FFS, still not looked up 'implicit'? No, and you never will, as you know what it means & the fact that it destroys your 'argument'.
How can he form an accurate opinion when he can't read my posts? Has he given you some of his meds? FFS, still not looked up 'implicit'? No, and you never will, as you know what it means & the fact that it destroys your 'argument'.
Still you persist .... FFS, still not looked up 'implicit'? No, and you never will, as you know what it means & the fact that it destroys your 'argument'.
Didn't say he did. Show me where he did. Is this another sparkler from the wee world inside Chesh's head? FFS, do I have to teach you grammar here too?
Still you persist .... FFS, still not looked up 'implicit'? No, and you never will, as you know what it means & the fact that it destroys your 'argument'.
The judge doesn't say implicit, I've answered your question NOW DOES THE JUDGE SAY NOT GUILTY OR YOU'RE INNOCENT.
FFS, it's painful watching you wriggle like this. Show me where I said the Judge said 'implicit'. Just look the fukkin word up & give us all peace.
God you're thick we are talking about what the judge says . DOES HE SAY NOT GUILTY OR YOU'RE INNOCENT.
Chesh, you really need to look up the word 'implicit' to understand the concept. Or do you have to look up 'concept' first? FFS! Just accept that you're wrong. If you leave the court innocent of all charges, then the Judge, by his words (whatever they may be), has implicitly confirmed that you remain in the innocent state, as the prosecution has failed to prove that you should be removed from that state, and be declared it's binary opposite, i.e. 'Guilty'. There are only 2 states in the UK legal system - guilty or innocent. Or do you not believe that either?
Possibly neither! Up to him what he says. There is no set text to follow. And still you persist .... FFS, still not looked up 'implicit'? No, and you never will, as you know what it means & the fact that it destroys your 'argument'.
Why do you constantly repeat yourself? The question has been answered innumerable times, you only have to read it & understand it. So why don't you for once do yourself a favour & do what I request & look up the word 'implicit'. Although I'm beginning to wonder if you'll understand it, given the gobbledegook you've been spouting. I have a life & would like to get on with it. Getting a bit fed up with your silly games. Just look it up & you'll realise what a divvy you are (if you understand it).
God, how many times do I have to try to explain this? The closing statement carries that implicit meaning. The wording used by the Judges is up to them & may or may not use the terms 'not guilty' or 'innocent'. The words are not required by law, as long as the Judge's message is clear. So if I had used the specific term 'innocent' in quotes, you might have an argument. But I didn't, and you don't. Let's bring it down to your level. Leeds are top of the table. We thrash 'Udders 10-0. You miss the match but ask "Did we win?". Now according to you, the implicit term 'We humped them' is not acceptable. It would have to be 'yes, we won'. Does that help you understand the 'implicit'. Capisce? So have you looked up the definition of 'implicit', or do you just not understand it or the concept? I cannot imagine any other reason for you repeating your pish over & over. I think it's glaringly obvious for all to see that you're struggling to understand the concept of 'implicit'. Why not just suck it up & admit you're wrong?
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. So I will remind you of where we're at ... God, how many times do I have to try to explain this? The closing statement carries that implicit meaning. The wording used by the Judges is up to them & may or may not use the terms 'not guilty' or 'innocent'. The words are not required by law, as long as the Judge's message is clear. So if I had used the specific term 'innocent' in quotes, you might have an argument. But I didn't, and you don't. Let's bring it down to your level. Leeds are top of the table. We thrash 'Udders 10-0. You miss the match but ask "Did we win?". Now according to you, the implicit term 'We humped them' is not acceptable. It would have to be 'yes, we won'. Does that help you understand the 'implicit'. Capisce? So have you looked up the definition of 'implicit', or do you just not understand it or the concept? I cannot imagine any other reason for you repeating your pish over & over. I think it's glaringly obvious for all to see that you're struggling to understand the concept of 'implicit'. Why not just suck it up & admit you're wrong?
