Apparently we must trust the courts when it finds in a manner that suits this particular individual's prejudices.

However we must take his word for it when a court get things wrong in respect to him.....twice apparently.

Amusing...if it weren't so transparent.

Edited by Stirlingsays (07 Mar 2024 9.14pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

100%. Its only achievement was killing some poor sods working inside it. And NATO knew that. Yet they still targetted it. Denying an enemy the ability to produce what you might deem to be 'propaganda' is not a war-crime per se but you do so by hitting the actual transmitter towers. Not the studio's which are nowhere near those.

Still it was NATO. And they can do no wrong (although what threat Serbia ever presented to a NATO country has never quite been proven but hey-ho, took old Billy Boy Clinton's sordid affair off the front pages).

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.

Different courts do different things.

Things as different as chalk and cheese.

Crown courts decide on criminal activities on the basis of beyond a reasonable doubt.

Mr Melia was convicted in a Crown court.

County courts decide civil claims. There’s no determination of guilt, innocence or fact. Just an assessment of merit. In my case I know beyond the slightest doubt the judge got his assessment wrong, which cost my insurer a lot of money, rewarded a fraudster and indirectly raised everyone’s insurance premiums.

Celebrating fraud and having to pay more for insurance doesn’t appear to me to be wise.

I just love the way that those who think they know better than anyone else about everything prove they don’t when challenging someone who was one of the only two people who really know the truth.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Courts make assessments and then decide outcomes. Same process so no amount of waffling can defend a certain poster's double standards.

To jail someone for two years on 'intent' marks this country out as not free.

The protected classes and 'intent' laws are a crime against liberty in this country. They are laws on the books since Blair and thus are like a blink of an eye legally. I have contempt for them.

However, for courts to find against a certain poster....two courts on separate occasions and situations finding against the same individual....I can only offer an opinion....and that opinion is that I'm not surprised.

Seems that people opposed to his opinion are quite easy to find outside of this website as well.

Edited by Stirlingsays (08 Mar 2024 7.33am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Crown courts decide guilt or innocence and convict the guilty.

Mr Melia was convicted of taking actions intended to produce reactions in others. Encouraging others to commit illegal acts is itself a crime.

He was not convicted of simply thinking about something and intending at some time in the future to possibly take action. He was convicted of doing it. It was the actions that held the intentions. Mr Melia took the actions.

As for myself. I have no idea why it is being suggested I have “lost” two cases. I have never been charged with one, let alone two.

A civil claim, defended by my insurer, went against us recently. Prior to that the only cases I have been involved in were in the small claims court more than 20 years ago. Two were won. I lost a claim against a bank for excessive fees. The only other things have been reviews by a Tribunal and an appeal to an Ombudsman. Not Courts.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Running businesses tends to result in more necessity for the use of the courts to settle disputes than staying at home and occupying your time on football forums.

My recent case was the first since I retired. It could have been settled by the insurers, who had total control over it that having been delegated contractually by the terms of the policy.

They though decided to fight it as they too were convinced it was fraud and wanted to expose it. They believed they had a compelling witness in me. It would have been much cheaper for them to have settled.

As this could have happened to any one of us this is a lesson for all. Not something to try to make personal due to a dislike.

The statements on Mr Melia are factually incorrect. The Court convicted him on his actions not on his opinions.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.