1.000 Migrants Since Christmas Day
News0 min ago
Collective Resposibility
As some will know, I've been advocating this on here for a long time, finally the penny seems to have dropped. It makes sense, wouldn't you agree?
http://
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Peter Pedant - // AH's points on proof are almost completely wrong
it ISNt dependent on a confession ( since the er successes of the IRA trials ) and certainly shouldnt ONLY depend on a confession //
I never said that any trial is dependent on a confession, or that it shouldn't only be dependent on a confession.
The original premise of the OP is that people should be prosecuted for knowing in advance of a terrorist act, and not reporting it.
My argument is that you cannot prove or disprove that someone knew something - unless they choose to tell the court that they knew - which is less than likely, I am sure you will agree.
Evidence is provable, or disprovable, but evidence is something which can be produced and discussed in court.
Knowing something is not evidence, cannot be produced, and cannot be debated, and that is the only point I am making.
The day has not yet dawned when thinking - and that means thinking anything at all - is illegal. It is not, and there is no sign of that changing.
it ISNt dependent on a confession ( since the er successes of the IRA trials ) and certainly shouldnt ONLY depend on a confession //
I never said that any trial is dependent on a confession, or that it shouldn't only be dependent on a confession.
The original premise of the OP is that people should be prosecuted for knowing in advance of a terrorist act, and not reporting it.
My argument is that you cannot prove or disprove that someone knew something - unless they choose to tell the court that they knew - which is less than likely, I am sure you will agree.
Evidence is provable, or disprovable, but evidence is something which can be produced and discussed in court.
Knowing something is not evidence, cannot be produced, and cannot be debated, and that is the only point I am making.
The day has not yet dawned when thinking - and that means thinking anything at all - is illegal. It is not, and there is no sign of that changing.
//and being their mother or father, or sharing a house is circumstances, not evidence, and not proof.//
completely irrelevant and beside the point - neither does whether they ate celery earlier in the day or they access AB have relevance
as for // Those are separate entities, as I have pointed out in previous posts. //
entia non multiplicanda sunt praeter necessitatem
Occam 1400 or there abouts
( entities should not be multiplied without necessity)
and ..... there is no necessity here [besides the necessity to get out of a tight corner AH has boxed himself into]
Obviously it is my and occamz opinion
But .... there is a little known case that reached the House of Lords - The IRA had infiltrated the DVLC/PNC and were employed as input clerks and their only terrorist duty was to remember the car plate numbers that came up that were flagged as an unmarked police car.
The lawyers had great fun all the way up to the House of Lords on the point - if you looked at a tv screen and clocked the results but made no mark on a paper ( no evidence they had noted anything and they werent saying !) was that a criminal act and did it mean you had clocked up a crime as it then stood.... ?
I think they decided no it wasnt - but there has been statutory revision since then
oh the case that decided that the prosecution / crown / CPS had to prove all elements of a crime ( and not a defence disprove it) is Woolmington v DPP 1935 - mentioned above in a sea of irrelevant comment
is here
http://
just in case anyone is wondering if there is something more substantial to read on a sunday evening rather than the further maunderings of AH around a non-specialist subject
completely irrelevant and beside the point - neither does whether they ate celery earlier in the day or they access AB have relevance
as for // Those are separate entities, as I have pointed out in previous posts. //
entia non multiplicanda sunt praeter necessitatem
Occam 1400 or there abouts
( entities should not be multiplied without necessity)
and ..... there is no necessity here [besides the necessity to get out of a tight corner AH has boxed himself into]
Obviously it is my and occamz opinion
But .... there is a little known case that reached the House of Lords - The IRA had infiltrated the DVLC/PNC and were employed as input clerks and their only terrorist duty was to remember the car plate numbers that came up that were flagged as an unmarked police car.
The lawyers had great fun all the way up to the House of Lords on the point - if you looked at a tv screen and clocked the results but made no mark on a paper ( no evidence they had noted anything and they werent saying !) was that a criminal act and did it mean you had clocked up a crime as it then stood.... ?
I think they decided no it wasnt - but there has been statutory revision since then
oh the case that decided that the prosecution / crown / CPS had to prove all elements of a crime ( and not a defence disprove it) is Woolmington v DPP 1935 - mentioned above in a sea of irrelevant comment
is here
http://
just in case anyone is wondering if there is something more substantial to read on a sunday evening rather than the further maunderings of AH around a non-specialist subject
Andy, my post ‘You are missing the point as usual, Andy. I'll leave you to it, goodnight.’ wouldn’t be classed as patronising. If I had said for example ‘You did very well tonight, Andy, to understand some bits of what was being said.’ that might be considered patronising. I’ll try again to explain the point that I think you are missing.
You wrote earlier in the thread ‘Khandro appears to be suggesting that simply 'knowing and not saying' should be an offence, and as I and others have pointed out, that is a fatuous concept.’ However, in the same post you had already said what evidence you consider would be needed to convict someone of knowing and not saying. Therefore, like me and others on here, you are accepting that knowing and not saying should be an offence, you are just clarifying what evidence you think necessary for conviction.
You wrote earlier in the thread ‘Khandro appears to be suggesting that simply 'knowing and not saying' should be an offence, and as I and others have pointed out, that is a fatuous concept.’ However, in the same post you had already said what evidence you consider would be needed to convict someone of knowing and not saying. Therefore, like me and others on here, you are accepting that knowing and not saying should be an offence, you are just clarifying what evidence you think necessary for conviction.
// Evidence is provable, or disprovable, but evidence is something which can be produced and discussed in court. //
noop
this argument is full of non sequiturs...
evidence is collected and collated and considered
the evidence produced in court is NOT the only evidence
blah blah blha
evidence NOT produced in court may STILL have to be disclosed to the defence who may or may not use it
to a certain extent thsi disucussion hinges on
evidence is a word that means what I want it to mean (AH)
or
evidence is a word defined in books on criminal procedure and it is much much better if we use the word as others have as then the discussion is comprehensible
noop
this argument is full of non sequiturs...
evidence is collected and collated and considered
the evidence produced in court is NOT the only evidence
blah blah blha
evidence NOT produced in court may STILL have to be disclosed to the defence who may or may not use it
to a certain extent thsi disucussion hinges on
evidence is a word that means what I want it to mean (AH)
or
evidence is a word defined in books on criminal procedure and it is much much better if we use the word as others have as then the discussion is comprehensible
// I gave up reading his self-righteous, virtuous-signalling posts long ago.// khandro
but he has just read one in order to erm refute it !
so Khandro has given up reading my posts and has just read one at the same time
o god normal night on AB !
This equates with another usual suspect exclaiming "dont read this thread!" - excuse me you have to read it before you come across the injunction 'don't read ...'
but he has just read one in order to erm refute it !
so Khandro has given up reading my posts and has just read one at the same time
o god normal night on AB !
This equates with another usual suspect exclaiming "dont read this thread!" - excuse me you have to read it before you come across the injunction 'don't read ...'
PP I was not referring to your posts, I was referring to the 'self-righteous, virtue-signalling' posts of andy-hughes, which I no longer bother to read.
and while I'm here; Cloverjo, the correct procedure for a teacher suspecting that a child was suffering abuse is to report the fact to the headteacher, it is then incumbent on him/her to deal with the situation, so of course you don't prosecute all the teachers in the school.
and while I'm here; Cloverjo, the correct procedure for a teacher suspecting that a child was suffering abuse is to report the fact to the headteacher, it is then incumbent on him/her to deal with the situation, so of course you don't prosecute all the teachers in the school.
Khandro - //and while I'm here; Cloverjo, the correct procedure for a teacher suspecting that a child was suffering abuse is to report the fact to the headteacher, it is then incumbent on him/her to deal with the situation, so of course you don't prosecute all the teachers in the school. //
Absolutely it is incumbent on the teacher to report suspected abuse.
But according to your premise, we should prosecute a teacher who 'knew' abuse was going on, but did not report it.
Quite how you would prove that the teacher 'knew' and failed to act is the entire thrust of my argument against your Thought Police policy - you cannot prove what someone 'knew' or 'did not know' - because up to date, mind-reading is not accepted in a court of law.
Absolutely it is incumbent on the teacher to report suspected abuse.
But according to your premise, we should prosecute a teacher who 'knew' abuse was going on, but did not report it.
Quite how you would prove that the teacher 'knew' and failed to act is the entire thrust of my argument against your Thought Police policy - you cannot prove what someone 'knew' or 'did not know' - because up to date, mind-reading is not accepted in a court of law.
Spicerack - //'Terrorists already hate the West - let's give them seriously good cause to carry on.'
Yes, let's not annoy them, Andy. Goodness knows what they might do. //
Sarcasm does not invalidate my point.
I would be looking for ways to reduce terrorist activities, not simply provoke more because I don't want to look to myself as though I am soft.
That is now how problem-solving actually works.
With terrorism, the Steve Irwin approach is not helpful - 'This seriously poisonous snake is really nasty and aggressive, but that happens if you wake it up and poke it with a stick ... so let's wake it up and poke it with a stick!!!'
Yes, let's not annoy them, Andy. Goodness knows what they might do. //
Sarcasm does not invalidate my point.
I would be looking for ways to reduce terrorist activities, not simply provoke more because I don't want to look to myself as though I am soft.
That is now how problem-solving actually works.
With terrorism, the Steve Irwin approach is not helpful - 'This seriously poisonous snake is really nasty and aggressive, but that happens if you wake it up and poke it with a stick ... so let's wake it up and poke it with a stick!!!'
Latest Posts
ChatterBank3 mins ago
News3 mins ago
Home & Garden4 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
ChatterBank14 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.