garty back in front of the beak...

[Bruce Rioja]

OK - cheers chaps.

[LeverEnd]

So is this about the guy trying to claw some money back because the judge suggested Gartside lied but he got away with it on a technical point of the contract? Looking for a settlement? I still don't really get it.

[LeverEnd]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/ ... ee-6486342

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Odd for the CPS to take over a private prosecution (before effectively dropping it).

[Bruce Rioja]

Odd for the CPS to take over a private prosecution (before effectively dropping it).

OK, I've lost the thread here somewhere. I thought that the private prosecution only came about after millado the agent still wasn't happy that it had already been booted out by the crown.

[LeverEnd]

Not a clue, just saw it when I was desperately looking for news that we'd found the new ian Marshall.
PRUFROCKKKK??!?!

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Odd for the CPS to take over a private prosecution (before effectively dropping it).

OK, I've lost the thread here somewhere. I thought that the private prosecution only came about after millado the agent still wasn't happy that it had already been booted out by the crown.

Yeah that's the last thing I remember too.

[Prufrock]

Dunno, seems a weird one. It's not uncommon for the CPS to take over a private prosecution and drop it (it's what they're supposed to do if it's a nutter with a vendetta) but I didn't think they way they did that was to wait until there's a court date and then offer no evidence. That would be an almighty waste of already stretched court time.

Could be they full intended to prosecute but a witness they needed didn't turn up. That's usually what's happened when they offer no evidence for any charges.

[Bruce Rioja]

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

[Prufrock]

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

He's got far bigger problems today!

[Worthy4England]

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

He's got far bigger problems today!

Do tell...

[Prufrock]

It's a Cameron joke, come on!

[Worthy4England]

It's a Cameron joke, come on!

I hadn't read the news, when I posted that...

[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;

[Lord Kangana]

Dunno, seems a weird one. It's not uncommon for the CPS to take over a private prosecution and drop it (it's what they're supposed to do if it's a nutter with a vendetta) but I didn't think they way they did that was to wait until there's a court date and then offer no evidence. That would be an almighty waste of already stretched court time.

Could be they full intended to prosecute but a witness they needed didn't turn up. That's usually what's happened when they offer no evidence for any charges.

The CPS has to have enough evidence in advance to show their it is worthy of a trial - 'realistic prospect of conviction' in their words (I know that it can be a painfully long process for them to be confident of this, and will ask for more or greater depth of evidence if they feel it isn't watertight- and not a waste of time).

What happens subsequently is anyone's guess, but there must have been something worthy of a court hearing for it to have had a date set.

[Prufrock]

Well, thankfully, that's not how it works. Plenty of cases collapse when it turns out someone who was thought to be a good witness was bullshitting. It's obviously not internet-appropriate, but this is one where we really can't come to any kind of reasoned conclusion without a lot more information. Why did the CPS take over? When did they take over? Why did they offer no evidence?

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

It's obviously not internet-appropriate, but this is one where we really can't come to any kind of reasoned conclusion without a lot more information.

You've missed the entire point of the medium!!!

[Lord Kangana]

Well, thankfully, that's not how it works.

Its entirely my personal experience of the CPS.

[BWFC_Insane]

Aren't you both broadly saying the same thing? At some point they must have had what they deemed to be a viable case. And then at a later unspecified point the evidence either became untrustworthy or simply collapsed.

[Prufrock]

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.