Personal identification

[alumni]

Perfectly sure about my argument, you condescending prat!

Likewise i'm sure the victim in the incident i alluded to previously thinks the same.

You're now losing the plot, as well as the argument...

And it's now 'alluded' to is it? - do make your mind as to what your argument actually is...

Oh dear oh dear.

So says the man who can't understand the English language.

Tell me, when a person carries out a very serious assault, is witnessed by several people, owns up to said assault, well, some of it (the part he denies would put him on a certain register). What would you say he was, innocent or guilty?
Bearing in mind, your the fckwit who seemed to think knowing what the actual offence was would make a difference.

So, you have a simple choice: is it innocent or guilty?
And no conferring with your jury.

 

[ellal]

Perfectly sure about my argument, you condescending prat!

Likewise i'm sure the victim in the incident i alluded to previously thinks the same.

You're now losing the plot, as well as the argument...

And it's now 'alluded' to is it? - do make your mind as to what your argument actually is...

Oh dear oh dear.

So says the man who can't understand the English language.

Tell me, when a person carries out a very serious assault, is witnessed by several people, owns up to said assault, well, some of it (the part he denies would put him on a certain register). What would you say he was, innocent or guilty?
Bearing in mind, your the fckwit who seemed to think knowing what the actual offence was would make a difference.

So, you have a simple choice: is it innocent or guilty?
And no conferring with your jury.

F*ckwit?...moi?

Like I said, you have lost the plot...

And will the mods tolerate your insults...

In case others have been turned away from the real issue by the numpty twins, then maybe the following might be of interest...

Met police are accused of pursuing a 'vindictive' case against UK Uncut tax protesters

Protesters in Fortnum & Mason were told by police that they would not be arrested if they left the store peacefully, but it emerged last week that their subsequent detention had been planned.

A letter sent by law firm Bindmans to Alison Saunders, the chief Crown prosecutor, and to Keir Starmer, the director of public prosecutions, on Friday claims that the CPS and police have attempted to distort the intentions of protesters and "portray the core of this action as disorderly and violent".

Mike Schwarz, a solicitor for Bindmans, also said the Metropolitan police had failed to answer a query in April over whether undercover officers had been involved in the Fortnum & Mason protest against tax evasion. The lawyer has requested that any information relating to undercover officers "in the infiltrations of the demonstrations or prosecutions" of any of those arrested at Fortnum & Mason be disclosed.

 

[alumni]

True to form, he refuses to commit to a simple answer.

Here's one for you then.
Putting aside the fact you'd probably enjoy it but, lets suppose you were attacked and raped. The attack was witnessed, the culprit tells the dibble he did it.
Is he guilty or innocent of said offence?

 

[ellal]

True to form, he refuses to commit to a simple answer.

Here's one for you then.
Putting aside the fact you'd probably enjoy it but, lets suppose you were attacked and raped. The attack was witnessed, the culprit tells the dibble he did it.
Is he guilty or innocent of said offence?

You can repeat yourself as many times as you like...

An answer was given, but you refuse to accept that answer...

But lets get on to your latest question - not only are you a bit of a depraved individual to suggest that someone 'enjoys' that a crime has taken place, but unlike you I'll give the answer again...

Unless a person is convicted in a court of law, he/she is innocent of a crime no matter what the apparent evidence is...

After all... someone might think you could be a kiddie fiddler, but I'd defend you without question that you were innocent until proven guilty in a court of law...

It's a pity that you have no idea of that concept

 

[alumni]

Actually, sicko. That very offence described for you did take place.

But hey, you trivialise it all you like. Fortunately victims thankfully don't see it that way.
Seems in your book the crimes can't have occured unless it actually goes to Court. Nice how you conveniently brush aside the fact the CPS make that decision.
Guilt is not the sole domain of a Court.

You are one very sad person.

 

[cumbriahandyman]

When you are arrested by the bill, it is because they believe you are guilty of a crime. They either have or then collate evidence to prove that guilt.

You are only innocent in the eyes of the law, until proven guilty but until then you are believed to be guilty.

If the police do not believe you to be guilty they would not arrest you.

Guilty conscience,
Sense of guilt,
Guilty feeling etc.

If you commit a crime, you are guilty of that crime, until proven innocent. Stop fkcuing with the semantics.

I am guilty of posting this, but no court will ever find me guilty of it, but I am still guilty.

 

[joinerjohn]

Just as I thought...

When questioned you again evade...

Hmmm, You seem to be the master at evading questions ellal. Your either extremely vague with an answer, or more often than not, compound the issue with another question, just as vague as the answer you don't seem to give.
Anyway, to go off at a bit of a tangent here,, The bible teaches us that no one is born innocent. Therefore we are all guilty, in the eyes of the Lord.

 

[alumni]

I'm not taking sides here but this could only be posted by a true idiot.

If you commit a crime, you are guilty of that crime, until proven innocent. Stop fkcuing with the semantics.

I take it you've never heard of the presumption of innocence cumbrihalfwit.

Another thing, if you commit a crime, how can you be proven innocent.

So what is it when the culprit admits he did it?

Guilt is not solely confined to the Courts.

 

[sooey]

That's a different scenario to the one cumbriahalfwit posted about. I'd say of course that if the culprit admits his guilt, then he's guilty, (depending on the circumstances of the admission).

 

[Norcon]

Another thing, if you commit a crime, how can you be proven innocent.

A court of law could conclude you are either innocent or guilty depending on the evidence presented.
Of course you could still be guilty when proven innocent and innocent when proven guilty. The law is not infallible as humans are involved.
Thus the guilty can walk free and the innocent incarcerated.

 

[sooey]

No one can be proven innocent. It is impossible to prove a negative. A court of law can fail to prove guilt, in which case innocence must be presumed.

 

[alumni]

Not forgetting the little detail of whether CPS actually a case to trial.

Someone can be bang to rights guilty, but if they say it's not in the public interest then it goes no further.

 

[sooey]

Actually thinking about it, people can be proven innocent in certain circumstances. For instance when it can be shown beyond doubt that a person is somewhere else when a crime is committed. Though I stand by this...

A court of law can fail to prove guilt, in which case innocence must be presumed.

 

[alumni]

Actually thinking about it, people can be proven innocent in certain circumstances. For instance when it can be shown beyond doubt that a person is somewhere else when a crime is committed.

When banged up in the nick for example.

 

[joinerjohn]

What about the celebrities, footballers, etc who get caught speeding, parking where they shouldn't and then hire one of these professional lawyer types to get them off on some technicality? IE Nick Freeman (nicknamed Mr Loophole) He specializes in getting people off motoring offences (even when they committed the offence) You trying to tell us these people are innocent? Highly unlikely.