Be careful who you offend

[noseall]

if

 

[Brigadier]

No worries from those accused then.

Far from it. Like the "rapists" who got as far as Crown Court itself, when they clearly had no case to answer.

 

[noseall]

'May'
'can'
'If'

no case to answer.

Correct.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Are you assuming that someone at the Met is an expert in English - or not?

 

[noseall]

Are you assuming that someone at the Met is an expert in English - or not?

Eh?


Mr Vague makes his timely appearance.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Well, you were commenting on the use of 'if, can and may'.

Are you assuming the writer at the Met has used them in their correct meaning?

 

[noseall]

Are you assuming

No.
And neither will the lawyers representing the accused be assuming either.

May Can If are all possible outcomes. Woody wrote the theme as if the world had already ended. Ask him about may, can, if, he wrote it.

 

[EFLImpudence]

No, he didn't write it. It's in the article from the Metropolitan Police.

 

[JohnD]

But if someone (anyone) believes, firmly believes, is absolutely sure in their mind that that there was a bit of prejudice or hate then that's it, you're done for.

Perhaps we should have some kind of arrangement whereby, before you're executed or imprisoned, the opposing sides should put forward their cases, and some people who are not involved should weigh up the law and the evidence and come to a decision. We could call it a "trial."

But wait! We already do!

Silly woody, not knowing that.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Mind reading on both sides, then. Infallible.

 

[noseall]

No, he didn't write it

Yes, he wrote the thread.
Read my post again and come back to me if you struggle to understand this......

Woody wrote the theme as if the world had already ended

 

[noseall]

Mind reading

No. The law.
May, can if are not definite.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Exactly.

 

[noseall]

I agree with you EFLI.

I do think however, Woody is being a tad sensitive. I think they call it being a snowflake.

 

[^woody^]

Perhaps we should have some kind of arrangement whereby, before you're executed or imprisoned, the opposing sides should put forward their cases, and some people who are not involved should weigh up the law and the evidence and come to a decision. We could call it a "trial."

But wait! We already do!

Silly woody, not knowing that.

Oh yes of course dipstick. Let's just put people through months of hell on the basis that some other dipstick, being confused or a shade insecure, or stuck in the middle ages, or just a bit thick, feels offended or just wants to prove their self worth.

That's wonderful law isn't it. Why didn't we have it decades ago I wonder? What is there more of nowadays that needs such stupidly vague and general law to allow someone to cry "Witch" and gather the village mob?

But there's more. Perhaps those people that the law is designed to protect are not actually offended and everything is honky-dory? Arrh the law allows for this. Instead, perhaps some white knight leftie liberal do-gooder dipstick can feel offended on their behalf and come to their rescue and lead the mob instead? Excellent.

I'll assume that you are being your usual contradictory and obtuse self and are not really so thick that you can't see how this law differs from all others.