Shays Given Tim Flowers

Making me nervous as fuck for tomorrow this.

I mean Baku is a bit of a Liberty.

Seems like a pretty sensible verdict. Jury felt that the officer acted unlawfully, but could not be sure he intended to cause a really serious injury. I suspect the officer was given more latitude than Joe Soap would have been regarding a kick in the head and intention to cause serious injury but that is speculation. Proving intent to the criminal standard is a difficult issue to Prosecute particularly so in a homicide, and particularly where there is no motive or evidence toward pre-meditation.

Portugal were God awful when they won the Euros. Maybe that's our blueprint.

You're not going to graffiti your 1000 thread count Egyptian Cotton.

How fucking hard is it to not reply to somebody on a forum too. Jesus Christ.

That'll be Jones full-time then.

Jesus, this is awful.

Shelveys an ever present till ham heads gone

rattled. Also I'd have swapped one of the exclamation marks for the correct spelling of you're.

Fuck that.

Not sure some rich early 20's guy is the right person to sort out the mess.

Jesus wept

I’ve got a shirt signed by peak Sir Bobby squad: Sir Bobby Shearer Robert Bellamy Jenas Solano Dyer Speed Given Was moving it at the moment I heard Speed had died on the radio.

Porn for dogs?

It gets a bit more complicated than that. But yes, if you can hide something nobody knows about then chances are they never will. Of course the lawyers involved are guilty of gross misconduct if they don’t disclose material they are aware of...

UK courts are some of the worlds best for this type of thing.

So the sanction of non-disclosure is that the party who doesn’t disclose can’t use the document. But it appears that if a party chooses not to disclose the trial Judge can draw inferences from that failure. So if I say I need to see something and you refuse to provide it then;absent of any compelling reason, the trial judge may well think I have something to hide.

I think (emphasis added) that the sanction is that the party who doesn’t disclose a document cannot rely on the document themselves. That’s what the civil procedure rules say. Think there are also potentially costs implications (meaning at the end of the case it can be relevant as to who pays what costs regardless of who wins the case).

Carroll

So the sanction for non-disclosure is that the defaulting party cannot rely upon the document themselves. So the PL may well refuse to disclose documents.

You need more evidence the more serious/consequential the allegation, but technically the burden remains the same. So pretty much

The burden of proof is that they have to show it is more likely than not that the PL broke anti-competition law.

Aye. It’s balance of probabilities.

The maggies Got to love him though.