north glasgow dave wrote:4.5 of tax payers money..thats an absolute discrace.
If the notw loose do they pay the costs £4.5 million ?
Moderators: John, Sharon, Fossil, Lucky Poet, crusty_bint, Jazza, dazza
north glasgow dave wrote:4.5 of tax payers money..thats an absolute discrace.
hungryjoe wrote:I heard on the radio that the charges against Gail have been dropped. I don't know what the arguments are, about who's supposed to have said what, but I have to assume that Tommy and Gail were singing from the same hymn sheet, so I imagine it's looking good for Tommy.
strange brew wrote:hungryjoe wrote:I heard on the radio that the charges against Gail have been dropped. I don't know what the arguments are, about who's supposed to have said what, but I have to assume that Tommy and Gail were singing from the same hymn sheet, so I imagine it's looking good for Tommy.
Not really. The prosecution basically ignored Gail and didn't bother putting forward any evidence against her, instead choosing to focus on Tommy. If anything, this is bad for him.
strange brew wrote:Mori wrote:Unbelievable...what do we get out it ?
Hootsman
Sheridan Trial: Perjury case has cost the taxpayer £4.5m, says Sheridan's press officer
What are you supposed to get out of it? Is it a legal requirement that every trial should benefit the taxpaying public?
fourbytwo wrote:8) Too easy to get embroiled in the 'wheeling and dealing' that has went on before and during this trial...
The one issue that to my mind has NEVER been explained to anyone's satisfaction, is this.....
Police investigations that were carried out with such 'Vim and Vinegar' even before charges were muted.
Who was asking for these, and more to the point, paying for it so in advance of legal proceedings....?
This issue alone opens up a vast can of worms, could it be that the NOTW applied pressure, and if so, should they have the power to use the Public Purse to their advantage...?
The same applies, if Sheridan is found innocent, will the Public Purse be claiming back some of the vast bill and costs from the NOTW, or will we just swallow it as usual..............?
RDR wrote:fourbytwo wrote:8) Too easy to get embroiled in the 'wheeling and dealing' that has went on before and during this trial...
The one issue that to my mind has NEVER been explained to anyone's satisfaction, is this.....
Police investigations that were carried out with such 'Vim and Vinegar' even before charges were muted.
Who was asking for these, and more to the point, paying for it so in advance of legal proceedings....?
This issue alone opens up a vast can of worms, could it be that the NOTW applied pressure, and if so, should they have the power to use the Public Purse to their advantage...?
The same applies, if Sheridan is found innocent, will the Public Purse be claiming back some of the vast bill and costs from the NOTW, or will we just swallow it as usual..............?
That's an unfortunate comment in the context of this case
Glesga_Steve wrote:strange brew wrote:Mori wrote:Unbelievable...what do we get out it ?
Hootsman
Sheridan Trial: Perjury case has cost the taxpayer £4.5m, says Sheridan's press officer
What are you supposed to get out of it? Is it a legal requirement that every trial should benefit the taxpaying public?
Drop the 'legal' bit and I'd say the answer to your question is yes.
A trial shouldn't be pusued if it isn't in the public (taxpaying or otherwise) interest. That isn't a comment on the Sheridan trial btw.
north glasgow dave wrote:so will gail sheridan now sue the crown for wrongful arrest. which will mean any compensation she receives will be a further expense to the tax payers.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests