(30-04-2014 00:15 )JamesStandford Wrote: You assumed mate, as your getting quite childish and throwing your toys out your pram, I suggest you find something better to do then make up storys about other peoples personal lifes, reading it looked like you sat at your desk and thought "Hmmm let me just guess what happened"
"The Sky guy supposedly threatened her dog"
"if the guy's in Mica's house trying to do his job and Mica's pooch was going for him, you can understand him saying something."
"She has now prejidiced any future trial."
Can you please share your source as to where you found this information? It looks to me like you've just made up complete rubbish and trying to make Mica look like the bad person in all of this, I'm not brown nosing what ever that is, I posted BEFORE Mica even tweeted so I do not know what your trying to get at here...
Provide the source of your information and if I am in the wrong and you have secret surveillances on Mica's house then I will quite happy apologize to you.
As far as I'm concerned you've sat there making assumptions which were not needed and which I call if you pardon my language "shit stirring"
The toys are in the pram mate. I just think you need to stop being a brown nosing crawler. It's for your own good.
Anyway, I was not making any assumptions. The key word is 'if'. I said 'IF' the dog went for him, even if it was being friendly, the SKY guy may not realise that it's being friendly if he's not a dog person. Not that I'm condoning him smashing its head in with a hammer, that's shocking.
Re the other matter, if you know anything about the law you will know that publishing the guy's name and photo was not very clever. If it comes to court his lawyer will use it to say that his client won't get a fair trial.
If Mica doesn't realises that then she's almost as dumb as you.
Anyway, be lucky.