Loony Lefties

[felixthelogchopper]

1 minute ago, Gary Prentice said:

Makes for a sad, distrustful world. And how do you prove a negetative?

That's the problem. It's like CRB checks, or whatever they are called now. It doesn't prove somebody is trustworthy, just that they have never been done for anything. All you can do is trust your gut and hope you're right.

[Gary Prentice]

27 minutes ago, felixthelogchopper said:

That's the problem. It's like, just that they have never been caught for anything. 

Fixed that for you 

[felixthelogchopper]

2 minutes ago, Gary Prentice said:

Fixed that for you 

 

2 minutes ago, Gary Prentice said:

Fixed that for you 

Would it show that they have been charged but cleared then? Rather defeats the point of innocent until proven guilty if so.

[donnk]

12 pages and no leftie nutjobs arguing against austerity.

 

Most sensible forum this.

[Gary Prentice]

43 minutes ago, felixthelogchopper said:

 

Would it show that they have been charged but cleared then? Rather defeats the point of innocent until proven guilty if so.

Don’t ask me   It goes back to proving a negative. I have a clean licence, does that mean I never exceed the speed limit or that I haven’t been caught?

[donnk]

19 hours ago, felixthelogchopper said:

 

Would it show that they have been charged but cleared then? Rather defeats the point of innocent until proven guilty if so.

Our legal system isnt about finding people innocent, you are not proven guilty if acquitted. This is not the same as being proven innocent.

[difflock]

Ah always liked the Scottish verdict "murder not proven!".

Which would be highly applicable to several high profile murder cases around the world, and neatly lend support to an ensuing  Civil claim for damages.

The civil claim relying on a lower level of proof, i.e. a simple balance of probability test, would almost certainly succeed.

Which would, all in all, be a good way to balance the scales of justice, for trials involving the rich or famous.

Who otherwise "get off"

mth

Edited January 30, 2018 by difflock

[forestboy1978]

21 hours ago, Gary Prentice said:

Haven’t seen that, I’ll try to find it.

 

It’s funny, JS is someone who, when the truth comes out, isn’t particular surprising because of his public persona. Always struck me as an oddball.

 

Ive known three blokes who have gone away for sex offences with under age kids. All of them were jack the lads, appeared to have plenty of success meeting women  of their own age and probably the last people that anyone would have suspicions of. I find these sort a lot more worrying.

Wow. I've never  known a single person who's been of the inclination Not that I've known for a fact. Suspicions of one or 2 but nothing proved. 

 

Anyway, it's exactly this type behaviour that I think capital punishment would help. For example when the Thai's were going to hang Gary Glitter. I couldn't help but think, "that's a great idea" as it would have undoubtedly helped children over there A - understand the severity of the act and B - reduce incidence.. 

[scotspine1]

On ‎22‎/‎01‎/‎2018 at 00:04, onetruth said:

 

 

I'll put my neck on the line in defence of Dianne Abbott, she is, in my opinion, one of the more sincere politicians we have at the moment.  

 

Diane Abbot recently said, 'on balance Chairman Mao did more good than harm'.

 

Mao was responsible for the murder of over 60 million of his own people.

 

 

.

[onetruth]

I know the interview you are talking about, it wasn't recent - it was about 10 years ago.  What she actually said was "some people will judge that on balance Chairman Mao did more good than harm", which is very different.  Also, the context was "why do some people think it is ok to wear a Mao t-shirt but not a Hitler t-shirt".

 

When you ignore context and edit out parts of the sentence you are quoting you are can make anyone say anything...

5 minutes ago, scotspine1 said:

Mao was responsible