Proper Twelve is on special in Tescos. 25€ down from 40 ish (you’d wonder what sort of a mug would pay 40€ for a bottle of young Bushmills pish). I reckon Tescos are clearing their stock before announcing their own boycott
4 Likes
The DPP decided not to pursue a criminal case against him presumably because they didn’t think they had strong enough evidence to get a conviction. The victim took a private civil case against him for assault. The level of proof needed in a civil case is lower. I stand to be corrected by @artfoley
3 Likes
The DPP declined to prosecute.
Ha, good enough for the scumbag. Hopefully this is just the start of it.
1 Like
They should pour it down the drain
2 Likes
He got a very athletic going over
4 Likes
Surely Tesco would take a more moral stance ?
It’s not listed on their website and it has other whiskeys.
I believe the state take the case in a criminal case. The victim is a witness.
In a civil trial she’s taking the case.
1 Like
Is that what you learned from second captains?
So here is the thing. The DPP felt there was no realistic chance of this prosecution succeeding to the degree. If they had prosecuted and he was found innocent, of if they prosecute now and he’s found innocent (not proven as in Scottish law seems a better term, but anyhow), will all of the media outlets be liable for libel ?
This is a genuinely interesting question, if you take the heat of the situation out of it.
The values of the Carphone Warehouse
3 Likes
I don’t think they can decide to prosecute now having declined twice to do so.
Super Values
Better Values Beat Them All (not physically beat them like McGregor)
So in that case the DPP couldn’t have gone after Ian Bailey again, or does that rule change if new evidence is found?
I’m no expert but I think the jury was 9-3.
Would that be an indicator it would go the other way in a criminal case?
A civil case hinges on the most likely set of events transpiring. Bit of a no man’s land really if you’re looking for stone cold guilt . But a jury did hear a tonne of evidence to come to that verdict.
A criminal case , guilt needs to be beyond reasonable doubt. A very high bar.
Reporting that he was found libel for rape isn’t a problem i dont think.
Calling him a rapist based on the most likely set of events does seem shakey but media seem comfortable so they must be on solid leagal ground to do so.
It’s sad that i have to preface this by saying i think he did it but if i dont ill be doxxed and face a day of being called a rape apologist.
3 Likes
I don’t know where you find the patience
We cant let bullies win. They’ve already driven tonnes of lads off here (RIP)
I’m standing up for them.
