On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:42:22 +0000, MM wrote:
>On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 08:56:57 GMT, Palindrome wrote:
>
>>My first thought was that the defendant had (slightly) amended her
>>version of events, shortly before the trial.
>
>She shouldn't even have BEEN a ruddy defendant!! Any scratches the
>scrotes got were entirely their own fault. Did this "defendant" walk
>up to someone and start scratching them? No! She was remonstrating
>with a bunch of .wits who thought they would teach her a lesson.
>And of course, along comes British "justice" to help them out!
>Completely, totally, idiotic.
I wouldn't have put it quite like that, but those were the lines I was thinking
along, yes.
But more, I was thinking 'why on earth was it necessary to keep her in cells for
*16 hours*? Bit of extra-judicial punishment there? Couldn't statements simply
be taken at the scene?
Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within' |