carpetmonster Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 (edited) 1 minute ago, topcat(The most tip top) said: "Their" seemed appropriate It would be presumptive to assume gender but it would also be risky to rule out multiple personality disorder at this stage. Or possibly one of the CBD liquid spambots got programmed to be in heads gone mode before it starts linking to whatever website. Edited March 23, 2020 by carpetmonster 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SandyCromarty Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 5 minutes ago, The DA said: I didn't invent the 'not proven' verdict. If it meant the same as 'not guilty', it wouldn't need to exist. I think a loose definition of Not Proven is that the Prosecution fails to provide sufficient evidence to convict but there is doubt so a not guilty also cannot be issued. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 5 minutes ago, carpetmonster said: The only people who can answer why a not proven instead of not guilty verdict is delivered are the jurors on the specific case. Agreed. The judge is supposed to instruct the jury on when a 'not proven' verdict would be appropriate. But the study at https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-jury-research-fingings-large-mock-jury-study-2/pages/8/ suggests that the public doesn't understand the verdict very well and often uses it as a cop-out. Hence 'not guilty but don't do it again'. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 On 18/03/2020 at 23:33, The_Kincardine said: I am not convinced that what he did makes him a criminal even if he's an utter sleazebag. I'm getting a bit bored always being right on these Politics threads. Still, entertaining to see some of the diddies finally catching up with me 2 hours ago, Antlion said: ETA: the Kincardine will be crying into his union flag that yet another crackpot right-wing loyalist has failed to adopt “natter”. Unlike the groupthink drones on here I have no interest in my idiolect becoming normative. I'll choose my own words, thanks, and make one or two up if there isn't a suitable alternative. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scary Bear Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 Just as well it’s not a female QC or that would be another charge. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpetmonster Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 (edited) 7 minutes ago, The DA said: Agreed. The judge is supposed to instruct the jury on when a 'not proven' verdict would be appropriate. But the study at https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-jury-research-fingings-large-mock-jury-study-2/pages/8/ suggests that the public doesn't understand the verdict very well and often uses it as a cop-out. Hence 'not guilty but don't do it again'. From that piece - Related to this, jurors choosing the not proven verdict tended to base their decision on a belief that that the evidence did not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, or on the difficulty in choosing between two competing accounts. Apologies for font - it may well have been in the NP verdict there was literally no evidence outside of the two parties' stories. It's why the verdict is hugely overrepresented in sexual cases. 'We think he did it but can't prove that' and 'we don't think he did it but can't prove that' can be equally as viable. Edited March 23, 2020 by carpetmonster 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Lambies Doos Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 Thats certainly what happened when OJ was vindicated in court.. It sure showed those wrongful accusers what a mistake they'd made...So what do you suggest? A man gets accused of various crimes, goes to court and is found innocent. Is the legal system which basis our civilisation a joke? Or do we have to accept that many people were putting the boot into an innocent man? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 I didn't invent the 'not proven' verdict. If it meant the same as 'not guilty', it wouldn't need to exist.Legally, it means exactly the same as "not guilty". That's a fact. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 Can't be arsed reading through this thread sheet the dramatic news.Two questions:What is the p&b consensus on this? How are posters on general reacting?And what are the details of the division within the snp? Is there a left v right thing going on or is it simply personalities? Old guard v new lot? Kent mccaskill calling for resignations seems like he's throwing petrol on it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bairn Necessities Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 (edited) 6 minutes ago, John Lambies Doos said: 30 minutes ago, Bairn Necessities said: Thats certainly what happened when OJ was vindicated in court.. It sure showed those wrongful accusers what a mistake they'd made... So what do you suggest? A man gets accused of various crimes, goes to court and is found innocent. Is the legal system which basis our civilisation a joke? Or do we have to accept that many people were putting the boot into an innocent man? I suggest people read through the evidence that wasn't in dispute and come to their conclusions about what kind of man Salmond is. There's no need to even decide whether the prosecution's case is proven. His own defence has admitted many horrific aspects of his behaviour. It doesn't need to be criminal to be fucking diabolical. Edited March 23, 2020 by Bairn Necessities -2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 4 minutes ago, Bairn Necessities said: I suggest people read through the evidence that wasn't in dispute and come to their conclusions about what kind of man Salmond is. There's no need to even decide whether the prosecution's case is proven. His own defence has admitted many horrific aspects of his behaviour. It doesn't need to be criminal to be fucking diabolical. The problem with this post is that you've no where to go after 'horrific' and 'diabolical' and, whatever you say of Salmond, his acts were neither of those. The jury declared it non criminal - which is about right - and the court of public opinion declared it unacceptable and creepy - which is also about right. I'd say it's a pretty fair outcome all round. 11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Van Tee Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 2 minutes ago, pandarilla said: Can't be arsed reading through this thread sheet the dramatic news. Two questions: What is the p&b consensus on this? How are posters on general reacting? And what are the details of the division within the snp? Is there a left v right thing going on or is it simply personalities? Old guard v new lot? Kent mccaskill calling for resignations seems like he's throwing petrol on it. I'm happy. I said from the start that I would wait for the verdict rather than just make my mind up based on my own biases. Always liked Salmond although this tailed off due to his ego getting the better of him in recent years. Without doubt he's did more than anyone else for the cause of Scottish independence in my lifetime and I much prefer him to the current SNP leader. I'm certainly very interested in hearing his own take on events. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pet Jeden Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, Highlandmagyar 2nd Tier said: Not guilty? Aye right! The country could have saved itself all the trouble and cost of a weeks long trial with witnesses, evidence, cross-examination etc - and just asked you to decide. Edited March 23, 2020 by Pet Jeden 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bairn Necessities Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 (edited) 3 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said: The problem with this post is that you've no where to go after 'horrific' and 'diabolical' and, whatever you say of Salmond, his acts were neither of those. The jury declared it non criminal - which is about right - and the court of public opinion declared it unacceptable and creepy - which is also about right. I'd say it's a pretty fair outcome all round. I'm sorry, we clearly just have different standards. If my daughter had come home to me and told me a man she worked for had stroked her face as she slept in a taxi to wake her up,against her wishes, I'd kill him. Or he decided she needed his sleepy cuddles, again against her will. The fact he then apologised the next day wouldn't cut it. Edited March 23, 2020 by Bairn Necessities -3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamieThomas Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 2 minutes ago, Bairn Necessities said: If my daughter had come home to me and told me a man she worked for had stroked her face as she slept in a taxi to wake her up,against her wishes, I'd kill him. What if he'd kicked her up the arse 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 2 minutes ago, Bairn Necessities said: I'm sorry, we clearly just have different standards. If my daughter had come home to me and told me a man she worked for had stroked her face as she slept in a taxi to wake her up,against her wishes, I'd kill him. Then you're clearly a very angry man with no sense of proportion. I'd boot his baws. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bairn Necessities Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 Just now, The_Kincardine said: Then you're clearly a very angry man with no sense of proportion. I'd boot his baws. You just haven't watched enough Liam Neeson films 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 3 minutes ago, Bairn Necessities said: You just haven't watched enough Liam Neeson films +1 to me 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bairn Necessities Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 5 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said: +1 to me You'll be singing a different tune in a few months when Taken 12 is all you have left still to watch on Netflix 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miguel Sanchez Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 54 minutes ago, JamieThomas said: What if he'd kicked her up the arse I wouldn't mess with someone who had that sort of kicking technique, personally. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.