Quote:
Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet
well we have no evidence save what the trust have said as they conducted that aspect in secret and without the accused, but keep on going believing a trust that has a lot to lose against a man who has nothing to lose
|
Ignoring facts because they don't support what you want to believe doesn't make them go away. The man refused to attend the meeting, acting like the ban was underhanded and/or done without this fool having a chance to defend himself is silly. He had a chance to defend himself and he chose not to so the Trust went with the evidence of the witness accounts to take action.
There are witness accounts that attest to his behaviour but no evidence of his innocence. Considering how much you usually go on about evidence it's particularly bizarre that you are going to such lengths to ignore it in this case because it doesn't suit your agenda.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet
and as always dezzy
quit with the personal barbs as they always let you down...
|
