Conflict Resolotion 101 - Rebels style

Nice try, but wrong. Ever heard of innocent until proven guilty? ...
therefore it follows that a "not guilty" verdict means you remain
"innocent". Verdicts are given "guilty" or "not guilty" because it is
an accusation of guilt which is being judged. It's not rocket surgery.

Nev..
'07 XB12X
'08 DL1000K8

 

Ahhh... the spinmeister's back...

No Peter... I said nothing about making any law retrospective.


=================

Onya bike

Gerry

 

I have always thought that our "not guilty" verdicts had the same
meaning as "unproven". Seems Iain thinks "not guilty" is the same
"didn't do it."

=================

Onya bike

Gerry

 

There's a bit of debate on that one,

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/b...onsultations/ReformOfVerdictsConsultation.pdf

Bill

 

Nev, pay attention: Just because a court has found someone "not
guilty" it does not ABSOLUTELY follow that the person did not do the
crime. It just means they won on points in a game called "the legal
process".

In case you haven't figured it out yet, the legal process is a game.
If the cops want to win this game, they have to build very strong
cases. When they go to court with weak cases, often, the professional
obfuscators (called defense lawyers) succeed in confusing a jury into
finding the guilty bastard not guilty. It does not mean he was
innocent. It just means he won the game.

Now **** off, idiot...

=================

Onya bike

Gerry

 

Except when he is.

 

You are in favour of RICO laws though, are you not?

 

So whats your point? Using those rules, regardless of the verdict, a
person is never really guilty or not guilty or innocent of anything
because the verdict merely decides a winner and a loser. Is that what
you're trying to establish? If so well done, but you're still wrong on
the innocent bit. Refer to presumption of innocence above.

Nev..
'07 XB12X
'08 DL1000K8

 

nor the contrary , can you explain how to be certain ?

It just means they won on points in a game called "the legal

bullshite , it's much more complicated including the probably had some
$ to buy a defence or a lotta luck

nor does it mean he was guilty

It just means he won the game.
that's a terribly simplistic belief and disappointing in the extreme
are you really this thicke ?

there you go again , this comment makes you the loser again and again
and again (sop)

 

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Boxer

 

**** off with the abuse shitforbrains

My bad - so we just make new laws to make what people are doing now illegal.

I guess our pollies like to do that all the time, but what's wrong with
simply charging them with existing laws which they are already presumably
breaking, as has been said earlier and often. Hell, even Al Capone went
away under existing laws....

P

 

Well said

I always had a baffle too...at least 1/2 a baffle!

Otherwise it is just toooo loud.

 

Mmmmm????...who is this registrar of OMCG then??

If one is 'registered' one is not 'Outlaw'???

 

Ok, we'll just use the existing anti-terror laws then... G,d,r.


=================

Onya bike

Gerry

 

Misquoting and misinterpretation are the only tools you've got left?


=================

Onya bike

Gerry

 

"When you get in an argument with a group of outlaw motorcyclists, you
can generally count your chances of emerging unmaimed by the number of
heavy-handed allies you can muster in the time it takes to smash a
beer bottle."

Friends of yours?

=================

Onya bike

Gerry

 

I can well imagine!

I didn't bother to read the reference, since I have high hopes of never
having to attend a Scottish Court again.

The "not proven" verdict was _extremely_ rare, forty years ago, yet it
was of some value, IMHO.

It certainly wouldn't fit in with the present legal games.

regards,
CrazyCam

 

Point out the misquote. I stand by my interpretation too.

 

Because outlaw motorcycle gangs aren't the people that the state
government and cops want to target with these laws. If they don't
need new laws to target outlaw motorcycle gangs, then obviously the
new laws are intended to target someone else.

 

Both [1] and [2] above.

A correct quote/interpretation of what I've been saying would have
gone like this:

[1] Gerry rages against people who threaten violence or do actual
violence to those who imitate the Outlaw general sartorial style (as
distinct from their actual colours)

[2] Gerry judges groups on their behaviour and reputation. The
Ulysses or Hog groups do not have a reputation for thuggery or
stand-over tactics, therefore, no amount of "rockers" or "patches"
would change Gerry's preception of these groups.

You're a wanker, Doug.

=================

Onya bike

Gerry