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.
Good that you so clearly know the exact circumstances. Tell me, if
the accused had been 16 years old and the scratched person had been 57
years old, would you be imagining the same set of circumstances?
--
Cynic
|