: Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:33 pm  

Wadski wrote:

That could be argued.

Ok, SOME taxes

: Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:35 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

So you were in court, and listened to it, then, did you?

Maybe you'd better dash a letter of to the Sporting Life, BBC etc. who are all reporting that:-



Unless of course on your planet, charging the door and breaking the frame and the lock doesn't count as forcing your way in?

Hey, mr clueless wannabe lawyer.

You do realise that breaking a door does not constitute gaining entry by voilence dont you. So my sentence was correct. As was proved in the court today. The bit from the reports you quoted, is just criminal damage.

Therefore you fail.

Epic Fail.

Your shipment of fail has arrived.

etc

: Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:36 pm  

Saint Simon wrote:

In the breaking and entering charge i meant

My apologises. Although it is likely this charge was dropped in a plea bargain.

: Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:39 pm  

Wadski wrote:

My apologises. Although it is likely this charge was dropped in a plea bargain.

It was dropped because there was no evidence.

HTH

[tb]

: Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:40 pm  

Eurob0y wrote:

LOl what does imfamous mean?

As for Pryce, correct decision imo. He was protecting himself from a man armed with a rounders bat

No. If that's what he was doing he would have been acquitted. What he was doing, and what he was convicted of, was assaulting someone.

: Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:41 pm  

tb wrote:

No. If that's what he was doing he would have been acquitted. What he was doing, and what he was convicted of, was assaulting someone.

If thats the case its a traversty of justice!!!!!

: Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:42 pm  

Wadski wrote:

My apologises. Although it is likely this charge was dropped in a plea bargain.

Thats more likely, to get them to plead guilty on the other charge. The no evidence idea is rubbish, there were two witnesses and the broken door!

[tb]

: Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:42 pm  

t-r-i-n-i-t-y wrote:

Having not been in court for the proceedings, I'd have more faith in the 'British Justice System' than the kangaroo court of RLFans posters.

aye

: Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:46 pm  

Eurob0y wrote: You do realise that breaking a door does not constitute gaining entry by voilence dont you. So my sentence was correct. This sentence: Eurob0y wrote: There was no evidence from the prosecution to say that either Pryce or Reardon forced their way in. ? Because that doesn't mention voilence [sic]. In fact, it says that they didn't force their way in. Now, I'm not sure what you'd consider 'force' to be, but I'd say that smashing the door down with a shoulder charge would constitute 'force'. But maybe that's just me.

Eurob0y wrote: You do realise that breaking a door does not constitute gaining entry by voilence dont you. So my sentence was correct. This sentence: Eurob0y wrote: There was no evidence from the prosecution to say that either Pryce or Reardon forced their way in. ? Because that doesn't mention voilence [sic]. In fact, it says that they didn't force their way in. Now, I'm not sure what you'd consider 'force' to be, but I'd say that smashing the door down with a shoulder charge would constitute 'force'. But maybe that's just me.

: Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:50 pm  

Saint Simon wrote:

Thats more likely, to get them to plead guilty on the other charge. The no evidence idea is rubbish, there were two witnesses and the broken door!

...and Reardon has been made to pay costs for the broken door.