but that is no longer so. The surviving right of private prosecution is of questionable value, and can be exercised in a way damaging to the public interest.”

Source:
http://www.solicitorsjournal.com/story. ... getsession

antfly

I am not too interested in the legal debate but am curious as to how a 44 year old solicitor can have been in the game for some 4 decades.

mybreakfastconsisted

antfly wrote:

I am not too interested in the legal debate but am curious as to how a 44 year old solicitor can have been in the game for some 4 decades.

That's good going, practising law before his tenth birthday, impressive!

cee

antfly wrote:

I am not too interested in the legal debate but am curious as to how a 44 year old solicitor can have been in the game for some 4 decades.

Just to pre-empt the inevitable.....

I think you will find spen chose his words carefully and did not actually say that he personally had been a criminal lawyer for 40 years...he definitely implied it....whether intentionally or not...but did not explicitly say it...

He said...something along the lines of some of us have 4 decades of experience...but did not say whether that was him personally, him and greg combined...or someone else as yet unnamed.

bloody lawyers

the trick is to not believe them whenever their lips are moving.

mybreakfastconsisted

BTW some of us have been in criminal game for some 4 decades now

The exact words.

I'm sure he actually meant he buys poached deer.

spen666

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

BTW some of us have been in criminal game for some 4 decades now

The exact words.

I'm sure he actually meant he buys poached deer.

I stand entirely by the words I used


I don't buy poached deer, but if you want to buy some, I can do a nice deal on some deer, a bit of salmon and a couple of rustled sheep

Alphabet

i do so love these headcam threads.

trying not to say an more as I'd inevitably use the words bell and end - might lead to a prosecution or something.

spen666

PS I have some chickens going cheep and some Duck down