Quote:
Originally Posted by danielf
It clearly says there, that, on the balance of probabilities he didn't insert song titles into his evidence,
|
Which means that he couldn't even be held liable for any sort civil misdemeanour, let alone a criminal offence (such as Contempt of Court) where the allegation about song titles would have to be shown beyond reasonable doubt.
---------- Post added at 15:33 ---------- Previous post was at 15:30 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparkle
The police lie to cover their own tails and even make a mockery of investigations into their activities (such as the recent case of the police marksman who replied in court using as many song titles as he could).
|
Even as you try to grasp the moral high ground with lofty sermons about the need to remember 'innocent until proven guilty', you can't help but recite little tidbits of protestor mythology that are so blindly assumed to be true you manage to miss the fact that they are demonstrably not.
If you don't mind, I won't be taking any lessons about the course of justice from you.