egafd.com

I did notice a long time ago that Sky's website took away the option to comment at the end of all McCann stories as they were so greatly loved.

Reggie,
No doubt you are going to think me pedantic, but the following

"The man isn't on trial, a civil action has been brought against him, typical Sky bullshit."

is nonsensical. There are civil trials and there are criminal trials, but they are still trials.

This might help you understand the differentiation between the two types of trial.

"In criminal law the Crown has the right to prosecute citizens for criminal offences. Criminal law is made by the Crown , although of course it is drafted by Government and passed by Parliament before it goes to the monarch for "rubber-stamping" as law (the process is called ' Royal Assent').
In civil law there is a plaintiff, which is someone who applies to a court for their case to be heard, and a defendant, someone who the plaintiff requires some sort of redress. A plaintiff or defendant can be a private individual or any other single legal entity such as a company , a local authority or a business partnership. Civil law applies to the principals of common law, but in civil actions , unlike criminal proceedings, the Crown takes no sides. The Crown supplies the court, the judge, and, if necessary, the enforcement of the judges rulings."

He'll question your motives, put words in you mouth, darn well lie, call you names, question your education, try and make it into a joke, run off and refuse to debate making silly excuses.....and when all that fails he's come back with another pseudonym.

What he won't do is say 'I was wrong'.

Good luck.

I expected a better comeback from a man learned in psychology.

Get laid......lol. The put-down of all put-downs.

Hi Reg

"The slant in the reporting is that 'on trial' without any qualification says to most people that the man is being tried for a criminal offence by the state, which he isn't."

Okay, so from your period as a "legal executive" you realise that you are talking nonsense by stating in your first post that it is not a trial. That is my point which you appear to accept.

As an aside, you defend this nonsense on the basis that "most" people would assume "trial" equals criminal offence. This is an uprovable assertion one way or other, so no point progressing with it.

However, you appear to be gulity of a similar level of misrepresentation "stating that it is not a trial" as you appear to accuse the press of "trying to convince people it is a criminal offence by the state"

Cheers
D