Liverpool Lou
Advanced Member-
Posts
23,408 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Downloads
Quizzes
Everything posted by Liverpool Lou
-
The insurer does not need to explain to anyone except the policy holder what is going on and, presumably, he has a reason for not naming the company that could be working on a solution for him. One reason for not publicly naming the insurer could be that the policy holder could have voided his policy and does not want the backlash from the insurance company if he makes accusations when he was in the wrong.
-
I doubt that it is illegal to be no more than the owner of an establishment that is being operated illegally after hours by others such as the management of the club who were arrested. If the owner wasn't physically present, illegally operating the club, what do you think that he could be charged with?
-
No real evidence the Burmese 2 were guilty on Kho Tao. This guy looks as guilty as hell, they just can't prove it. "No real evidence the Burmese 2 were guilty on Kho Tao". Based on the evidence, the court thought otherwise. "This guy looks as guilty as hell, they just can't prove it". Exactly, everyone thinks that he looks guilty as hell, and he may well turn out to be, but without any evidence at all, which is the case now, he isn't even in a position to be charged, never mind guilty as hell.
-
Based on he is a murder suspect, they can keep you in jail for a while to question you. No, they cannot keep anyone in jail just for questioning unless they arrest and charge that person. They can consensually question persons of interest, that's all, they cannot detain them without charges and those parties do not have to respond to any questions.
-
You don't usually need evidence here, circumstantial evidence is still evidence though. "You don't usually need evidence here..." Yes, you do. "...circumstantial evidence is still evidence though". What circumstantial evidence are you guessing that they have and, if there is some, why wouldn't the British police have used it?