Discussion of the UK Government
:sunglasses: 47.9 % ❤ 2.3 % :thumbsup: 12.1 % 😯 5.5 % :grinning: 22.1 % 🧥 1.4 % 🙏 2.1 % 😟 0.7 % :cry: 5.5 % :shit: 0.5 %
By davidjay
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
youngian wrote:
Sun Aug 02, 2020 11:19 pm
Another failure for the government’s crisis management skills is the politest take I can think of.
To use crisis management skills you have to consider yourself in a crisis, and this lot clearly don't. They're above the law, they flout the conventions of any decent democratic government. They don't deny, or excuse, or bluster, because they haven't done anything wrong. They're in power, therefore they take whatever they want, whether that be money, possessions or people.
youngian liked this
By Timbo
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
Hi all - I've just had to do a little spring cleaning of posts hinting at the identity of the suspect. Let's all bear in mind that people are innocent until proven guilty, and Tories have libel lawyers, please!
By Cyclist
Membership Days Posts
I wasn't correcting you Malc. You hit submit a split second before I did.

Going on the actual words, why is it known as the presumption of innocence if the accused is not actually presumed to be innocent?

The English language is sometimes a crazy thing.
By Malcolm Armsteen
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
Didn't think you were correcting!
To presume means to reach a judgement. To consider means to make no decision - yet. Without prejudice, literally. I've no idea what happened to the original wording, that slithery slide of meaning that so infuriates Abers - but in this case he's right.
Cyclist liked this
By Abernathy
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
Ahem. A pedant (for whom this has long been an intolerable personal bug bear) writes again. The principle on which the English judicial system relies, is, indeed, the "presumption of innocence" - either, as Malcolm points out, until the confirmation of the presumption via the due consideration of evidence, or its rejection in favour of a confirmation of guilt via the same process.


The problem that I have with the phrase "innocent until proved guilty" is that it is a logical fallacy. One is EITHER innocent, OR one is guilty. The two states are mutually exclusive. One cannot simultaneously be both, or be one, then subsequently be transformed somehow into the other. Even if one is presumed to be innocent, that presumption is provisional, and one is guilty (and ONLY guilty) in actuality when that guilt is confirmed via the judicial process.
oboogie liked this
By Cyclist
Membership Days Posts
Ok, I'll buy it. Which letter needs adding/ changing/removing to change that tweet to Rees-Mogg turning a blind eye? I've read the tweet several times and I cannot for the life of me see how to change its meaning by amending one letter.
By Cyclist
Membership Days Posts
I do wish people would just say what they mean rather than making cryptic posts for the readers to work out. It's not meant to be a fucking guessing game.

Oh, and that one letter change only really works if you believe there is such a thing as legal rape.
  • 1
  • 410
  • 411
  • 412
  • 413
  • 414
  • 461
Sir Keir Starmer

Hard right tax cutters don’t let defici[…]


US election 2020

I don’t have high expectations of the Trum[…]

The Tories, Generally