Your so odd.
My position in regards Huw was that there seemed little evidence, local police had already said there was nothing in the Sun dossier, then Met confirmed. I was pretty convinced and remain even more so now that the Sun was on a fishing expedition. They assumed there was more and a bit of bait would be enough.
Maybe there will be, and if there is then Huw should be charged with offenses and I fully support that.
Same with Wootton. Not guilty until found guilty by a court. "Evidence" sounds a bit rough for him though.
Same with Tates. Not guilty until found guilty by a court. "Evidence" sounds a bit rough for them though.
Where is the amateurish stuff? Again are you using decent sources? I see so little about it from any sources really.
Can you post some of this up?
You seem very confused on how the law and process works. Maybe this is why you make some of the statements you do. The police investigate, they charge (in most places) and then thats their bit done. The courts then do their bit. Taking the evidence and deciding if on balance of probability the charges are correct and whether the person charged did indeed do what they were accused of. Its not a perfect system in any country.
I am not sure why you struggle so hard. I believe in innocent until proven guilty yes. Just like you did with Huw
![Wink ;) ;)](/styles/default/xenforo/vbSmilies/Normal/wink.gif)
, I can form a view and a position on that based on what I have seen, I suspect that the Tates have done some dodgy stuff.