The EU debate - Part III

[PowerSpurs]

You are now arguing with yourself. In an earlier post you claimed that Comey said potential violations might have been made. However, I have said based on probability, which is generally how these things work (including our own CPS) a conviction was unlikely. Therefore she wasn't "cleared", there was just not enough evidence for a successful prosecution. Do you not see the difference?

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.

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

We can carry this on all night, she wasn't cleared there was insufficient evidence. There is a whole world of difference in law.

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.

 

[petersaxton]

I explained the first bit a few pages back. It is perfectly fine to make judgements about people's character based on public evidence. It is never OK to label people as criminals unless they have been convicted.
The second point is dealt with by the word 'often' in my post. I have no idea why you think there is a 'long-term benefit' of leaving the EU as this seems contrary to all the evidence to me. But if you believe that then good for you for supporting it despite the short term issues.

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

 

[remembercolinlee]

Although there has been a bit of lee-way of your a muslim radical preacher or protester doing it.

You must log in or register to see images

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.

You must log in or register to see images

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 ****

 

[pieguts]

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.

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.

 

[DMD]

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.

You must log in or register to see images

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 ****

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.

 

[Treble]

America isn't a meritocracy anymore, affirmative action proves this.

Yes, those groups are more likely to be killed by law enforcement because they are responsible for more crime.

Poverty rates are coming down yet crime rates are going up.

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.

 

[Star of David Bardsley]

You often have **** all meaningful to say.

Why not point out your mate's spouting bollocks instead of just tediously nibbling at a username?

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?

 

[remembercolinlee]

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.

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.

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

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?

I think we all know.

 

[DMD]

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?

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

 

[pieguts]

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.

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.

 

[Star of David Bardsley]

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

Presumably because you're out-debating them.

 

[DMD]

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.

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,

 

[pieguts]

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?

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.

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

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.

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

 

[remembercolinlee]

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

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

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.

You must log in or register to see images

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 ****

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

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,

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

 

[pieguts]

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

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.

 

[DMD]

Traffic news US style.

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

You must log in or register to see media