Shays Given Tim Flowers

Member moussa

Haven't seen a Preston performance this poor since buzzcocks.

Not your words, the words of shakin stevens.

What's the significance of Reading? Record total?

Great play.

Top of the league :frantic: :frantic:

When we first came down we we very brittle after years of poor results and mismanagement. Of ourselves Huddersfield and Norwich I would fancy us to be the team that improves the most throughout the season.

https://thesecretbarrister.com/ Well worth a word for a precis of what went on.

Think the Jury felt first time round she was too drunk to give consent, it's not really a sensational position but in this case it was odd as McDonald was cleared.

Section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 protects complainants in proceedings involving sexual offences by restricting evidence or questions about their previous sexual history, subject to exceptions. Section 41 provides a structured approach to the application of judicial discretion and sets out clearly when evidence of previous sexual history can be admitted in rape cases. In essence courts may only give leave if: The evidence or questions rebut evidence led by the prosecution or The evidence or questions relate to a relevant issue at trial and that issue is not one of consent. If the issue is one of consent, the behaviour to which they relate is either alleged to have taken place at or about the same time as the alleged offence or is so similar to the complainant's behaviour at that time that it cannot reasonably be explained as coincidence. The court must also be satisfied that to refuse leave would result in the jury or the court reaching an unsafe conclusion on a relevant issue of trial. The court will also refuse permission if it considers that the main aim of evidence claimed to relate to a relevant issue is simply to undermine the complainant's reliability. So it sounds like either the prosecution led with some evidence about how she didn't normally do this type of thing and there was evidence that she did. Or There was something that was so similar in terms of behaviour that she was able to be cross examined about it. If you want an indication of the restrictive way s.41 can be applied. I have seen cases where people have not been able to rely on the fact the person they are accused of raping had sex with 2 different people before reporting it to the police. One incident the evening after the night of the allegation and the other the day after with her ex-boyfriends brother. It can be an incredibly difficult hurdle to get around as parliament clearly intended that such issues ordinarily should not go before a jury.

won't do him any harm.

Not even for £3m?

Every thread 'Polic.

I love Colin but I should think many find him easy to hate.

Yep they'll end up looking villans for sure.

Should give it to Lippi and repeal the smoking ban.

We all take the piss out of the Swedish league.

:lol: :lol: It's like a footballing version of the long good Friday.

Oh hippo head you daft cunt

Wonder how much a rotated back four (back two really) stops him from forming a rapport.

Fucking hell NUFC don't half piss me off.

Think we will win and all will be right with the world.