[lit-ideas] Re: QPR v Chelsea
- From: Judith Evans <judithevans001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:36:47 +0100 (BST)
>so are we meant to "think" he was not wrongfully arrested
perhaps "we" can infer that from my
>>>>>>>>>>
In McAlpine's case, there wasn't a court, the charge was dropped; quite
rightly, it really doesn't fall under the provisions of the Public Order Act
etc..
<<<<<<<<<<
Judy Evans, Cardiff
--- On Wed, 26/10/11, Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: QPR v Chelsea
To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, 26 October, 2011, 15:12
From: Judith Evans <judithevans001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>he was subsequently paid £7,000 in compensation and his legal costs, and a
>senior police officer went to see him to apologise.
?!, you think? So do I. >
"?!" = "Goodness gracious, whatever next?!"?
But "think" (so surprised/nonplussed?) about what? That he received as much as
£7,000 (iwcase, what should he have received)? That he got his legal costs?
That he was given an apology?
Compensation, costs and an apology might seem in order if he was wrongfully
arrested, so are we meant to "think" he was not wrongfully arrested and that
the result is simply because "there's been a fair amount of yelling and
screaming by Christians here about the infringement of their rights to foist
themselves on people..."?
Donal
1-6, 1-6
London
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
