Ha! Doubt it. Unlikely I would watch it. I don't know everything about him, hence restricting myself to that. You don't know everything about him either, and restrict yourself to posting what you know about him. So how come you're allowed to use your Yaxley knowledge & I'm not. I note you haven't listed any inaccuracies in the facts I presented. So what's the objection? Is it because I mention things you don't want to hear?
Here we go. Can't respond in a reasonable manner. Where does my 4-point list go wrong then? What is legally incorrect in what I stated? You clearly know that I'm right, hence you haven't replied to it, as you didn't reply yes or no to an earlier post. Just more pish. As usual. Because you know you're talking pish & cannot follow logic. Let's all change the law to Cheshworld law.
Sent first class I think they gave up as he defended himself & the Judge fell asleep on day 2579 of Chesh's legal argument.
You didn't state any of that you said the judge says you're innocent. He doesn't, end of, you're wrong, man up and admit you made up rubbish got found out, and are wrong. AS NORMAL.
Because I have actually done my own research on him, a good few years ago, when he fist came to prominence I thought he was a ****, but changed my mind after learning about him and what he was about, I don't let the bias msm with an agenda make my mind up for me unlike some on here.
Go through the steps 1 by 1. You'll find I'm correct. Then look up the words explicit & implicit. As there is no change of status to a 'Not Guilty' verdict, an explicit expression by the Judge is not necessary. 'Free to go' is an implicit version of the self same thing. Perhaps get a 3yo to translate for you this time?
Yes, most of the time & stated clearly earlier, if you read back. This point is not in dispute. There are exceptions, but this was a general principle of UK law we were discussing (which Chesh felt compelled to provide US 'evidence' for ).
No steps, the Judge doesn't say you're innocent, full stop. That's the argument that you got wrong. The rest is just waffle waffle waffle totally irrelevant and changes nothing, you're wrong and you know it.
Unless Tommy Robinson is involved and there's a room full of marsupials he's definitely guilty, even if he wasn't there,
Yep UK, USA, EU the lot, they all say not guilty and not you're innocent. So you're wrong worldwide lol
Hahahahahaha! Don't you realise everyone's watching, Chesh? Really, you need to look up explicit & implicit. And then read the steps through. The steps are accurate. You are not.
WTF are you on about you idiot, the Judge doesn't say you are innocent. You're wrong and you know it, as does everyone. Simple question does the judge say your innocent. YES OR NO CLUE FOR JOCKS, IT'S NOT YES.
I personally believe that the EU, once we leave shouldn't be able to just walk in when they feel like it, nor control the border NI side. There is no open border with Russia. Illegals, terrorists, animal and veg disease can slip into NI then into England, Scotland and Wales. Once we leave the EU, we'll have to show passports and docs (trucks) going over to France etc, so they should do the same with NI. A hard border's not going to change anything other than increased checks, and a country like NI and UK should have that control. A former Dover Port boss said nothing's going to change at Dover other than they'll have EU docs when coming into the UK. Borders equal security, a country without a border is not a country. During NI conflict, a lot of terrorists were caught at the border and during border patrols. I'm for it.
There have been instances of a judge declaring a person innocent, particularly on appeal It's not common, as the assumption of innocence unless proven guilty applies however there is some pressure on the courts to declare innocence in cases of retrial or reviews to remove the stigma of an unsafe earlier conviction. Just saying
