Well, at least you've found the right country for your opinion links - but that's what they are. They are not legal definitions. Sorry, matey, you just can't win this one: It is a legal fundamental principle in the UK that you are innocent until proven guilty. From this statement, the states are clearly binary: i.e. you are either innocent, or proven guilty. I'm not sure if this can be stated any more simply for you. Whatever you decide to twist next, or whatever irrelevant opinion you present, this fundamental has been in place for thousands of years. 'Fundamental' is the clue - it is not subject to opinion in law. Now if you were talking Scots law, that would be different.
vxv So are you saying that this legal principle does not exist in the UK? Try answering that simple question & we'll take it from there. Yes, or no?
WHY YOU POSTING THIS, NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT YOU SAID. YOU SAID THE JUDGE SAYS YOUR INNOCENT AND NOT, NOT GUILTY. HE DOESN'T SAY ANY SUCH THING BECAUSE HE DOESN'T KNOW, THE PERSON HAS BEEN FOUND NOT GUILTY, NOT INNOCENT.
Making it up again. I did not say that. Read back & learn. Legalese is very specific. #11447 Whitejock, who's this WJ that did say it then.
The loony left are the judges You asked in your post when this sting happened, if you are too blinkered and can't be arsed to do your research on a subject you know nothing about you'd probably be better off say nothing at all. you're just showing your ignorant bias
Everything I have said is perfectly accurate or plausible. What specifically is it that you think I have wrong?
I was absolutely accurate. I even walked you through it, but it seems that you're not capable of following simple logic. Let's try for the final time, and if you can't follow it, perhaps you could ask a 5yo to translate it into terms you understand? 1. It is a fundamental legal principle that you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Agreed? 2. In legal terms, your status is binary - you are either guilty or innocent. Agreed? 3. If you are found not guilty in court, then your status has not changed. You remain innocent. Agreed? 4. After reading the jury's not guilty verdict, the Judge will address the accused, and tell him/her, amongst other things, that they are free to go. i.e. he is Not Guilty, and the Judge has underlined that his innocent state has not changed. Agreed? If you think one of these very clear steps is incorrect, please indicate which one. I shall assume that you agree with the previous ones, which even you must agree is a reasonable assumption. If you cannot follow these 4 simple - and absolutely correct - steps, then I give up. I'd be better trying to teach an onion how to be a carrot. Probably get more sense out of the onion, and a lot less pish.
"I don't know a great deal about Yaxley, so unable to fully discuss his 'career'" tWJ, post 11418 You know very little about Tommy yet you do 'war and peace' comment on his life You say you didn't know when Tommy turned the table on the BBC and Sweeney yet you did a 'war and peace' comment on it. If Tommy hadn't ****ed their hatchet job on him and showed them up for what they are and they had gotten away with it and aired it on TV you would have been one of the first on here creaming yourself telling us what a **** he is. Go on, lie to us and say you would do no such thing
Hahaha ha what a load of ****, the Judge doesn't say you are innocent, end of story. YOU ARE WRONG AND YOU KNOW IT. PS By the way I have been in court and the Judge said not guilty, not innocent, because I wasn't the Walsall coach window did get smashed, I was there, but not enough evidence to find me guilty.
