PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

johnevans said:
Never.. I may have been (mostly) vegetarian for the past 30+ years (ever since my youngest daughter saw 'Babe' at age eight and instantly gave up meat..) but as Charlton Heston (sort of) put it, I can assure you that you will only ever prise my bacon butty or my sausage'n'mayo bap from my cold, dead hand..
Click to expand...
Sausage & mayo?

What the actual fuck?

Are you an absolute dirty bastard, or am I going to have to a try sausage & mayo butty/roll/muffin/barm/bap?
 
Gorton_Tubster said:
The time Barring stuff has passed into myth.

It isn't true (that we got away with it all due to time bar) but off that bollocks whole articles have been written.

What you've read is probably that because we got away with it last time due to time barring, this time we won't because there's no time bar in the PL investigation.
Click to expand...
Crazy they want to punish the club for 15 yr old accountancy discrepancies, back before 99% of us were even supporting the cloob
 
When I hear people commenting on the impartiality and ethics of the legal profession, I'm always reminded of Judge Caulfield in the Jeffrey Archer libel trial in 1987 who described Mary Archer, a witness for her husband, as a vision of “elegance, fragrance and radiance" whilst musing on why any man would play away.

I'm fully expecting the IC to describe Masters Gill, Parry etc in similar terms whilst wondering whether such people would really bring a frivolous case before them.
 
Newman Noggs said:
When I hear people commenting on the impartiality and ethics of the legal profession, I'm always reminded of Judge Caulfield in the Jeffrey Archer libel trial in 1987 who described Mary Archer, a witness for her husband, as a vision of “elegance, fragrance and radiance" whilst musing on why any man would play away.

I'm fully expecting the IC to describe Masters Gill, Parry etc in similar terms whilst wondering whether such people would really bring a frivolous case before them.
Click to expand...
And Lady Hale. Made it fit as she went along. Very learned and intelligent people I'm sure, but we all have our views, leanings and biases that are difficult to completely suppress.
 
Cassandra said:
The short answer is that this was before the Food Safety Act 1990, which introduced the ‘due diligence and all reasonable precautions’ defence. Yes, this was a formal prosecution by the local authority, though the prosecution was led by a QC rather than an environmental health officer as sometimes happened. X-ray machines were available in those days but not commonly used.
In those days public analysts’ findings were rarely challenged in magistrates’ courts and whilst this one was, in my view, a bit of a cowboy.

You mention that insects etc can be tested to see whether they have been cooked or not. Many years before this the Research Association had suggested the use of the alkaline phosphate test (normally used to check adequate milk pasteurisation) for insects. It probably wasn’t as well tailored to insects but gave a reasonable result. I encountered this same public analyst in another case where he was using the test to see whether burgers had been properly cooked. It appeared that the alkaline phosphate in muscle was slightly more heat resistant than that in milk and that an acid phosphatase test would have been more appropriate. The company involved were a bit obsessed with not over cooking their burgers. However in his evidence the public analyst suggested that 450 degrees centigrade would be an appropriate temperature to cook burgers to. He later denied saying this under cross examination, until the clerk read out what he had said. In this case the complainant, who claimed it made him sick within minutes, was a police officer who had been turned down for a franchise with the defending company. The company were still found guilty. But this was when e.coli 157 was much in the news……

To return to the relevance to this thread, I was making the case that you can have the best factual evidence in the world but sometimes there are other factors that come into play - media pressure for example.
Click to expand...
ok Gordon Ramsey
 
Newman Noggs said:
When I hear people commenting on the impartiality and ethics of the legal profession, I'm always reminded of Judge Caulfield in the Jeffrey Archer libel trial in 1987 who described Mary Archer, a witness for her husband, as a vision of “elegance, fragrance and radiance" whilst musing on why any man would play away.

I'm fully expecting the IC to describe Masters Gill, Parry etc in similar terms whilst wondering whether such people would really bring a frivolous case before them.
Click to expand...
I was in the High Court in London with an appeal case following conviction at magistrates revolving around the use of misleading terms in relation to the advertisement of "used cars".
I knew we were fucked when one of the doddering justices asked our barrister, "do people actually buy used motor vehicles?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top