Now Extinction Rebellion hand gluers have been acquitted too!
#21
(01-15-2022, 12:16 AM)Squid Wrote:
(01-14-2022, 11:57 PM)hudds Wrote:
(01-14-2022, 10:19 PM)Squid Wrote:
(01-14-2022, 05:32 PM)hudds Wrote:
(01-14-2022, 05:25 PM)Squid Wrote: So much for the Colston Four verdict having absolutely no influence on future verdicts.

There is a big difference between a legal precedent that binds a court (which Colston Four doesn't) or whether a case might have similar features but must be viewed on its own facts by the jury.  I don't read this case as necessarily being the same and much would depend upon the prosection and defence cases.

Influence is not the same as precedent. Juries are members of the general public and the public are influenced by wider social attitudes and that includes the outcomes of similar jury trials, widely reported in the media (which jurors would therefore be permitted to read and wouldn't be viewed as prejudicial).

There seems to be a growing feeling that people can argue water is not wet as long as it's for the right purposes and I wonder where it lead. For a start it's given ER carte blanche to muck about on the trains. I'm pretty sure that won't end well.
You are moving the goal posts (albeit implicitly).  Now, influence cuts more than one way, as I have suggested above.  If a jury is representative of wide views, yours will have been included (and it seems to be me most Brits are not sympathetic to the gluers) so why are you whining now?

(01-14-2022, 09:41 PM)boingingjim Wrote: There's literally a video of them glueing themselves to the train.

That's some OJ level of defence lawyering.

And a jury that is likely to be as representative of those on here who seem to be agin the gluers.  What might that tell you about the facts, argument and verdict?

"Whining"? Expressing my discomfort with a legal verdict is not whining and having seen many examples of the harm trains can do to the human body, I'm very uncomfortable with people thinking that it's ok to play on the railway for political purposes.

Also, I am not at all moving the goalposts, you just thought you were talking down to someone who didn't know the meaning of judicial precedent. Your mistake, not mine.
You are whining about the way a UK jury may make a decision yet (so far as I know) you don't know the arguments of either side or why the jury came to its decison.  Neither do I , but it's apparently "uncomfortable".  From a position that appears prima facie guilty, a jury (probably comprised of folk like me and you and blowhard populists and wets) found not guilty.  Yet you are "uncomfortable" because you assume it is "political" (whatever that means). Accordingly, would only a guilty verdict, signed,sealed and delivered have been acceptable to you from the outset and regardless of the facts and arguments (ie a show trial?) This is what is seems like.

As it happens, I would have needed very, very good reason to have found not guilty but I was not at the trial and here we are. I'm not "uncomfortable" at the verdict. I expect the Sausages and those in the jury opposed to the gluers were "turned" by the defence.

And I'm not talking down to you. I have no idea what the jury thought or what cases were presented. You were talking down to us in apparently reading minds and assuming "motives".
Reply
#22
(01-15-2022, 12:26 AM)hudds Wrote:
(01-15-2022, 12:16 AM)Squid Wrote:
(01-14-2022, 11:57 PM)hudds Wrote:
(01-14-2022, 10:19 PM)Squid Wrote:
(01-14-2022, 05:32 PM)hudds Wrote: There is a big difference between a legal precedent that binds a court (which Colston Four doesn't) or whether a case might have similar features but must be viewed on its own facts by the jury.  I don't read this case as necessarily being the same and much would depend upon the prosection and defence cases.

Influence is not the same as precedent. Juries are members of the general public and the public are influenced by wider social attitudes and that includes the outcomes of similar jury trials, widely reported in the media (which jurors would therefore be permitted to read and wouldn't be viewed as prejudicial).

There seems to be a growing feeling that people can argue water is not wet as long as it's for the right purposes and I wonder where it lead. For a start it's given ER carte blanche to muck about on the trains. I'm pretty sure that won't end well.
You are moving the goal posts (albeit implicitly).  Now, influence cuts more than one way, as I have suggested above.  If a jury is representative of wide views, yours will have been included (and it seems to be me most Brits are not sympathetic to the gluers) so why are you whining now?

(01-14-2022, 09:41 PM)boingingjim Wrote: There's literally a video of them glueing themselves to the train.

That's some OJ level of defence lawyering.

And a jury that is likely to be as representative of those on here who seem to be agin the gluers.  What might that tell you about the facts, argument and verdict?

"Whining"? Expressing my discomfort with a legal verdict is not whining and having seen many examples of the harm trains can do to the human body, I'm very uncomfortable with people thinking that it's ok to play on the railway for political purposes.

Also, I am not at all moving the goalposts, you just thought you were talking down to someone who didn't know the meaning of judicial precedent. Your mistake, not mine.
You are whining about the way a UK jury may make a decision yet (so far as I know) you don't know the arguments of either side or why the jury came to its decison.  Neither do I , but it's apparently "uncomfortable".  From a position that appears prima facie guilty, a jury (probably comprised of folk like me and you and blowhard populists and wets) found not guilty.  Yet you are "uncomfortable". Would only a guilty verdict, signed,sealed and delivered have been acceptable from the outset? This is what is seems like.

I would have needed very, very good reason to have found not guilty but I was not at the trial and here we are. I'm not uncomfortable at the verdict.

Trains?  Human body?  I'm lost.  And I'm not talking down to you. You were talking down to us.

"Two climate change activists who sat on the roof of a rush-hour train in east London have been cleared of obstructing a carriage on the railway."

Had those activists fallen from that train, I think they would probably not have walked away happily. I don't think that is a particularly obscure claim.

Your argument seems to hinge on not being able to disagree with a jury. Aside from the fact that this is a discussion board and for people to talk about things, I don't believe that juries are infallible, particularly considering the numerous other issues with our legal system. But apparently that's "whining".
Reply
#23
(01-15-2022, 01:01 AM)Squid Wrote:
(01-15-2022, 12:26 AM)hudds Wrote:
(01-15-2022, 12:16 AM)Squid Wrote:
(01-14-2022, 11:57 PM)hudds Wrote:
(01-14-2022, 10:19 PM)Squid Wrote: Influence is not the same as precedent. Juries are members of the general public and the public are influenced by wider social attitudes and that includes the outcomes of similar jury trials, widely reported in the media (which jurors would therefore be permitted to read and wouldn't be viewed as prejudicial).

There seems to be a growing feeling that people can argue water is not wet as long as it's for the right purposes and I wonder where it lead. For a start it's given ER carte blanche to muck about on the trains. I'm pretty sure that won't end well.
You are moving the goal posts (albeit implicitly).  Now, influence cuts more than one way, as I have suggested above.  If a jury is representative of wide views, yours will have been included (and it seems to be me most Brits are not sympathetic to the gluers) so why are you whining now?

(01-14-2022, 09:41 PM)boingingjim Wrote: There's literally a video of them glueing themselves to the train.

That's some OJ level of defence lawyering.

And a jury that is likely to be as representative of those on here who seem to be agin the gluers.  What might that tell you about the facts, argument and verdict?

"Whining"? Expressing my discomfort with a legal verdict is not whining and having seen many examples of the harm trains can do to the human body, I'm very uncomfortable with people thinking that it's ok to play on the railway for political purposes.

Also, I am not at all moving the goalposts, you just thought you were talking down to someone who didn't know the meaning of judicial precedent. Your mistake, not mine.
You are whining about the way a UK jury may make a decision yet (so far as I know)  you don't know the arguments of either side or why the jury came to its decison.  Neither do I , but it's apparently "uncomfortable".  From a position that appears prima facie guilty, a jury (probably comprised of folk like me and you and blowhard populists and wets) found not guilty.  Yet you are "uncomfortable".  Would  only a guilty verdict, signed,sealed and delivered have been acceptable from the outset?  This is what is seems like.

I would have needed very, very good reason to have found not guilty but I was not at the trial and here we are.  I'm not uncomfortable at the verdict.

Trains?  Human body?  I'm lost.  And I'm not talking down to you. You were talking down to us.

"Two climate change activists who sat on the roof of a rush-hour train in east London have been cleared of obstructing a carriage on the railway."

Had those activists fallen from that train, I think they would probably not have walked away happily. I don't think that is a particularly obscure claim.

Your argument seems to hinge on not being able to disagree with a jury. Aside from the fact that this is a discussion board and for people to talk about things, I don't believe that juries are infallible, particularly considering the numerous other issues with our legal system. But apparently that's "whining".

I'd amended my post above.  FWIW, you seem to object to my disagreeing with you in a message board where we "talk about things" which seems like it's OK to talk but only if we agree (in this case the verdicts ought to have been guilty from the off, apparently).

Anyroad, I ought to be in bed so good night and felicitations
Reply
#24
(01-15-2022, 01:16 AM)hudds Wrote:
(01-15-2022, 01:01 AM)Squid Wrote:
(01-15-2022, 12:26 AM)hudds Wrote:
(01-15-2022, 12:16 AM)Squid Wrote:
(01-14-2022, 11:57 PM)hudds Wrote: You are moving the goal posts (albeit implicitly).  Now, influence cuts more than one way, as I have suggested above.  If a jury is representative of wide views, yours will have been included (and it seems to be me most Brits are not sympathetic to the gluers) so why are you whining now?


And a jury that is likely to be as representative of those on here who seem to be agin the gluers.  What might that tell you about the facts, argument and verdict?

"Whining"? Expressing my discomfort with a legal verdict is not whining and having seen many examples of the harm trains can do to the human body, I'm very uncomfortable with people thinking that it's ok to play on the railway for political purposes.

Also, I am not at all moving the goalposts, you just thought you were talking down to someone who didn't know the meaning of judicial precedent. Your mistake, not mine.
You are whining about the way a UK jury may make a decision yet (so far as I know)  you don't know the arguments of either side or why the jury came to its decison.  Neither do I , but it's apparently "uncomfortable".  From a position that appears prima facie guilty, a jury (probably comprised of folk like me and you and blowhard populists and wets) found not guilty.  Yet you are "uncomfortable".  Would  only a guilty verdict, signed,sealed and delivered have been acceptable from the outset?  This is what is seems like.

I would have needed very, very good reason to have found not guilty but I was not at the trial and here we are.  I'm not uncomfortable at the verdict.

Trains?  Human body?  I'm lost.  And I'm not talking down to you. You were talking down to us.

"Two climate change activists who sat on the roof of a rush-hour train in east London have been cleared of obstructing a carriage on the railway."

Had those activists fallen from that train, I think they would probably not have walked away happily. I don't think that is a particularly obscure claim.

Your argument seems to hinge on not being able to disagree with a jury. Aside from the fact that this is a discussion board and for people to talk about things, I don't believe that juries are infallible, particularly considering the numerous other issues with our legal system. But apparently that's "whining".

I'd amended my post above.  FWIW, you seem to object to my disagreeing with you in a message board where we "talk about things" which seems like it's OK to talk but only if we agree (in this case the verdicts ought to have been guilty from the off, apparently).

Anyroad, I ought to be in bed so good night and felicitations

Disagree all you want, I don't mind being told I'm wrong, but being told repeatedly that I'm "whining" for expressing an opinion is a little different. Good night.
Reply
#25
Are you two awake yet, I was enjoying this.
Reply
#26
Perhaps I shouldn’t but I do ask myself, Will this annoy the likes of Nick Ferrari, Hartley Brewer etc? The answer is clearly yes so we’ll done to the jury Wink
Reply
#27
(01-15-2022, 01:26 AM)Squid Wrote:
(01-15-2022, 01:16 AM)hudds Wrote:
(01-15-2022, 01:01 AM)Squid Wrote:
(01-15-2022, 12:26 AM)hudds Wrote:
(01-15-2022, 12:16 AM)Squid Wrote: "Whining"? Expressing my discomfort with a legal verdict is not whining and having seen many examples of the harm trains can do to the human body, I'm very uncomfortable with people thinking that it's ok to play on the railway for political purposes.

Also, I am not at all moving the goalposts, you just thought you were talking down to someone who didn't know the meaning of judicial precedent. Your mistake, not mine.
You are whining about the way a UK jury may make a decision yet (so far as I know)  you don't know the arguments of either side or why the jury came to its decison.  Neither do I , but it's apparently "uncomfortable".  From a position that appears prima facie guilty, a jury (probably comprised of folk like me and you and blowhard populists and wets) found not guilty.  Yet you are "uncomfortable".  Would  only a guilty verdict, signed,sealed and delivered have been acceptable from the outset?  This is what is seems like.

I would have needed very, very good reason to have found not guilty but I was not at the trial and here we are.  I'm not uncomfortable at the verdict.

Trains?  Human body?  I'm lost.  And I'm not talking down to you. You were talking down to us.

"Two climate change activists who sat on the roof of a rush-hour train in east London have been cleared of obstructing a carriage on the railway."

Had those activists fallen from that train, I think they would probably not have walked away happily. I don't think that is a particularly obscure claim.

Your argument seems to hinge on not being able to disagree with a jury. Aside from the fact that this is a discussion board and for people to talk about things, I don't believe that juries are infallible, particularly considering the numerous other issues with our legal system. But apparently that's "whining".

I'd amended my post above.  FWIW, you seem to object to my disagreeing with you in a message board where we "talk about things" which seems like it's OK to talk but only if we agree (in this case the verdicts ought to have been guilty from the off, apparently).

Anyroad, I ought to be in bed so good night and felicitations

Disagree all you want, I don't mind being told I'm wrong, but being told repeatedly that I'm "whining" for expressing an opinion is a little different. Good night.

Squid, this is a football message board on which opinions may be (usually are) expressed more robustly or intemperately than in a formal forum.  You seem a delicate flower so I am moved to apologize sincerely if you have taken offence.

YPou SNOTGOBLIN LOUse  AH AH AH

(01-15-2022, 08:58 AM)Brentbaggie Wrote: Are you two awake yet, I was enjoying this.

I'm still asleep.  The alarm didn't go off.  Now, pay for your own entertainment.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)