I doubt that somewhat - if you shoulder charge a door in there would be plenty of evident. The door, the hinges, the frame of the door, witness statements possibly DNA evidence from the clothing of the perpetrator.

Admitting a more serious charge would probably make the lesser charge go away.

Wadski wrote:I doubt that somewhat - if you shoulder charge a door in there would be plenty of evident. The door, the hinges, the frame of the door, witness statements possibly DNA evidence from the clothing of the perpetrator. Plus, if there wasn't any evidence, why would Reardon have been ordered to pay £240 for the cost of the broken door?

Wadski wrote:I doubt that somewhat - if you shoulder charge a door in there would be plenty of evident. The door, the hinges, the frame of the door, witness statements possibly DNA evidence from the clothing of the perpetrator. Plus, if there wasn't any evidence, why would Reardon have been ordered to pay £240 for the cost of the broken door?

that wasnt broken anyway

If the prosecution dont present any evidence, it doesnt maen there wasn't any

And Leon Pryce would struggle to get a permanent working Visa in Australia so I have to ask . . . . what's your point?

Talking to yourself is the first sign of madness, son.


Whether I do or I don't is irrelevant, as this is not a proposition on which i have offered a view.



Er, except the actual words used, which are quoted in the reports! If the reports were incorrect, then you would have a point. However as every reporter seems to have heard the same words, you need to get over it.


Nothing was "proved" son, they pleaded guilty. Things are only proved if cases go to trial. What you don't understand is that what the prosecution says about the facts are just that - stated facts - unless the defence challenges the prosecution account. They didn't.

If you want a brief law lesson, then whilst criminal damage may well be caused to a door when breaking it down, and whilst the offence may, or may not, be charged, this makes no fscking difference to the fact that Reardon forced his way in.

If you want another one, then where a man is pleading guilty to a serious, imprisonable offence, then it is quite normal for lesser charges (such as criminal damage) not to be proceeded with. In this case, the most serious charges were the described assaults.

The court was told "Reardon ....charged the door, breaking the frame and the lock".
Who do you think told the court that, son? The tooth fairy? Santa?

I do accept, of course, that there are always going to be people who are so incredibly dense that they will argue breaking down a door and entering the property that way does not equal "forcing your way in", but they are the sort of retards that there is generally no point in trying to converse sensibly with.

You just point them to what the Judge in the actual Court said:-

In your head, does this mean the judge concluded Reardon did NOT force open the door? Then you need a head check.

HTH.

He has been a very lucky lad, he should have received a much stiffer sentence.

I love the way that once again people are taking the moral highground over this especially someone with Ryan Bailey in their team!

It is done he has been sentenced if Saints want to punish him further than so be it but why random RL fans think they know better than a court of law is a mystery.

Because they do, OK?

Exactly, hit the nail on the head.






LOCK IT!