C
Captain Nemesis
The trouble is that liars like filly, andy, wont believe an experienced judge if that judge doesnt go along with their false beliefs.
Tommy LOSES court case. __Thread Moved to GD__
- Thread starter gasbusters
- Start date
Sponsored Links
He has lost.
The case was brought against Tommy by the Syrian. Not to be undertaken lightly either, given the publicity and the interest in both parties. Tommy was found to be lying - get over it.
C
Captain Nemesis
You dont get it - in fillys and andys "minds" the fact that he lost proves he was telling the truth.
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 13,424
- Reaction score
- 540
- Country
Wow did you even read them as I have because like Bojo you are lying. Below is from the judgement and I am shocked after reading it you believe the lies.
Did these kids get lying lessons from Bojo as they are complete dimwits and their lies are so easy to take apart.
I just read the Judges Judgement.
67. The Defendant has not demonstrated that, in the incident with the alleged headlock, the Claimant was the aggressor. I think it is more likely than not that the Claimant was the victim of the violence that was used and that this was another incident of bullying at the hands of boys older than BWI, but BWI was willing – perhaps to curry favour with the older boys – to involve himself in the incident. The Claimant may have fought back, but this is likely to have been in self-defence. I have set out my conclusions about other aspects of OTP’s evidence below (see [76] and [114]-[116]). I cannot accept his evidence as truthful. He appeared to me to tailor his evidence in a way that he thought supported the account that he had heard BWI give in evidence. His evidence about this incident was unconvincing, embellished in the witness box, and I cannot accept it as reliable or credible.
72. I do not accept AYQ’s evidence. It is not credible, and it is not supported or corroborated by any other evidence. AYQ was inconsistent about the place where the incident happened and whether she had actually been struck by the Claimant, a detail that she would not have forgotten. There are no corroborating documents.... In summary, had the incident happened, and had it been reported to the School as alleged, there would be records. There are none.
73. More generally, AYQ’s credibility was damaged by her willingness in her witness statement gratuitously to add (or allow to be added) more general allegations of abuse of women and girls by the Claimant. I accept as truthful the Claimant’s denial that any incident as alleged by AYQ happened.
74. Similar non-specific allegations that the Claimant has been abusive towards women and girls were included in the witness statements of Bailey McLaren, Charly Matthews and OTP. I am not going to set out this evidence. I can attach no weight to generalised allegations of this kind which contain no details of the incidents said to demonstrate this behaviour. As I suspect was intended, the absence of detail prevents the examination or investigation of any individual event to establish whether the evidence demonstrates any alleged misconduct by the Claimant.
75. Moreover, I am satisfied that if the Claimant had behaved so repeatedly in the abusive manner alleged, including to members of staff, then this would have been recorded in the Claimant’s school records. There is no trace of any such behaviour by the Claimant in these records. On the contrary, his behavioural record is overwhelmingly positive.
77. The Defendant relies upon the evidence of the Former Teacher, who on occasions used to supervise isolation and who told the Defendant that the Claimant “was in isolation loads of times”; and the evidence of OTP said in his witness statement claimed that the Claimant had been sent to isolation for attacking someone on an unidentified occasion.When he gave evidence at trial, the Defendant showed OTP what the Former Teacher had said and asked whether it was correct that the Claimant had never been in isolation. OTP replied that the Claimant had been there “multiple times” with him and the Former Teacher. In fact, although OTP’s school records appear to confirm that OTP was sanctioned with detention on many occasions (sometimes on a daily basis), there is only one record of OTP being sent to isolation. Further, comparison of the records of the Claimant and OTP shows that there was not a single occasion when the Claimant and OTP attended any form of “detention” on the same date. I deal below with OTP’s credibility as a witness (see [67] and [114]-[116]). My conclusion is that this is another example of OTP’s willingness, in the witness box, to manufacture evidence which he perceived to be of assistance to the Defendant. It merely served to confirm that he was generally an unreliable witness.
78. In fact, the issue of whether the Claimant had been sent to isolation is wholly peripheral to the issues to be determined in this case. I should be clear, however. I reject OTP’s evidence, and I can place no reliance on the hearsay of the Former Teacher because of the circumstances in which his statement was made and, critically, because his evidence has not been tested by cross-examination by reference to the school records, which appear to contradict the evidence of OTP and the Former Teacher. These demonstrate that when a pupil is sent to isolation, the fact that this measure has been taken, and the reasons for it, are recorded in the pupil’s records... I simply reject the contention that the Claimant had been sent to isolation “loads of times”. In fact, the records suggest he was never sent to isolation.
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 13,424
- Reaction score
- 540
- Country
79. In summary, the Defendant has failed to demonstrate that the Claimant had any propensity to behave in an aggressive or abusive manner towards girls and women. For the reasons I have given, I am unable to accept the evidence of AYQ and BWI, but even if I had accepted it, it would not have demonstrated a propensity on the part of the Claimant to act in this way. The more reliable contemporaneous evidence in the school records provides powerful support for the conclusion that the Claimant did not behave in the way alleged
84. On balance, I accept the evidence of the Claimant in respect of these incidents. Even if MVY’s hearsay evidence is admissible, as to which I have real doubts, I can attach no real weight to his untested evidence, particularly in the circumstances in which it was obtained (see [53] above). The claim that the teacher “proper gave [the Claimant] a telling off” would suggest that, if it happened, the incident would have been recorded on the Claimant’s disciplinary record. But without any idea of when this is alleged to have happened, it is impossible even to begin to investigate it. The Defendant has failed to prove MVY’s allegations. The use of a toothpick (or even a pin) as part of a joke with friends is a school-boy prank, done in mischief not with malice, as the teacher appears to have accepted at the time. More importantly, the evidence of these incidents relied upon by the Defendant (even had I accepted MVY’s evidence as truthful), is not remotely capable of demonstrating that the Claimant had a propensity towards using, or making threats of, violence towards other pupils.
88. I accept the evidence of the Claimant and his father. There is no reliable evidence to suggest that the Claimant ever had a knife in his possession at school. The minutes appear to have inaccurately recorded Mr Hijazi’s expressed concerns. In any event, the discovery of the screwdriver was immediately reported by the Claimant to his head of house. It is likely that the matter was resolved as reported by the Claimant. Certainly, if any member of staff had considered that the screwdriver had been the Claimant’s, potentially to be used by him offensively, then that would have been a very serious disciplinary matter, perhaps even requiring the involvement of the police. At the very least, I am confident that the discovery of the Claimant in possession of one or more (potentially) offensive weapons would have been recorded in the Claimant’s school records.
89. Moreover, the likelihood of the Claimant reporting discovery of the screwdriver to his head of house if, in fact, the item was his, is so remote, it can be discounted. Equally, reporting the incident to his parents is not a step the Claimant would have taken if the screwdriver was his. Stepping back, the Defendant is seeking to demonstrate, as a matter of fact, the Claimant had gone to school equipped with a screwdriver and a knife, based solely on minutes of a meeting. I do not know who completed these minutes, when and based on what records. Against that, I have the sworn evidence of two individuals with direct knowledge of the events. I accept their evidence
106. Charly Matthews’ evidence is simply incredible. On her account, in the middle of a school PE lesson, she had been the victim of a serious unprovoked assault in which a hockey stick had been used effectively as a weapon. The incident, as described by Charly, was a serious criminal assault that could easily have led to the Claimant’s prosecution. As a result of the assault, she claimed that she lived in fear of the Claimant, that the incident had been a significant contributor to her anxiety and ultimately to her being unable to continue at the School, and four years later she was still in pain for which she was taking prescription medication.
109. . Further, no record was made even of the injury or the circumstances in which it had been caused. Why would the teacher act in such gross dereliction of his duty? No remotely credible explanation has been provided by the Defendant (or Charly). The reason, I am satisfied, is that no such incident was reported by Charly (or OTP) to any member of staff (as apparently confirmed in the April 2019 entries in Charly’s records – see [ 100(iii)] above). That is because no such incident happened.
110. The report was based on information provided by Charly. There is no mention of the Hockey Stick Incident which, had it happened, Charly could have been expected to mention this as a major contributor to her anxiety, as she claimed in her evidence.
112. According to Charly she had undergone both X-rays and MRI scans. There are no records.
113.Fourth, Charly claimed, even now, four years later, to be in significant pain as a result of the incident and still to be taking prescription painkillers. Yet, no medical records have been produced to confirm this. On the contrary, the only information I have from Charly’s GP is a letter, from 18 January 2018, stating that she has no medical problems.
114. I have already rejected OTP’s evidence in relation to the incident involving BWI (see [67] above). I am also satisfied that OTP’s evidence about the Hockey Stick Incident was dishonest fabrication that fell apart when he was cross-examined on the details.
116. I am quite satisfied that the evidence of both Charly Matthews and OTP about the Hockey Stick Incident is false.
122. I have watched again the recording from which the transcript has been produced. The Defendant made two visits, on separate unidentified occasions, to attempt to speak to EYW. Both appear to have been covertly filmed by the Defendant wearing a concealed camera and microphone.
126. The Defendant has failed to prove the Group Attack Incident. The case depends entirely upon hearsay. There is no direct evidence from EYW herself, even by hearsay.
127. Against that, the Claimant has given sworn evidence at the trial – and been cross-examined. I have no basis on which to reject his evidence; indeed, I find the Claimant to have been a credible and truthful witness throughout his evidence.
140. hat answer clearly demonstrated that, at the very least, someone had discussed the incident report with him, and in sufficient detail for him to appreciate the point about the different handwriting. That was unfortunate. The effect was to undermine Bailey’s credibility by giving the impression that his evidence had been influenced by some other person(s). I am not suggesting that there has been any effort deliberately to influence his evidence, but if it appears that a witness has discussed aspects of his/her evidence with someone else, it risks damaging the credibility of the witness because it calls into question the extent to which the Court can rely upon the evidence as being the witness’s own evidence rather than something that s/he has picked up from discussions with other people
144.Bailey’s credibility was also damaged by his answers to questions he gave in response to a document completed by the School, on 28 November 2018, making a referral under the “Prevent” programme because of references he had made to the EDL.
147. In balance, I consider that the claim to have been told that the Claimant had threatened to stab him – by “Ahmed” or anyone else – was manufactured by Bailey.
84. On balance, I accept the evidence of the Claimant in respect of these incidents. Even if MVY’s hearsay evidence is admissible, as to which I have real doubts, I can attach no real weight to his untested evidence, particularly in the circumstances in which it was obtained (see [53] above). The claim that the teacher “proper gave [the Claimant] a telling off” would suggest that, if it happened, the incident would have been recorded on the Claimant’s disciplinary record. But without any idea of when this is alleged to have happened, it is impossible even to begin to investigate it. The Defendant has failed to prove MVY’s allegations. The use of a toothpick (or even a pin) as part of a joke with friends is a school-boy prank, done in mischief not with malice, as the teacher appears to have accepted at the time. More importantly, the evidence of these incidents relied upon by the Defendant (even had I accepted MVY’s evidence as truthful), is not remotely capable of demonstrating that the Claimant had a propensity towards using, or making threats of, violence towards other pupils.
88. I accept the evidence of the Claimant and his father. There is no reliable evidence to suggest that the Claimant ever had a knife in his possession at school. The minutes appear to have inaccurately recorded Mr Hijazi’s expressed concerns. In any event, the discovery of the screwdriver was immediately reported by the Claimant to his head of house. It is likely that the matter was resolved as reported by the Claimant. Certainly, if any member of staff had considered that the screwdriver had been the Claimant’s, potentially to be used by him offensively, then that would have been a very serious disciplinary matter, perhaps even requiring the involvement of the police. At the very least, I am confident that the discovery of the Claimant in possession of one or more (potentially) offensive weapons would have been recorded in the Claimant’s school records.
89. Moreover, the likelihood of the Claimant reporting discovery of the screwdriver to his head of house if, in fact, the item was his, is so remote, it can be discounted. Equally, reporting the incident to his parents is not a step the Claimant would have taken if the screwdriver was his. Stepping back, the Defendant is seeking to demonstrate, as a matter of fact, the Claimant had gone to school equipped with a screwdriver and a knife, based solely on minutes of a meeting. I do not know who completed these minutes, when and based on what records. Against that, I have the sworn evidence of two individuals with direct knowledge of the events. I accept their evidence
106. Charly Matthews’ evidence is simply incredible. On her account, in the middle of a school PE lesson, she had been the victim of a serious unprovoked assault in which a hockey stick had been used effectively as a weapon. The incident, as described by Charly, was a serious criminal assault that could easily have led to the Claimant’s prosecution. As a result of the assault, she claimed that she lived in fear of the Claimant, that the incident had been a significant contributor to her anxiety and ultimately to her being unable to continue at the School, and four years later she was still in pain for which she was taking prescription medication.
109. . Further, no record was made even of the injury or the circumstances in which it had been caused. Why would the teacher act in such gross dereliction of his duty? No remotely credible explanation has been provided by the Defendant (or Charly). The reason, I am satisfied, is that no such incident was reported by Charly (or OTP) to any member of staff (as apparently confirmed in the April 2019 entries in Charly’s records – see [ 100(iii)] above). That is because no such incident happened.
110. The report was based on information provided by Charly. There is no mention of the Hockey Stick Incident which, had it happened, Charly could have been expected to mention this as a major contributor to her anxiety, as she claimed in her evidence.
112. According to Charly she had undergone both X-rays and MRI scans. There are no records.
113.Fourth, Charly claimed, even now, four years later, to be in significant pain as a result of the incident and still to be taking prescription painkillers. Yet, no medical records have been produced to confirm this. On the contrary, the only information I have from Charly’s GP is a letter, from 18 January 2018, stating that she has no medical problems.
114. I have already rejected OTP’s evidence in relation to the incident involving BWI (see [67] above). I am also satisfied that OTP’s evidence about the Hockey Stick Incident was dishonest fabrication that fell apart when he was cross-examined on the details.
116. I am quite satisfied that the evidence of both Charly Matthews and OTP about the Hockey Stick Incident is false.
122. I have watched again the recording from which the transcript has been produced. The Defendant made two visits, on separate unidentified occasions, to attempt to speak to EYW. Both appear to have been covertly filmed by the Defendant wearing a concealed camera and microphone.
126. The Defendant has failed to prove the Group Attack Incident. The case depends entirely upon hearsay. There is no direct evidence from EYW herself, even by hearsay.
127. Against that, the Claimant has given sworn evidence at the trial – and been cross-examined. I have no basis on which to reject his evidence; indeed, I find the Claimant to have been a credible and truthful witness throughout his evidence.
140. hat answer clearly demonstrated that, at the very least, someone had discussed the incident report with him, and in sufficient detail for him to appreciate the point about the different handwriting. That was unfortunate. The effect was to undermine Bailey’s credibility by giving the impression that his evidence had been influenced by some other person(s). I am not suggesting that there has been any effort deliberately to influence his evidence, but if it appears that a witness has discussed aspects of his/her evidence with someone else, it risks damaging the credibility of the witness because it calls into question the extent to which the Court can rely upon the evidence as being the witness’s own evidence rather than something that s/he has picked up from discussions with other people
144.Bailey’s credibility was also damaged by his answers to questions he gave in response to a document completed by the School, on 28 November 2018, making a referral under the “Prevent” programme because of references he had made to the EDL.
147. In balance, I consider that the claim to have been told that the Claimant had threatened to stab him – by “Ahmed” or anyone else – was manufactured by Bailey.
B
Bodd
FM Your boring
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 13,424
- Reaction score
- 540
- Country
It's worse than that. I posted the judges statements and it make for horrible reading- these kids are complete liars and all Filly did is believe them without any evidence. The judges dismantling of their statements is brutal - yet the RWR on here are still championing TTT and the lying toerage kids.
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 13,424
- Reaction score
- 540
- Country
As it's all made up.
77. The Defendant relies upon the evidence of the Former Teacher, who on occasions used to supervise isolation and who told the Defendant that the Claimant “was in isolation loads of times”; and the evidence of OTP said in his witness statement claimed that the Claimant had been sent to isolation for attacking someone on an unidentified occasion.When he gave evidence at trial, the Defendant showed OTP what the Former Teacher had said and asked whether it was correct that the Claimant had never been in isolation. OTP replied that the Claimant had been there “multiple times” with him and the Former Teacher. In fact, although OTP’s school records appear to confirm that OTP was sanctioned with detention on many occasions (sometimes on a daily basis), there is only one record of OTP being sent to isolation. Further, comparison of the records of the Claimant and OTP shows that there was not a single occasion when the Claimant and OTP attended any form of “detention” on the same date. I deal below with OTP’s credibility as a witness (see [67] and [114]-[116]). My conclusion is that this is another example of OTP’s willingness, in the witness box, to manufacture evidence which he perceived to be of assistance to the Defendant. It merely served to confirm that he was generally an unreliable witness.
78. In fact, the issue of whether the Claimant had been sent to isolation is wholly peripheral to the issues to be determined in this case. I should be clear, however. I reject OTP’s evidence, and I can place no reliance on the hearsay of the Former Teacher because of the circumstances in which his statement was made and, critically, because his evidence has not been tested by cross-examination by reference to the school records, which appear to contradict the evidence of OTP and the Former Teacher. These demonstrate that when a pupil is sent to isolation, the fact that this measure has been taken, and the reasons for it, are recorded in the pupil’s records... I simply reject the contention that the Claimant had been sent to isolation “loads of times”. In fact, the records suggest he was never sent to isolation.
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 13,424
- Reaction score
- 540
- Country
Seems like the RWR on here signed up for the lies and now have their fingers in their ears for the Truth.
C
Captain Nemesis
Wrong preposition - its "on the right"
Because he is so consumed with racism and anti-Islam bigotry that he will willingly believe any old unsubstantiated bo****ks that people tell him if it plays to his prejudices.
Remind you of anyone?
C
Captain Nemesis
In not - not in the slightest - its absolutely in character.
C
Captain Nemesis
So people who lie and lie and lie and lie in pursuit of their hateful and bigoted agenda are OK, but people who post truths to counter the lies are boring?
You should do the same.
Unlike DIYnot, there is a burden of proof that comes with making accusations, when played out in court. The Judge did not mince his words ....the evidence fell WOEFULLY short....
Court cases are boring because their search for the truth is as tedious as it is meticulous. Truth in itself is a strange concept to the RWR, so your boredom bodd, must be excruciating.
I suggest you stay away from this thread for your own sanity.
Last edited:
B
Bodd
Court cases are boring because their search for the truth is as tedious tedious as it is meticulous. Truth in itself is a strange concept to the RWR, so your boredom bodd, must be excruciating.
I suggest you stay away from this thread for your own sanity.
My mate I work with has jury service end of this month. .
Sponsored Links
