Mmmmm Sherry filled Trifle, Just watch the serving size if you plan on DrivingPox wrote:It was a posh quiche too - wild salmon and broccoli. And the trifle had lots of sherry in it.
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
Moderator: ArthurWankspittle
Mmmmm Sherry filled Trifle, Just watch the serving size if you plan on DrivingPox wrote:It was a posh quiche too - wild salmon and broccoli. And the trifle had lots of sherry in it.
Nothing wrong with crayons - give the guy a break!PeanutGallery wrote:I just find it interesting that of all the things James had to hand to obscure his address, he picked a crayon.
As with everything this crowd do, you could not make it up. No need to parody or mock, they do it all for us. Hilarious.PeanutGallery wrote:I just find it interesting that of all the things James had to hand to obscure his address, he picked a crayon.
PeanutGallery wrote: he picked a crayon.
Appropriate. Two thick slices.Burnaby49 wrote:
And you have this;
Brave Sir Robin, bravely ran away.Bones wrote:So James, about that debate you wanted - are you going to step up to the plate ? Or just lose your password again
Day before the trial finished his live in partner (Candice) posted on BTBATB that she had received a visit from a bailiff. Seems that she hasn't paid all her council tax.Bones wrote:This is no doubt the picture that James wants to post - he seems to think that having his costs refunded is some kind of victory.
When in reality it is just a refund![]()
Anyway James, when is Amanda, Craig or Tom going to post that warrant with all its defects for all to see as promised ?
Refresh my memory Jay, weren't you stuck in jail for a while before the trial while the other 6 were released because of your criminal record? You did not break even.not bad for sitting on my arse in court for 5 days at tax payers expense pppppphhhhahahaaaa
I'm gonna repeat my question because I think you didn't read it. Did you do know Amanda and the Crawford's have the warrant and have had it since July?the warrant still hasn't been shown in a criminal court
Great that you like sitting in jail and court so that you can pay bailiffs.JayBrad wrote:Thanks for posting that you saved me a ball ache, but hey still not bad for sitting on my arse in court for 5 days at tax payers expense pppppphhhhahahaaaa
Supporters - the Crawfords have gone from what 600? to about 30?JayBrad wrote:I think you Squatloozers or QuatSnoozers need to move on there is nothing more to see here apart from you ll making yourselves look like complete tools, you speculated and speculated about the trial sent your little foot soldiers to watch and even stalked the party, made speculation about the amount of supporters, but to be honest i couldn't care if there was only 1 supporter, you see what you lot are missing the point of is the warrant still hasn't been shown in a criminal court when it came to the judge requesting the warrant the originals that the county court judge refused to sign as authentic when requested and as the prosecutor said "he refused to sign them" what does that actually tell you!
So you don't really want a debate? What you want to do is throw your weight around like a big manly man, which smacks of compensating for inadequacy, and keep going on about a warrant that was pretty much irrelevant to the facts of your trial.JayBrad wrote:In fact don't take my word for it get the transcript and read it, you may then actually get it when you have read the transcript of the criminal case then give me a shout and we will have the debate.
That is also my understanding. The prosecution put forward various witnesses and statements but, IMHO, got nowhere close to the possibility of proving conspiracy. In simple non-legal translation, it got to a point where the judge said is that it? to the prosecution and then dismissed the case as not even close (to what they were supposed to be proving).notorial dissent wrote:OK, I have a question here. AS I understand it, the prosecution collapsed due to, in my opinion poor preparation and getting their ducks in a row, lack of evidence, was the case not dismissed rather than a not guilty verdict given? It doesn't sound like this ever went to the jury, or judge for decision, but was rather dismissed for lack of evidence.
It would seem I was in error. Jay you weren't found not guilty, so instead let me congratulate you on coming up against an insipid prosecutor. However this doesn't change my opinion that James and the Rooftop gang are the reason Tom wound up being evicted. You told him he didn't need to pay back the mortgage capital and set him off on the road that has led him away from his former home and any retirement savings.ArthurWankspittle wrote:That is also my understanding. The prosecution put forward various witnesses and statements but, IMHO, got nowhere close to the possibility of proving conspiracy. In simple non-legal translation, it got to a point where the judge said is that it? to the prosecution and then dismissed the case as not even close (to what they were supposed to be proving).notorial dissent wrote:OK, I have a question here. AS I understand it, the prosecution collapsed due to, in my opinion poor preparation and getting their ducks in a row, lack of evidence, was the case not dismissed rather than a not guilty verdict given? It doesn't sound like this ever went to the jury, or judge for decision, but was rather dismissed for lack of evidence.
I'm not convinced. ITV report the verdict as being "not guilty" and the jury being discharged from returning a verdict. My understanding is the position is now the same as if the jury had returned a not guilty verdict, in that they are considered to have been tried and a positive result (not guilty) has been recorded, rather than an ambiguous result of the charge being allowed to remain on the file or the Scottish "not proven". If the prosecution had withdrawn from the case before the trial started then it would be possible for them to restart things later, but this is no longer the case (according to my inexpert understanding, and assuming no special circumstances permitting double jeopardy).PeanutGallery wrote:It would seem I was in error. Jay you weren't found not guilty, so instead let me congratulate you on coming up against an insipid prosecutor.
Oh no it isn't...Forsyth wrote:Unless Jay intends providing some new information this thread is at risk of descending into pantomime, which may provide entertainment from those that enjoy such things (I understand this is a purely British phenomenon which may explain much), but is equally unlikely to produce anything constructive. The police going on record to say that they had seen the warrant and that it was signed and sealed correctly and Amanda saying oh no it isn't doesn't advance things any further. This isn't an argument, it's just contradiction.