“Evidential basis for it” - “it” being the falsity of the complaint.

Which there has to be already, in that D can’t adduce evidence of a previous complaint unless there’s an evidential basis for it, and also D can get through the non-defendant BCE gateway. Again, I’m not supporting a change (but havn’t thought about it enough), just describing what it is targeting.

It wouldn’t prevent D saying the complainant was lying about *this* case. It would mean you couldn’t buttress that argument by saying she lied in making this other complaint a few years ago (or whenever). I’m not supporting it.

All right, read it, it looks like that, indeed, plus some extension of BCE re D (although quite how you can go further on propensity is a bit beyond me NB the silly bit that says “even other partners” or something like that!).

I was suggesting the target might be getting evidence of a previous complaint in on the basis that that was false, where there’s an evidential foundation for it (which isn’t SHE). Also crossover with BCE.

I imagine it’s about allegations of false complaints not being SHE, I’m guessing (from the headline alone!).

Is he a relation of yours, or something ?

Hmmmmm. I mean, hmmmmmm.

Yeah, I suppose. Otherwise why 173 followers? Twits.

Abusive, no doubt. But there will always be categorisation plays in any context, I suppose.

OK, so it very neatly covered me putting the shopping away and emptying the dishwasher. I still don’t care if it’s a Christmas girl or not, and I think his portrait/history thing is bollocks, but he’s an amiable old bloke, I suppose.

Oh, dash it, you’re selling it to me now.

The Welsh marches were effectively abolished in 1536. Quakers started with George Fox, 1624 to 1691.

Well, that’s more interesting, but also seriously depressing.

On the other other hand, I thoroughly approve of Old Joe in your header, as a very pro-Birmingham immigrant to Birmingham.

I shouldn’t be rude about your thing, I know, and so I sort of apologise. But it just seems such an odd thing to want to think about, even a little bit, this thing.

Well, if you look at the CPS’ own guidance for the common assault/ABH border, it’s official policy to keep clear ABHs in the mags as common assaults. I’m not sure it’s necessarily inappropriate if the harm is there, but pretty minor.

Silver lining I suppose.

Tinkering - moving a moderate category of either way offences into summary only; something on decision making re either way offences.