Common sense strikes back - Gambaccini payout over unfounded claims

[K1Machine]

Congratulations Paul Gambaccini.

I said from the start the claims were made up rubbish.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/search?client=firefox-b&dcr=0&source=hp&ei=Y47dW8G1J8_ZwALftLrQDg&q=paul+gambaccini&oq=paul&gs_l=psy-ab.1.0.0i131k1l4j0l2j0i131k1j0j0i131k1j0.3227.4505.0.7622.6.4.0.1.1.0.92.273.3.4.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..1.5.370.6..35i39k1.84.Vzx6mEM8OyA

[*Wallace*]

So did I,never thought for a second he was like that,poor form how the CPS said insufficient evidence instead of no evidence at all.

[Daven]

.......................................

Edited November 3, 2018 by Daven
misunderstood post

[choogling]

So did I,never thought for a second he was like that,poor form how the CPS said insufficient evidence instead of no evidence at all.

 

Unless you have insider information how do you know the statement they gave is not correct, they didnt say no information they said insufficent ,thier choice of words.

[Top Cats Hat]

Congratulations Paul Gambaccini.

I said from the start the claims were made up rubbish.

 

And you knew this, how?

[Lockdoctor]

Another thread being side tracked by irrelevant nonsense. The facts are the CPS were wrong to state there wasn't insufficient evidence to prosecute Paul Gambaccini when the truth is Paul Gambaccini wasn't charged due to the fact there was no evidence against him. It is a disgrace a man was on a bail for a year when there was no evidence he had committed any crime.

[choogling]

Another thread being side tracked by irrelevant nonsense. The facts are the CPS were wrong to state there wasn't insufficient evidence to prosecute Paul Gambaccini when the truth is Paul Gambaccini wasn't charged due to the fact there was no evidence against him. It is a disgrace a man was on a bail for a year when there was no evidence he had committed any crime.

 

The cps said insufficient that's good enough for me.

[Top Cats Hat]

Another thread being side tracked by irrelevant nonsense. The facts are the CPS were wrong to state there wasn't insufficient evidence to prosecute Paul Gambaccini when the truth is Paul Gambaccini wasn't charged due to the fact there was no evidence against him.

 

There seem to be a few people on this thread who seem to have access to the MG3 forms sent to the CPS for a charging decision (which are confidential, by the way!)

 

I agree that the time taken to make a charging decision is ridiculously long but this has now been changed.

[Mister Gee]

Congratulations Paul Gambaccini.

I said from the start the claims were made up rubbish.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/search?client=firefox-b&dcr=0&source=hp&ei=Y47dW8G1J8_ZwALftLrQDg&q=paul+gambaccini&oq=paul&gs_l=psy-ab.1.0.0i131k1l4j0l2j0i131k1j0j0i131k1j0.3227.4505.0.7622.6.4.0.1.1.0.92.273.3.4.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..1.5.370.6..35i39k1.84.Vzx6mEM8OyA

 

I'm pleased for Paul Gambaccini but what's common sense strikes back?

[choogling]

I know it will never happen but the cps should publish the evidence they have and so let the general public know what the basis for the investigation was.If the evidence they have is of so little value why would anyone have any objections to its disclosure.

Edited November 3, 2018 by choogling