£80k of cyclists own money ****ed up the wall. Love it.

On 14/04/2017 20:41, TMS320 wrote:
On 14/04/17 11:38, JNugent wrote:
On 14/04/2017 10:52, TMS320 wrote:
On 14/04/17 01:16, JNugent wrote:
On 13/04/2017 23:44, TMS320 wrote:
On 13/04/17 17:21, JNugent wrote:
On 13/04/2017 13:49, TMS320 wrote:
On 13/04/17 11:24, JNugent wrote:
On 13/04/2017 08:36, TMS320 wrote:

She did do it.

As you know, that is 100% gold-plated tripe.

The inescapable result is that you are accusing the experts that
work out the sequence of events and present technical facts to the
court of lying.

The Cyclists' Defence Fund, you mean?

Stop being so utterly thick.

Don't be so obtuse.

I stand my ground.

It's fairly liquid ground, capped with a layer of thin ice.

If you say so.

It was *you* who brought them into it when you mentioned "the experts
that work out the sequence of events and present technical facts to the
court".

It was a private prosecution brought by the CDF.

The technical details would have been established long before the CDF
got involved...

...where "established" means "highly tentative and ultimately to be
proven to be false".

Don't be so stupid.

Do you actually wish to discuss matters or are you determined simply to
be as offensive as you can?

If it's the latter, we can end this exchange right now.

The jury found the evidence was lacking, in their
*opinion*.

That's right.

Which other opinion matters?

An absence of evidence cannot prove the evidence to be false.

You must be at odds with every decision of significance ever made in a
British court.

...

Which bit of "not guilty" is too difficult for you?

The jury gave returned an *opinion* that the defendant was not guilty as
charged. That is nothing more to it.

The jurors - all twelve of them - were each separately and
simultaneously convinced by the evidence they heard, to the effect that
they all decided, without any need for significant group discussion of
any of it, that the prosecution "case" was unconvincing and that the
defence case was not.

Unless you can show that this happened as a result of mass hypnosis,
drugging of their refreshments or telepathic discussion whilst they were
actually listening to the evidence, you are merely howling into the wind.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

On 15/04/17 02:22, JNugent wrote:
On 14/04/2017 20:41, TMS320 wrote:
On 14/04/17 11:38, JNugent wrote:
On 14/04/2017 10:52, TMS320 wrote:
On 14/04/17 01:16, JNugent wrote:
On 13/04/2017 23:44, TMS320 wrote:
On 13/04/17 17:21, JNugent wrote:
On 13/04/2017 13:49, TMS320 wrote:
On 13/04/17 11:24, JNugent wrote:
On 13/04/2017 08:36, TMS320 wrote:

She did do it.

As you know, that is 100% gold-plated tripe.

The inescapable result is that you are accusing the experts that
work out the sequence of events and present technical facts to the
court of lying.

The Cyclists' Defence Fund, you mean?

Stop being so utterly thick.

Don't be so obtuse.

I stand my ground.

It's fairly liquid ground, capped with a layer of thin ice.

If you say so.

It was *you* who brought them into it when you mentioned "the experts
that work out the sequence of events and present technical facts to
the
court".

It was a private prosecution brought by the CDF.

The technical details would have been established long before the CDF
got involved...

...where "established" means "highly tentative and ultimately to be
proven to be false".

Don't be so stupid.

Do you actually wish to discuss matters or are you determined simply to
be as offensive as you can?

It is the position you have put yourself in.