ChatterBank1 min ago
Gold Digger
If ever proof was needed that she was only after the money.
He was found not guilty but she still pursued the money, and got it. Scottish Justice as it works.
https:/
He was found not guilty but she still pursued the money, and got it. Scottish Justice as it works.
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Canary42. 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.
'If ever proof was needed that she was only after the money.'
Incorrect-"[The Sheriff] agreed that she should be paid £80,000 in damages.
Miss M told BBC Scotland it was highly unlikely she would see any of the money as it would be clawed back to pay legal costs."
'He was found not guilty' incorrect, the charge was not proven.
The two points of your argument are incorrect but hey, why let facts get in the road?
Incorrect-"[The Sheriff] agreed that she should be paid £80,000 in damages.
Miss M told BBC Scotland it was highly unlikely she would see any of the money as it would be clawed back to pay legal costs."
'He was found not guilty' incorrect, the charge was not proven.
The two points of your argument are incorrect but hey, why let facts get in the road?
Canary - Like you, I know nothing of the two people involved in this case.
Like you, I was not present at the proceedings at either hearing.
Unlike you, I am not willing to make an assumption based on absolutely no evidence, except my own willingness to believe that a stranger has been vindictive for money.
My own view is that, given what we know from past testimonies, just how horrendous rape trails are for the victim, I find it seriously hard to believe that there could be any amount of money that would make a woman re-live the experience all over again simply to gain some financial reward.
But as advised by others, why let facts get in the way of a judgement from a stranger?
Like you, I was not present at the proceedings at either hearing.
Unlike you, I am not willing to make an assumption based on absolutely no evidence, except my own willingness to believe that a stranger has been vindictive for money.
My own view is that, given what we know from past testimonies, just how horrendous rape trails are for the victim, I find it seriously hard to believe that there could be any amount of money that would make a woman re-live the experience all over again simply to gain some financial reward.
But as advised by others, why let facts get in the way of a judgement from a stranger?
oh come on luvvies
read the article !
"Civil cases require a lower standard of proof than criminal cases, with judgements made on the balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt."
and so the case could be proven on the balance of probabilities ( civil - moolah ) and not beyond reasonable doubt ( criminal -slammer)
it is all there
and has been ever thus - Gray v Barr 1967 - P ( plaintiff ) took a shotgun to her husband now dead ( he wanted kinky sex with me! ) and was acquitted
and so she claimed on his life insurance ( against D) which the judge turned down as he thought she HAD murdered him on the balance of probabilities !
last time I did this on News I got grief over being too legal
read the article !
"Civil cases require a lower standard of proof than criminal cases, with judgements made on the balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt."
and so the case could be proven on the balance of probabilities ( civil - moolah ) and not beyond reasonable doubt ( criminal -slammer)
it is all there
and has been ever thus - Gray v Barr 1967 - P ( plaintiff ) took a shotgun to her husband now dead ( he wanted kinky sex with me! ) and was acquitted
and so she claimed on his life insurance ( against D) which the judge turned down as he thought she HAD murdered him on the balance of probabilities !
last time I did this on News I got grief over being too legal
THECORBYLOON
'Miss M told BBC Scotland it was highly unlikely she would see any of the money as it would be clawed back to pay legal costs." '
'Miss M told BBC Scotland she had decided to mount her civil case in 2016, which was supported by the Scottish Legal Aid Board, before Ms Clair's case became public knowledge.'
As you say, Corby, why let facts get in the way of a good story.
'Miss M told BBC Scotland it was highly unlikely she would see any of the money as it would be clawed back to pay legal costs." '
'Miss M told BBC Scotland she had decided to mount her civil case in 2016, which was supported by the Scottish Legal Aid Board, before Ms Clair's case became public knowledge.'
As you say, Corby, why let facts get in the way of a good story.
And as she's lying about that^, it would make any normal person wonder what else she might be lying about.
I knew it was a lie before I read about the Legal Aid.
She's a student, very unlikely to have 80k to throw away.
No NWNF lawyers would throw 80k at a case that's been dismissed by the Crown Court.
There must be a thousand man-hating wimmins' groups who'd fund such a case.
If all else fails, there's Go Fund Me. Just the AB wimmin would rustle up a couple of grand.
I knew it was a lie before I read about the Legal Aid.
She's a student, very unlikely to have 80k to throw away.
No NWNF lawyers would throw 80k at a case that's been dismissed by the Crown Court.
There must be a thousand man-hating wimmins' groups who'd fund such a case.
If all else fails, there's Go Fund Me. Just the AB wimmin would rustle up a couple of grand.
