The EU debate - Part III

We've already been round this buoy. "Cleared" is often used to mean "Found not guilty in a trial". If Clinton had been tried and found not guilty she would have been said to be 'cleared'. Because Innocence is assumed unless guilt is proven this doesn't actually mean that there was no evidence. If there is insufficient evidence to even bring a charge surely that is a better position for Clinton? So to say that she has 'not been cleared' might be technically true but is perverse.

 

No, there isn't. There's always either sufficient evidence of a crime or insufficient.
The police don't set out to clear people, especially in a case like this.
Clinton was negligent. She wasn't criminally negligent.

 

Don't you think that the whole structure of the EU is built on an unsustainable model?: Euro and complete freedom of movement.

 

Just as there was with other groups so I do not get your point. You seem to be implying that Muslim extremists can do what they want whereas non Muslim extremists are punished...my bad if I have misunderstood your post but it is not very clear.

I am guessing these things were not stopped because it can be argued legally that neither are examples of racist abuse.
The point being discussed was whether it is legal to be a white supremacist and about it being illegal to racially abuse people.
We weren't talking about whether or not it's legal to be a ****

 

Thank ****......please try and explain this to Poll. When I added my first comment, I was being pedantic as I did not really want to have to trawl through pages of "tit for tat" arguments over "was she cleared, wasn't she cleared" argument. I'm not claiming Clinton was guilty or innocent as quite frankly I don't care, however to say she was cleared is misleading.

 

Depends if you feel putting a hand up is on a par with threats to kill. I know which I feel is the bigger hate crime.

 

If only you'd provided some narrative to your own graphs, the rest of us could've seen why they were so pointless. I particularly liked the one with black vs white crime. Served no purpose but highlighted spectacularly how you've missed the point.

 

The topics being debated aren't of much interest to me so I've not commented unlike the experts on both sides. My point is regardless of topic and regardless of the other poster, sooner or later you'll resort to "you're wriggling", "you're deflecting", "QED" (?).

Maybe you out-debate them every time so they're forced to do that or it's just a boring repetitive tactic from you. Who knows?

 

Putting your hand up?
Seriously?
It was a nazi salute. And your description is a ****ing insult.
Their demo's are full of ****s doing them.
To be honest that's the difference between you and me. I do not down play hate...you'd have plenty to say if I said they are just words on card.

 

I think we all know.

 

Maybe you should be telling the ones wriggling as a boring repetitive tactic?

 

For someone who seems to live for "sources", you really don't know much about the law. Whether you like it or not, many cases don't get as far as the courts, not because the individual is innocent, but because there is insufficient evidence to guarantee a successful conviction. In these cases the individual is "not cleared", the case goes on file.
That is a whole world of difference from someone being cleared.

 

Presumably because you're out-debating them.

 

You think that's worse than a group known for violence threatening violence with few to no arrests? THAT is a ****ing insult.

They weren't just words on cards, you can't hear the chants on a picture, but you can't have missed some of their mates carrying out the threats,

 

I don't know why the **** I got involved, I was trying to be clever and move the conversation on from the "did she, didn't she" debate
However on this occasion Poll is wrong. I doubt he will admit to it, so I'm going to give up in a minute.

 

She was found to have committed no criminal offences.
You're merely using semantics to suggest guilt where none has been established.

 

I called them all ****s. I never played down anything. How have I said one is worse than the other.
It's you that called a Hitler salute "a raised arm" to play it down.
We celebrate fighting the Nazi's and stopping fascism and you described their salute as a ****ing raised arm and then said I was judging one thing worse than the other. You either are being deliberately stupid or have completely misread my previous post so here it is again

 

There were a number of arrests made from that march and people were jailed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_...Embassy_of_Denmark_in_London#Criminal_charges

 

And your not. I never said she was guilty or innocent, that's not for me to decide....however, cleared she was not.
I'm going to leave it there, as this is going round in circles. Even when posters like Paul agree with me, you won't accept it.

 

Traffic news US style.

Why don't the celebs say they're off to Mexico?