SISU win at court... (1 Viewer)

[martcov]

[QUOTEen =Nick;854473]Surely if SISU won, then CCC would have done something wrong wouldn't they?

If SISU win but are still in the wrong, it renders the "high court judge" argument everybody throws around every 5 minutes doesn't it?[/QUOTE]

Yes they would still be in the wrong from many people's point of view because to swing the verdict round they must present new evidence. Up until now they have not presented a "smoking gun". If they have something then they should have presented it by now. So, either they haven't got anything and the judge is right and they are wrong, or they have something which should have been presented a long time ago - in which case they are wrong for suppressing this evidence.

 

---

[Nick]

[QUOTEen =Nick;854473]Surely if SISU won, then CCC would have done something wrong wouldn't they?

If SISU win but are still in the wrong, it renders the "high court judge" argument everybody throws around every 5 minutes doesn't it?

Yes they would still be in the wrong from many people's point of view because to swing the verdict round they must present new evidence. Up until now they have not presented a "smoking gun". If they have something then they should have presented it by now. So, either they haven't got anything and the judge is right and they are wrong, or they have something which should have been presented a long time ago - in which case they are wrong for suppressing this evidence.[/QUOTE]

Well surely if they have evidence that proves CCC is in the wrong and it makes the judge believe them then CCC would be in the wrong after everything said? (I am not saying they have or will by the way)

Quite strange really how the high court judge's opinion is used against SISU so much but if they agreed with SISU, it would still be against them.

 

[martcov]

Yes they would still be in the wrong from many people's point of view because to swing the verdict round they must present new evidence. Up until now they have not presented a "smoking gun". If they have something then they should have presented it by now. So, either they haven't got anything and the judge is right and they are wrong, or they have something which should have been presented a long time ago - in which case they are wrong for suppressing this evidence.

Well surely if they have evidence that proves CCC is in the wrong and it makes the judge believe them then CCC would be in the wrong after everything said? (I am not saying they have or will by the way)

Quite strange really how the high court judge's opinion is used against SISU so much but if they agreed with SISU, it would still be against them.[/QUOTE]

No. They would have caused us extra stress, the taxpayers money would have been unnecessarily wasted, but of course they would be in the right if the judge said so. I am just saying that if they have had something the whole time and hidden from us, then they are really out of order. I think though that they have not got a leg to stand on and that the Les Reid campaign is somehow connected with the appeal of the appeal appeal. It is pure mud raking in the hope that something, somehow, somewhere will come out.

 

[Gosford Green]

An article in a local free paper heavy on half truths and the version of event according to Les Reid is not exactly evidence that will go towards granting an appeal.

 

[italiahorse]

An article in a local free paper heavy on half truths and the version of event according to Les Reid is not exactly evidence that will go towards granting an appeal.

It is for a few on here. Could run for weeks and they will quote it as fact for years to come :facepalm:

 

[Nick]

It is for a few on here. Could run for weeks and they will quote it as fact for years to come :facepalm:

So who on here now thinks SISU will win based on something in a paper?

Some things will be quoted as fact for years to come, as some facts were pointed out. That is how it works.

 

[shmmeee]

So who on here now thinks SISU will win based on something in a paper?

Some things will be quoted as fact for years to come, as some facts were pointed out. That is how it works.

Not trying to start a fight, but I've been out of the loop for a few weeks. I've read the Observer article.

What facts specifically are we talking about?