Lucifer MorningStar
Well-known member
Sadly I think I’ve already seen that! Almost put me off dinnerHeads up mate if you see headline of Fergie toe sucking photo don’t click on it.
It will make you wish it was Sir Alex![]()
Sadly I think I’ve already seen that! Almost put me off dinnerHeads up mate if you see headline of Fergie toe sucking photo don’t click on it.
It will make you wish it was Sir Alex![]()
I hope you didn’t have pork that nightSadly I think I’ve already seen that! Almost put me off dinner![]()
Hotdogs!!I hope you didn’t have pork that night
Raye - wouldn't argue with your summaryIn my office they have the radio on, I don't know what station it is, but they play this song at least twice a day that goes "..where the hell is my husband" in the chorus. Utter rubbish it is.
Nice to hear you agree with me but stop calling me RayRaye - wouldn't argue with your summary![]()
Back in the mists of time I was a helicopter engineer in the RN. Then 20 years in an office. I’m now in the logistics department of a private company that operates ex military helicopters and more modern civilian helicopters. You’d think it would be easy, but trying to source some parts such as bolts, seals etc is a real PITA. And the price is eye watering for some of it. £3 odd for one Cherrymax rivet and they only sell them by the 100.
Innocent until proven guilty I’m afraid.The jury not nailing the activists who broke into that Bristol business. Ridiculous
With all the footage, it beggars belief that a simple guilty verdict wasn’t returned in about 10 minutes. I suspect that members of the jury agreed with what they did and based their decision on that and not the law.Innocent until proven guilty I’m afraid.
Or, unlike anyone here, they listened to 2 months of evidence and persuasive arguments about the application of the law then deliberated for 36 hours and weren’t all able to agree.With all the footage, it beggars belief that a simple guilty verdict wasn’t returned in about 10 minutes. I suspect that members of the jury agreed with what they did and based their decision on that and not the law.
Or, unlike anyone here, they listened to 2 months of evidence and persuasive arguments about the application of the law then deliberated for 36 hours and weren’t all able to agree.
I’d want to see and hear everything they saw and heard before I pilloried them, rather than basing my judgement on snippets I’d read in a newspaper or seen on TV.
Not in the slightest and a million miles from what I said.So you agree with a copper getting hit with a sledgehammer and those responsible getting off? Interesting.
Not in the slightest and a million miles from what I said.
Look elsewhere for your argument.
That jury saw and heard 2 months of evidence that none of us have seen or heard.Not looking for a row Rich, just curious how you can defend them in that instance when there's clear evidence.