Politics

[ChrisW]

Can't possibly be any evidence but as a mate of mine on July service discovered this year, the law apparently now doesn't require any

Hasn't happened this year yet.

[Randall]

Can't possibly be any evidence but as a mate of mine on July service discovered this year, the law apparently now doesn't require any

Oh ffs

[Captain Hobo]

Can't possibly be any evidence but as a mate of mine on July service discovered this year, the law apparently now doesn't require any

Even by your current standards, what a load of bollocks.

[Randall]

Can't possibly be any evidence but as a mate of mine on July service discovered this year, the law apparently now doesn't require any

Even by your current standards, what a load of bollocks.

The jury was simply invited to choose who they believed

[Captain Hobo]

Can't possibly be any evidence but as a mate of mine on July service discovered this year, the law apparently now doesn't require any

Even by your current standards, what a load of bollocks.

The jury was simply invited to choose who they believed

You implied that no-one should possibly be convicted of a historical sexual offence, which is just plain wrong.

My sister was a victim of repeated sexual abuse by a family friend in her early teens. By the time she found the courage to tell our parents, her life was too much of a mess to possibly consider pressing charges let alone having any chance of them succeeding.

You might want to think before dragging every single thing into your little 'the world's gone mad, welcome to 2025' gimmick.

[Ross, Bob]

Can't possibly be any evidence but as a mate of mine on July service discovered this year, the law apparently now doesn't require any

Even by your current standards, what a load of bollocks.

The jury was simply invited to choose who they believed

You implied that no-one should possibly be convicted of a historical sexual offence, which is just plain wrong.

My sister was a victim of repeated sexual abuse by a family friend in her early teens. By the time she found the courage to tell our parents, her life was too much of a mess to possibly consider pressing charges let alone having any chance of them succeeding.

You might want to think before dragging every single thing into your little 'the world's gone mad, welcome to 2025' gimmick.

Token "fucking hell".

[Randall]

Can't possibly be any evidence but as a mate of mine on July service discovered this year, the law apparently now doesn't require any

Even by your current standards, what a load of bollocks.

The jury was simply invited to choose who they believed

You implied that no-one should possibly be convicted of a historical sexual offence, which is just plain wrong.

My sister was a victim of repeated sexual abuse by a family friend in her early teens. By the time she found the courage to tell our parents, her life was too much of a mess to possibly consider pressing charges let alone having any chance of them succeeding.

You might want to think before dragging every single thing into your little 'the world's gone mad, welcome to 2025' gimmick.

You might want to read what I said not what you want to see
Historically there can be no evidence to prove a he said she said scenario.

[Captain Hobo]

You might want to read what I said not what you want to see
Historically there can be no evidence to prove a he said she said scenario.

I absolutely did read your post, and yes witness statements are evidence.

[Randall]

You might want to read what I said not what you want to see
Historically there can be no evidence to prove a he said she said scenario.

I absolutely did read your post, and yes witness statements are evidence.

A written statement alone is unlikely to meet the standard of reasonable doubt without physical evidence.
Which is why I used the word proof

[Captain Hobo]

You might want to read what I said not what you want to see
Historically there can be no evidence to prove a he said she said scenario.

I absolutely did read your post, and yes witness statements are evidence.

A written statement alone is unlikely to meet the standard of reasonable doubt without physical evidence.
Which is why I used the word proof

Not in your original post.

Can't possibly be any evidence but as a mate of mine on July service discovered this year, the law apparently now doesn't require any

[Randall]

You might want to read what I said not what you want to see
Historically there can be no evidence to prove a he said she said scenario.

I absolutely did read your post, and yes witness statements are evidence.

A written statement alone is unlikely to meet the standard of reasonable doubt without physical evidence.
Which is why I used the word proof

Not in your original post.

Can't possibly be any evidence but as a mate of mine on July service discovered this year, the law apparently now doesn't require any

The inference is perfectly clear in what I said. A conviction will generally require evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Randall]

However as I said, to my and my friends surprise, when clear evidence was lacking the jury were asked to choose who they believed based on what they'd heard.
So "reasonable doubt" is seemingly much less important as the guy got 15 years

[Captain Hobo]

You might want to read what I said not what you want to see
Historically there can be no evidence to prove a he said she said scenario.

I absolutely did read your post, and yes witness statements are evidence.

A written statement alone is unlikely to meet the standard of reasonable doubt without physical evidence.
Which is why I used the word proof

Not in your original post.

Can't possibly be any evidence but as a mate of mine on July service discovered this year, the law apparently now doesn't require any

The inference is perfectly clear in what I said. A conviction will generally require evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

'Can't possibly be any evidence' is pretty clear.

Now you want to claim you meant 'enough evidence to convict'?

Nah, I'm not falling for that. It's not what you said.

[Captain Hobo]

However as I said, to my and my friends surprise, when clear evidence was lacking the jury were asked to choose who they believed based on what they'd heard.
So "reasonable doubt" is seemingly much less important as the guy got 15 years

You'll be shocked when you find out how many years Harvey Weinstein got.

[Randall]

However as I said, to my and my friends surprise, when clear evidence was lacking the jury were asked to choose who they believed based on what they'd heard.
So "reasonable doubt" is seemingly much less important as the guy got 15 years

You'll be shocked when you find out how many years Harvey Weinstein got.

So reasonable doubt has been diminished which is what I said originally

[Captain Hobo]

However as I said, to my and my friends surprise, when clear evidence was lacking the jury were asked to choose who they believed based on what they'd heard.
So "reasonable doubt" is seemingly much less important as the guy got 15 years

You'll be shocked when you find out how many years Harvey Weinstein got.

So reasonable doubt has been diminished which is what I said originally

That's still not what you said, nor implied.

It's also not true, but that seems beside the point.

[Greipel]

The Plastic Aussie Trans Maniac is crying badly, there.

[Randall]

However as I said, to my and my friends surprise, when clear evidence was lacking the jury were asked to choose who they believed based on what they'd heard.
So "reasonable doubt" is seemingly much less important as the guy got 15 years

You'll be shocked when you find out how many years Harvey Weinstein got.

So reasonable doubt has been diminished which is what I said originally

That's still not what you said, nor implied.

It's also not true, but that seems beside the point.

What I meant was blindingly fucking obvious to anyone without a warped viewpoint.
What I described is from a jury member here in the uk this year. The judge said it was for them to decide who they believed as there was no clear proof of what happened.
As usual you claim to know better from the other side of the world.

[Greipel]

However as I said, to my and my friends surprise, when clear evidence was lacking the jury were asked to choose who they believed based on what they'd heard.
So "reasonable doubt" is seemingly much less important as the guy got 15 years

You'll be shocked when you find out how many years Harvey Weinstein got.

So reasonable doubt has been diminished which is what I said originally

That's still not what you said, nor implied.

It's also not true, but that seems beside the point.

What I meant was blindingly fucking obvious to anyone without a warped viewpoint.
What I described is from a jury member here in the uk this year. The judge said it was for them to decide who they believed as there was no clear proof of what happened.
As usual you claim to know better from the other side of the world.

[Captain Hobo]

What I meant was blindingly fucking obvious to anyone without a warped viewpoint.

It simply wasn't. It came across like most things you post lately as a right-wing talking point with no basis in fact.

But as you have now provided more detail, I can now alter my opinion as I am able to do when provided with new information.

Firstly, I have never been on a jury but is it normal for jurors to tell friends this much detail of a case? I thought Jury secrecy was a thing.

Second, do you know if this jury required a unanimous verdict or a majority?

Lastly, 15 years for sexual assault is a very long sentence. I assume multiple victims or horrific circumstances that were proven in court, not merely a case of he said/she said when I hear of sentences like that. I don't think that indicates I have a warped viewpoint.