Posts by Rich Lock
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Perhaps some legal scholar can help me out here, but "not guilty" doesn't mean "he didn't do it" but that he wasn't proven to have done so beyond reasonable doubt? Right?
Correct. Dictionary definition here.
I have no idea whether he 'did it' or not. Can't be bothered wading through the evidence.
However, it seems to me that the crown/police were in a clear no-win position as soon as the original conviction was overturned - they were never going to convince 12 people 'beyond reasonable doubt' given the time that had passed and the problems that would cause (15 years worth of lost or destroyed evidence, etc).
-
OK, this struck me as odd since it was posted, and now that I know a bit more background, I find it extremely distateful.
I was going to let it go, but it's been stuck in my head for a week, so a good vent session is required.
For those who want to look up the original posts, they're back on pages 12/13 or thereabouts.
My interest in the Susan Boyle phenomenon is negligable to zero. Simply not bothered. But it's impossible to ignore completely without going and living under a rock. So I know a bit, and Wiki and my wife have filled in the other relevant details.
So, in relation to Susan Boyle, and in reply to Robbery, Russell B wrote:
Travelling lonely from one hotel room to another will take its toll on a person
To which Robbery's reply was:
cliche!!! I almost choked on the loving spoonfuls of syrup you coated that in. you've been watching too many made for tv movies mate.
You'll remember when I first met you was on tour with a band and that was the furthermost thing from lonely hotel rooms I've ever been. It was an absolute fun filled fiesta.If Boyle's going to be raking in the dosh she can take an entourage and insist on long stop overs in beautiful locations. Hardly a life of pain, but her choice how it plays.
Right.
Because clearly there's a direct parallel to be drawn between a group of young men on tour in exotic locations, with all the piss you can sink (and no doubt anything else you can snort or smoke, if that's your thing), hot and cold running groupies, TV's to throw out of windows, etc etc etc.
And an isolated, naive, middle aged woman with learning difficulties.
Take that, Russell. And have an extra portion of 'sneering at your musical taste and emotional responses' for good measure.
Seriously, to even make that comparison in order to score some sort of obscure cheap point is fucking vile.
Yeah, really, Rob, she's going to 'take her entourage'. She'll be 'insisting on long stopovers in exotic locations'. No doubt she'll also be throwing a strop if the backstage M'n'M bowl contains any brown ones, as per her contract. And Heaven help us all if the Moet isn't chilled to the right temperature, or the thread count on her hotel sheets isn't correct.
I've not been following the arguments in the 'copyright' thread (life's too short), but I'm starting to get a bit pissed off you're decided to let your hobby horses out of that particular paddock for a quick canter round the rest of PAS.
It's clear you've wound a lot of people up in that thread by arguing disingenuously, twisting what people are saying, and replying to arguments that people haven't even made by using statements they never even implied. And now you're doing it everywhere else as well.
Yeah, but no, but yeah, nah, yeah. Sir! That's so unfair, sir! It wasn't me, sir, it was jenkins jr, sir!
Really? There's half a dozen examples just on this thread.
Here's one:
Russell said:
You've been doing it from the day you arrived.
To which you said:
bollocks. you only notice those instances and ignore the rest. 1840 posts and they're all an attack on you? come on man. that's just silly.
Yeah, that's exactly what Russell said. He stated clearly and unequivocally that every single one of your 1840 posts had been a direct attack on him. Oh, wait a mo'.....
I'm quite happy to have people on here who have confliciting views to my own, as long as they argue in good faith. You, on the other hand, are taking unpleaseant disingenuity to the level of an art form.
-
A few years ago there were news reports that following a not guilty verdict members of the jury hugged the defendant. It seemed highly improper to me
Then you almost certainly don't want to be reading the SST this morning.
Pg A4 - actively soliciting for members of the jury to come forward and 'tell their story'. I weep tears of despair.
-
If you think he actually did it (my hand is up) then he did 15 years; you have a result.
In the UK, people who are convicted of a serious crime, who then serve a life sentence and are released, have to deal with a whole bunch of stuff subsequently.
Declaring convictions, living on more or less permanent probation (which can be, and frequently is, revoked at the drop of a hat), and so on.
Not making any particular point, just noting that there are differences. I'm assuming the sitation is broadly similar over here.
WRT compensation - as it was explained to me by another PAS'er earlier - this will be at the discretion of a (single) QC, who I would guess from 3rd-hand comment on the case (I've not been following it), would be unlikely to grant it (thanks Logan).
-
Nah. Keg.
-
Finally, a magazine I can check how ogle worthy I'm looking. The standard Women's magazines help me what sort of street poses might best highlight my sexiness. They help answer questions like: Do I wear my shirts top two buttons undone, tucked in at the front, and be wearing a belt buckle highlighting the bulge? things like that.
A magazine of women fantasies about men with body shapes similar my own, is intriguing. Or to see a mans photo in an erotic women's magazine, that resembles my own body, would make me feel sexy. I like to be ogled, discreetly.
Ah, Steven, clearly you're an arthouse stud monkey.
Isn't it nice that the media has a convenient label for every pigeonhole these days?
-
He was in hospital 3 months and the techniques of the great Archie McIndoe (from Dunedin!) were responsible for restoring his skin - he had only the faintest scars on his neck, where the grafts were placed. The patients called McIndoe "The Chief" and said he used to make them laugh by barking at the junior surgeons, then winking at the men as the junior surgeons scurried around looking terrified.
Just been reading about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archibald_McIndoe|McIndoe]] in relation to Richard Hilary.
Wiki articles linked above for those that are interested.
-
Er... you know whom he was married to, right?
Arranged marriage.
And that didn't stop her sneaking off with that beefcake Ares behind his back.
See, women tell you they want a thinker, and someone who's good around the house, but then they're off making eyes at some well-chisled murdering munter in a nicely-tailored uniform.
I kid, I kid.
-
Aephestus was supposedly very ugly indeed
Typical. Always ragging on the engineers for their hideous deformities and lack of success with teh wimminz.
-
now that's a rebuttal.
why didn't you say that 10 pages ago.Because other people had already said it 10 pages ago. And 9 pages ago. And 8 pages ago. And 7 pages ago. And....
It may not have been as explicit, but the point was there. As many people pointed out, in this particular situation, an absolute, correct definition of 'murder', and whether it was an appropriate useage in this context, was a complete hairsplitting irrelevance.
I accept that Brickley was arguing in good faith, but the irrelevance and inaccuracy of his position was pointed out on numerous occasions, and he was politely asked to drop it. He didn't, so now people are getting exasperated.
My personal feeling is that my 'rebuttal' that you loved so much was using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I would have preferred not to steam in so heavily, but the polite, low-key approach wasn't working.
I spend a lot of time in my dayjob arguing semantics and splitting hairs with people who simply won't take a pragmatic, sensible view or interpretation of phrases or wording, even when the intention or sense of the wording, and what it does or doesn't mean, is absolutely crystal clear. That kind of absolutist, non-pragmatic approach is entrely counter-productive, time-consuming and creates a lot of ill-feeling.
For this reason, I'm not going to be respondiong to you again on this thread.