Off Topic OLOF's political thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Whitejock said:
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?
Click to expand...
Answer the question Does the judge SAY NOT GUILTY OR YOU'RE INNOCENT

HE SAYS NOT GUILTY WHICH MAKES YOU WRONG AGAIN.
 
Whitejock said:
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?
Click to expand...
No one is talking about implicit meaning, the question is does the judge say NOT GUILTY OR YOU'RE INNOCENT.

And hahaha you have no idea what the judges closing statement says,they are all different, you're just making **** up now.
 
Last edited:
lifecheshirewhite said:
Answer the question Does the judge SAY NOT GUILTY OR YOU'RE INNOCENT

HE SAYS NOT GUILTY WHICH MAKES YOU WRONG AGAIN.
Click to expand...
I did answer the question. Very, very clearly in the last 2 posts.

Presumably you still have a problem with the term 'implicit'. Just look it up, read what I wrote & then STFU. You don't even have to apologise for wasting so much of my time. I just want to be free from this nonsense you voluminously perpetrate.
 
lifecheshirewhite said:
No one is talking about implicit meaning, the question is does the judge say NOT GUILTY OR YOU'RE INNOCENT.

And hahaha you have no idea what the judges closing statement says,they are all different, you're just making **** up now.
Click to expand...
FFS! Having to reply to 2 nonsense posts at a time. Check my last post. You've had more of my time than you deserve.

And don't tell me about the Judge's closing statement - you're simply repeating what I told you a few posts back. Does your memory not extend further back than 30 seconds? You're taking embarrassing yourself to an unheard of new level, even for you.
 
A famous comedian and his bum chums. All were found not guilty of Murder (raping and drowning) a straight guy, in their swimming pool. They were found not guilty, but the judge made clear they were certainly not all innocent, 1-2 or even all had killed this man, they just were unable to prove it
 
Whitejock said:
I did answer the question. Very, very clearly in the last 2 posts.

Presumably you still have a problem with the term 'implicit'. Just look it up, read what I wrote & then STFU. You don't even have to apologise for wasting so much of my time. I just want to be free from this nonsense you voluminously perpetrate.
Click to expand...
No you didn't answer the question. THE ANSWERS ARE
1NOT GUILTY
2 YOU'RE INNOCENT

No other waffling required
 
lifecheshirewhite said:
A famous comedian and his bum chums. All were found not guilty of Murder (raping and drowning) a straight guy, in their swimming pool. They were found not guilty, but the judge made clear they were certainly not all innocent, 1-2 or even all had killed this man, they just were unable to prove it
Click to expand...
No-one was specifically named by the Judge. It was simply remarks, not a report of a judgement. Wasn't something similar said about Yaxley?

As an aside, a pal of mine was actually at that party!
 
Whitejock said:
FFS! Having to reply to 2 nonsense posts at a time. Check my last post. You've had more of my time than you deserve.

And don't tell me about the Judge's closing statement - you're simply repeating what I told you a few posts back. Does your memory not extend further back than 30 seconds? You're taking embarrassing yourself to an unheard of new level, even for you.
Click to expand...
Answer the question or get someone not as thick to answer on your behalf. DOES THE JUDGE SAY NOT GUILTY OR YOU ARE INNOCENT
 
Whitejock said:
No-one was specifically named by the Judge. It was simply remarks, not a report of a judgement. Wasn't something similar said about Yaxley?

As an aside, a pal of mine was actually at that party!
Click to expand...
He didn't need to name anyone specifically, some or all were guilty of Murder. AND CERTAINLY NOT INNOCENT.

Which is why they say NOT GUILTY instead of YOU'RE INNOCENT because a lot aren't innocent.
 
Last edited:
lifecheshirewhite said:
He didn't need to name anyone specifically, some or all were guilty of Murder. AND CERTAINLY NOT INNOCENT.
Click to expand...
You're missing the point - he didn't specifically state who was innocent or who was guilty. He speculated, probably bolstered by the evidence that had been provided in the trial, but could not name an individual, as he couldn't, by law. So at the end of the day, they remained innocent, exactly the same state as when they started the trial.
 
Whitejock said:
You're missing the point - he didn't specifically state who was innocent or who was guilty. He speculated, probably bolstered by the evidence that had been provided in the trial, but could not name an individual, as he couldn't, by law. So at the end of the day, they remained innocent, exactly the same state as when they started the trial.
Click to expand...
They are presumed innocent, doesn't mean they are innocent. Which is why a judge doesn't say you're innocent.
 
lifecheshirewhite said:
No you didn't answer the question. THE ANSWERS ARE
1NOT GUILTY
2 YOU'RE INNOCENT

No other waffling required
Click to expand...
I have answered this in posts 11531, 11538, & 11539. I am really tiring with this. I think I might go back to trying to convince an onion that it's not a carrot, and you can return to mastering your 2x table.

You just cannot understand the concept of implicit, & I have tried so, so hard to help you. I have shown remarkable patience & tried to educate you in easy stages, but no, you ignore everything, keep the blinkers firmly fixed, and refuse to acknowledge anything, no matter how well evidenced or corroborated, that may clearly show everyone how wrong you are. I'm giving this up. Perhaps if you are so insistent that I am wrong, you could tell Eric he is too, especially with your last few repeating nonsense posts which Eric covered comprehensively.

You are to English Grammar what Dianne Abbot is to mathematics. <doh>

I'm now going off to Scotland to enjoy myself.
 
Whitejock said:
I have answered this in posts 11531, 11538, & 11539. I am really tiring with this. I think I might go back to trying to convince an onion that it's not a carrot, and you can return to mastering your 2x table.

You just cannot understand the concept of implicit, & I have tried so, so hard to help you. I have shown remarkable patience & tried to educate you in easy stages, but no, you ignore everything, keep the blinkers firmly fixed, and refuse to acknowledge anything, no matter how well evidenced or corroborated, that may clearly show everyone how wrong you are. I'm giving this up. Perhaps if you are so insistent that I am wrong, you could tell Eric he is too, especially with your last few repeating nonsense posts which Eric covered comprehensively.

You are to English Grammar what Dianne Abbot is to mathematics. <doh>

I'm now going off to Scotland to enjoy myself.
Click to expand...
No you didn't, so do it again, the only words you need is
1 NOT GUILTY
2 YOU'RE INNOCENT

ANYTHING ELSE IS JUST WJ bull ****.
 
Whitejock said:
No-one was specifically named by the Judge. It was simply remarks, not a report of a judgement. Wasn't something similar said about Yaxley?

As an aside, a pal of mine was actually at that party!
Click to expand...
Can you stop calling him Yaxley. It’s discourteous not to give him his full name, Yaxley-Lennon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Whitejock and dbc
dbc said:
But don't worry because despite being sacked from The Times for lying, despite being sacked from Howard's cabinet for lying about having an affair, despite having said this in favour of staying in the single market

You must log in or register to see media

and having said this about Trump

You must log in or register to see media

and despite having written an alternative column that supported staying in the EU.

He isn't lying now to the Brexiteers.

He would never lie to you to further his own position, no way, def not.

(and he won't acknowledge your kids either Brexiteers after he's ****ed you)

Nope he, like Mogg and the rest of the public school and Oxbridge educated Bullingdon boys they understand you and your issues and they're here to fight for you and your interests and they'd never ever ever lie to you.
Click to expand...

Don’t worry he’s def still not lying to you Brexiteers

You must log in or register to see media
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back