Fine, semantics, but fine anyway - So Torbett was convicted because the evidence was found to be beyond reasonable doubt..?
Spot on Pope. At the end of the day it only seems to be the bitter, twisted Rangers fans on here that see this as some sort of decisive issue. Jock Stein has been dead for 25 years and hasn’t managed Celtic for 32 years! The fact that they show so much interest in it shows them up for the empty bigoted morons they are.
So NO actual physical evidence then - yes..? Testimony from witnesses' found to be 'credible', balanced against denials from a witness found to be less credible. I think we all get the gist of that. Now, what makes the evidence of a soon-to-be-convicted *****phile, a Director in that persons business and a friend and Director of another business which would be greatly harmed if it was found that THAT business knew there was a *****phile operating in an affiliate operation but choose to hide that knowledge, more 'credible' than a man with no apparent axe to grind against Jock Stein..? Did Jock Stein sack Hugh Birt? Was he responsible for Hugh Birt being forced out of Parkhead..? Both answers being 'NO' why is it more credible that Hugh Birt has an agenda than the other have an agenda..?
Trying to deflect away from the actual subject by highlighting that I don't know the legal terms used in a Scottish Court of Law is hiding behind semantics. I bow to your superior knowledge of legal terms, but THAT takes nothing away from the fact that Torbett was convicted WITHOUT physical evidence. He was convicted because the Jury believed the testimony of others was more credible than his testimony - FACT or not..?
See when you type in capitals, does that mean you're shouting? And the significance of peppering every word in a sentence with capital letters, what's that all about? Also, you just joined as a new user yesterday and have only posted on this one article. Were you asked to come across from another forum to 'get them Timmy's telt'?
In a civil case, yes. As you have already pointed out a different legal standard applies in a criminal case, but in THIS criminal case there was NO physical evidence, so as you seem to want the floor in matters of legal parlance then perhaps you can explain to us laymen how Torbett was convicted solely on the word of three witnessess, without physical evidence and how the evidence given by the witnessess differed in standard from uncorroberated hearsay which you say cannot be used to gain a conviction. Remember we are talking here about a case where the outcome has already been decided so why don't you give us your weighty and considered opinion on how that was achieved..?
Tina the use of capitalised words is because he doesn't have a well thought out point so feels the need to draw your attention to the few half-formed ones he has available to him. At the end of the day this entire thread seems to be mainly logic vs bigots. Folk point scoring over child abuse and a tragic accident show the kind of fannies that inhabit this place at times.
It's there for emphasis, just in case you MISS it. Peppering evEry woRd iN A seNtence wiTh capitAls Would loOk liKe thiS. I don't see any sentences like that so maybe you should lay off the stimulants eh..? I came across this thread on another forum, but i can assure you I am here of my own volition..
There's a time-honoured saying - "Know your enemies". Perhaps you've heard of it..? So to deal with Celtic fans one has to know about *****philes I'm afraid..
Care to explain the logic behind your last sentence. I'm just not getting it. Reading back on your posts on this article, you come across as a small minded, angry, deluded, petty point scoring rangers fan who hates anything and anyone proving you to be wrong. And you're really not doing too well trying to prove your theory on Mr Stein either. I'll read your response during the week, as I've better things to do on a Saturday night than to nursemaid a window licker.
That's great thanks. So bear with me, I'm sure you've gathered by now I'm a bit slow. Torbett was convicted because there were three people giving evidence against him. Given your vast and superior legal knowledge, (did I mention I bow to that by the way..?) in **** cases where there is physical evidence of intercourse but the defendant denies it is **** and claims it is consensual has there ever been a case where the defendant has been found guilty..?
So what you are saying is that that is never shortened and used in common parlance as "know your enemy"..?
Now, now. Don't be coy, you know exactly what it means and exactly what I'm saying. You might not agree with it, but you know what it means. "Window-licker"... oooh the pain, the pain. Actually I think I'd rather be ******ed than defend the actions of those who protect *****philes.
