@cee-dee wrote:
Perverting the course of justice eh? I think we're back to "Prove it".
The whole point of the thread was "evidence", or rather, the lack of it and someone's word being taken as fact.
The point is, why, in one case is someon'e word taken as fact when, in a different type of case what someone says isn't good enough?
A single person's word is NOT taken as fact in one case and as unreliable in another.
I can't think of a single situation where someone would be convicted of any offence simply on the word of a single witness.
Can you give an example as you have failed to do so up to now.
