She was goading him and then pulled his pants down. Not exactly blameless.

No, Hazel wouldn't have to press charges. Anyway, I imagine this matter was reported by a lot of people so they are really the complainants. It was on TV, lots of people witnessed it. Hazel was still in the house when the wheels were set in motion I reckon.

She was playing, he was aggressive and threatening - hugh difference. Are you seriously trying to suggest she 'deserved' it?

Actually... I am a lawyer so I have a pretty good working knowledge of the legal system.

Exactly.

Also I have to say to Livia too, as always brilliantly put and explained.

I know! And I totally still have sour grapes about it :joker:... but oh well. I think he was actually charged for fixing up dodgy cars about a year later, so maybe there was some karmic justice there.

No. I'm saying she was not entirely innocent.

Hazel pulling his pants down did not justify him assaulting her. He's a bully and a coward.

I meant the people disagreeing with you, the talk of "pressing charges" is very US soap opera...

I agree.

Sorry but I don't think you have a clue here. Not your fault as it seems you have no legal training. :)

Police have to present evidence to the CPS. Unless that evidence is convincing the CPS wont prosecute.

If Daley or indeed Hazel were charged - and it does not need the consent of the other party - the party charged could use "consent" as a defence. In view of what we have seen recorded on video it is very likely the consent defence would succeed. Which is why prosecutions of either party is unlikely.

However...... if the CPS were unwise enough to prosecute one party, the other could find it useful to press charges as part of their defence. I am not saying that would happen, but it is a technique which can and has been used.

Ahhh I see. I was putting it all down to the fact you're Scottish and you buggers do your own thing when it comes to the law.

not him trying to stay relevant, who the hell tweets about getting charged http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...8/ea2a4fdb.gif

:conf: no it's not

I could probably find an episode of the bill where its used several times

I have a degree from Cambridge that says you're wrong. I'd be interested to hear about your own legal training. A whole series of Law & Order UK doesn't make you an expert. I'm not an expert... and I studied for four years.

Probably increases his cred amongst his followers of whom he has about 40000, compared with 23 before he went in the house.

To use a legal term... I rest my case.

Didn't take long for this thread to turn into 'my dads bigger than your dad' did it

In what sense?

I actually worked for a government solicitor for 4 years, so a bit of practical experience, as opposed to your theoretical, and I too have a legal qualification. Any further offers? :p:D

I tickle you, and you kill me. It's the step up from play to fight that is the crime.

I think you fully know what I mean

You really are joking aren't you here, I cannot let this pass.

Don't be so offensive, Livia has a vast knowledge of the law,I as a law student myself, recently graduated, have learned a great deal from Livia.

I think it is you with respect that has no real knowledge of the law and if you do have any, you clearly have no fair one in my view, sorry.

You are both wonderful theoreticians, I'm sure but it seems neither of you has worked for a government solicitor. As I did for several years.

I think you mean that you're a little put out because I was accused of having no legal training and I stated that I do. Is that what you mean? And that I used my area of expertise to put someone right who was getting it wrong. I'm sorry if that upset you. Let us know when we get to your own area of expertise if you have one, and I will gladly acquiesce to your greater knowledge.