jerryatricjanner":3dcizv6u said:
Not a Ridsdale lover by any stretch of the imagination but I am willing to accept the conclusion made by the judge after hearing all the evidence and so I believe should others if they can put their often blinkered views of the man(me included) aside.
1) If, as I understand, it was at a magistrates Court, there is not likely to have been any Judge involved! ( only possible exception would be if it was in front of a "Stipe", a Stipendiary Magistrate, who is a legally qualified magistrate sitting alone, who can often be a Judge:- though he is not called such at a Magistrates Court).
2) Doesn't sound as though anyone heard any evidence! If the Trading Standards prosecuters "offered no evidence", it means they withdrew their prosecution at the start of proceedings, and their case effectively collapsed before it started.
3) Without wishing to comment on this specific case, in general terms "Offering no evidence" doesn't mean that they've got none, it means they've re-assessed their case and decided they're not likely to win, and so decided to throw in the towel.
4) However a case concludes, if a man is not found guilty, he is innocent and must be regarded as so by all. This is an absolute right, and applies to Peter Ridsdale like anyone else. I totally agree that everyone should accept this conclusion to the affair and desist from any snide comments or insinuations. The man has been cleared as the charges have been withdrawn;- end of....
5) In such a high-profile case, this is a considerable embarrassment for the proscutors, and there will almost certainly be recriminations and an inquest behind the scenes! Not least, as already has been said, about the waste of tax-payers money in mounting this case! :doh: