garty back in front of the beak...

[bobo the clown]

I imagine that a certain feral pig that used to post around these parts is probably unearthing humble pie for dinner this evening.

Nowt yet

https://twitter.com/RMc2407/with_replies" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Blimey. I'd forgotten what a self-important prick McCormack is.

I think Bruce meant someone who was a bit of a Hog and had Warts though.

[BWFC_Insane]

It doesn't mean that there "must have been something worthy of a court hearing for it to have had a date set". It probably (though it depends when the CPS took the case over) means that there must have been something the CPS at some point thought worthy of a court hearing.

Given we're talking about people's reputations that's more than a semantic distinction. Sometimes there is smoke without fire.

Personally I'm not entirely sure what distinction you are making there?

[thebish]

I imagine that a certain feral pig that used to post around these parts is probably unearthing humble pie for dinner this evening.

Nowt yet

https://twitter.com/RMc2407/with_replies" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Blimey. I'd forgotten what a self-important prick McCormack is.

I think Bruce meant someone who was a bit of a Hog and had Warts though.

Harry Potter???

[Prufrock]

The first implies (or at least from the first it can be inferred) that something dodgy must have gone on somewhere or else it would never have passed the CPS test (that we're assuming it passed).

If the whole case against someone is based on the testimony of someone who seems convincing (such that there's a realistic prospect of conviction) but who is in fact lying, there isn't anything worthy of a court hearing, there just *seems* to be.

[chester white]

I imagine that a certain feral pig that used to post around these parts is probably unearthing humble pie for dinner this evening.

Nowt yet

https://twitter.com/RMc2407/with_replies" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Blimey. I'd forgotten what a self-important prick McCormack is.

I think Bruce meant someone who was a bit of a Hog and had Warts though.

I thought McCormack was Warthog!?

[BWFC_Insane]

The first implies (or at least from the first it can be inferred) that something dodgy must have gone on somewhere or else it would never have passed the CPS test (that we're assuming it passed).

If the whole case against someone is based on the testimony of someone who seems convincing (such that there's a realistic prospect of conviction) but who is in fact lying, there isn't anything worthy of a court hearing, there just *seems* to be.

Ah so you're basically saying there very often is smoke without fire. Which of course is true. The case as you say may well have collapsed because it was utter nonsense from the get go. We just don't know!

[CAPSLOCK]

I imagine that a certain feral pig that used to post around these parts is probably unearthing humble pie for dinner this evening.

Nowt yet

https://twitter.com/RMc2407/with_replies" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Blimey. I'd forgotten what a self-important prick McCormack is.

I think Bruce meant someone who was a bit of a Hog and had Warts though.

I thought McCormack was Warthog!?

Me too

There cant be two as backward as him

[Prufrock]

The first implies (or at least from the first it can be inferred) that something dodgy must have gone on somewhere or else it would never have passed the CPS test (that we're assuming it passed).

If the whole case against someone is based on the testimony of someone who seems convincing (such that there's a realistic prospect of conviction) but who is in fact lying, there isn't anything worthy of a court hearing, there just *seems* to be.

Ah so you're basically saying there very often is smoke without fire. Which of course is true. The case as you say may well have collapsed because it was utter nonsense from the get go. We just don't know!

Well yes - that is both basically, and almost exactly, what I'm saying !

It doesn't mean that there "must have been something worthy of a court hearing for it to have had a date set". It probably (though it depends when the CPS took the case over) means that there must have been something the CPS at some point thought worthy of a court hearing.

Given we're talking about people's reputations that's more than a semantic distinction. Sometimes there is smoke without fire.

[Worthy4England]

I imagine that a certain feral pig that used to post around these parts is probably unearthing humble pie for dinner this evening.

Nowt yet

https://twitter.com/RMc2407/with_replies" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Blimey. I'd forgotten what a self-important prick McCormack is.

I think Bruce meant someone who was a bit of a Hog and had Warts though.

I thought McCormack was Warthog!?

Me too

There cant be two as backward as him

And me.

[Bruce Rioja]

Nowt yet

https://twitter.com/RMc2407/with_replies" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Blimey. I'd forgotten what a self-important prick McCormack is.

I think Bruce meant someone who was a bit of a Hog and had Warts though.

I thought McCormack was Warthog!?

Me too

There cant be two as backward as him

And me.

So we can't all be wrong, can we?

[Worthy4England]

Well, apart from the fact that I thought Warthog's first name was different....maybe he's writing under a pseudonym...

[Prufrock]

Yeah I thought he was an "L".

[Bruce Rioja]

Well, apart from the fact that I thought Warthog's first name was different....maybe he's writing under a pseudonym...

Well done, Magnus!

[CAPSLOCK]

L$$ the singing postman

[Worthy4England]

Well, apart from the fact that I thought Warthog's first name was different....maybe he's writing under a pseudonym...

Well done, Magnus!

Don't mention it!