Quizzes & Puzzles59 mins ago
A Nation Of Animal Lovers?
I think not!
I'm absolutely astounded this person was found not guilty! Do you agree with the verdict?
https:/
:(
I'm absolutely astounded this person was found not guilty! Do you agree with the verdict?
https:/
:(
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by divegirl. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Deskdiary, allow me to educate you:
• I am female. Click on my profile, it is not difficult.
• You said I went "quiet" last night. I am a carer 24/7 for my OH and, whilst it would be lovely to chew the fat with you all evening, I do have urgent and serious responsibilities to attend to. I also benefit from the odd cat nap.
• You called me out yesterday evening 3 times - ostensibly to ask the same question but you really just needed to vent your spleen.
• I stand by my previous 2 responses to divegirl. The school's board of governors dismissed Moulds based on the evidence of the video. I believe that was because they decided she did not portray the type of desirable person they would want to represent the school in a "nurturing" role for children. I do not think the dismissal was based on presumption that should a court case ensue Moulds would be found guilty. Therefore, the dismissal stands. Moulds was the architect of her own fate.
• You accuse me of hypocrisy without knowing me. Nevertheless I have considered your question carefully now. In Moulds' boots I would not expect anything other than to have ended my chosen career. Loss of temper, no matter how sorely tried she may have felt, and cruel handling of an animal cannot be considered to be suitable for a primary school teacher. It is inconceivable to me that she had not seen already the presence of hunt saboteurs at the meet. I have a better grip on reality than does Moulds! Mind you, I must say I have never been in the dock of a court.
• If you cannot stand any of my postings I suggest you ignore them from now.
• I am female. Click on my profile, it is not difficult.
• You said I went "quiet" last night. I am a carer 24/7 for my OH and, whilst it would be lovely to chew the fat with you all evening, I do have urgent and serious responsibilities to attend to. I also benefit from the odd cat nap.
• You called me out yesterday evening 3 times - ostensibly to ask the same question but you really just needed to vent your spleen.
• I stand by my previous 2 responses to divegirl. The school's board of governors dismissed Moulds based on the evidence of the video. I believe that was because they decided she did not portray the type of desirable person they would want to represent the school in a "nurturing" role for children. I do not think the dismissal was based on presumption that should a court case ensue Moulds would be found guilty. Therefore, the dismissal stands. Moulds was the architect of her own fate.
• You accuse me of hypocrisy without knowing me. Nevertheless I have considered your question carefully now. In Moulds' boots I would not expect anything other than to have ended my chosen career. Loss of temper, no matter how sorely tried she may have felt, and cruel handling of an animal cannot be considered to be suitable for a primary school teacher. It is inconceivable to me that she had not seen already the presence of hunt saboteurs at the meet. I have a better grip on reality than does Moulds! Mind you, I must say I have never been in the dock of a court.
• If you cannot stand any of my postings I suggest you ignore them from now.
// I specifically chose the word "guessing"....//
Indeed. And I suggested it was a rash guess.
A criminal trial can end in acquittal for any one of a number of reasons, only one of which might be that the "case was not presented satisfactorily." It would be unusual in a Crown Court for a prosecutor to fail to present the case satisfactorily. It may be more likely in the Magistrates' Court, where prosecutors are often not so experienced. The RSPCA retains and instructs a number of specialist barristers to conduct their prosecutions. I would be very surprised if this prosecution failed because the case was not presented properly. Far more likely that either the evidence did not support the charge to the jury's satisfaction, or the legal arguments were persuasive. I wasn't in court either but if I had to guess, I would go for the latter suggestion. It would still be a guess, as your opinion was, but I would suggest more likely to be correct.
Indeed. And I suggested it was a rash guess.
A criminal trial can end in acquittal for any one of a number of reasons, only one of which might be that the "case was not presented satisfactorily." It would be unusual in a Crown Court for a prosecutor to fail to present the case satisfactorily. It may be more likely in the Magistrates' Court, where prosecutors are often not so experienced. The RSPCA retains and instructs a number of specialist barristers to conduct their prosecutions. I would be very surprised if this prosecution failed because the case was not presented properly. Far more likely that either the evidence did not support the charge to the jury's satisfaction, or the legal arguments were persuasive. I wasn't in court either but if I had to guess, I would go for the latter suggestion. It would still be a guess, as your opinion was, but I would suggest more likely to be correct.
