Report comment

For goodness sake can people spend a little time reading the law of evidence: the civil standard has had a degree of flexibility within it for as long as I can recall: the more grave the allegation the higher the evidential standard required to establish the same.

It is as unreasonable to apply the criminal standard to certain allegations of misconduct (i.e. calling one's opponent a 'plonker') as it is to apply the lowest end of the civil standard to the most serious allegations.

As note above, the 97% "conviction" rate indicates that there is no basis for suggesting that large numbers are slipping through the net for want of the proper evidential tests being applied.