Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I have multiple identities so that I can fight with myself!
:shock:
@panda12 wrote:
If the husband wants his wife to wear a ring then so should he.
Totally agree. What’s to hide? I take mine off if I am doing something dangerous (i.e. at risk of getting it caught like when out on a boat) and keep it round my neck under my shirt.
Doesn’t stop people having affairs but at least people are being honest.
@terry wrote:
@sceptical guy wrote:
on my right corner…telboy, armed with his native wit, nativist politics and a Nikon..
on my left corner – a panda, armed with her acerbic wit, social anger and a refusal to admit defeat on the last word..
ladies and gentlemen, let the match begin, and try not to let your thirst for blood become too apparent, please
and amir khan, eat your heat out and retire from that dreadful game while you still have some sense
Message board rows are not for me. I’d rather quit posting than waste my time battling it out with JC’s heavyweight bruiser.
When did you turn over that leaf Terry?
:lol:
I suggest begging the moderators to close the thread, just after I’ve had the last word !
:lol:
@terry wrote:
Jen
There was a 10-year period (when Tony Blair was PM) that 4,000 new laws and regulations were introduced onto the statute books. That averages out to at least one new law per day.
Any law introduced by Labour compelling you to give evidence against your will isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on. My son was asked to give evidence against somebody in a court case. He refused and that was the end of it. He wasn’t fined or imprisoned.
If you don’t give evidence, then you can be held in contempt of court. It was obviously decided not to do that in your son’s case, but even the most casual check on any internet search engine will bring up a number of cases in UK courts each year. Even the accused’s silence is taken into account where a reasonable defence is not mounted.
These laws are in place in most, if not all, western democracies and have been for many years. It being a free country has nothing to do with it. In any case I thought democracy was about obeying the rule of law of upheld by the democratically elected government, not picking and choosing.
Interestingly enough, these cases are dealt with under the Criminal Justice Act 1994, which updated previous legislation, according to the Crown Prosecution Service (see their website).
Are you now more inclined to go along with the law now that the most up to date version of it was passed by the Conservative party?
:?
Mmmmmm.
Would like to use F2 again. More sophisticated than F1 and less cliquey than F3. At least you could turn up, be friendly and get something other than abuse (well you got a bit of abuse as well!)
8)
@mrs_teapot wrote:
Having an email will not deter people having multiple identities… those are the dangerous people. The ones who create themselves friends to back themselves up and mislead others…scary people.
I have imaginary friends to…
…meet sock puppet one and sock puppet two.
My dog is also on JC, bless her.
8)
Hate to mention it, guys and gals, but it aint over yet.
The level of proof required in a court of law for a guilty verdict in this offence was not reached.
The FA enquiry however now restarts where he faces a number of charges including bringing the game into disrepute and ungentlemanly conduct. They suspended their enquiry when the legal case started but have chosen to restart it now that the legal case is over.
More sleepless nights scep.
:wink:
End of the week…..
……..end of the thread.
I fear not.
:lol:
@terry wrote:
John Terry has been acquitted.
Oooeeerr. I’m sure the judge was reading this thread and that informed his decision!
It would appear that Terry did actually say the words but said that he was quoting them rather than directing them at Ferdinand as abuse. As such Terry claimed to be responding to an accusation from Ferdinand that he [Terry] had just abused him [Ferdinand] using those very words – something he denied.
So basically the judge reckoned that it was possible that the whole thing was a misunderstanding (or possibly an accusation from Ferdinand about Terry being a racist, specifically to wind Terry up.) Given the serious nature of the case, and the potential effect on Terry’s public standing, this reasonable doubt meant Terry had to be found not guilty.
Defence evidence from a number of witnesses that Terry was not a racist was described by the judge as being unchallenged, but did not affect his decision in law.
I for one am pleased for English football and John Terry himself that the judge mentioned the unchallenged nature of the evidence that he was not a racist. From a judge in a case where there was considerable doubt over what actually happened, that is almost a vote of confidence.
Well thank goodness that’s all cleared up then.
:shock: :? :lol:
Excerpt from judges ruling
The Crown say that Mr Terry responded [to a fist pumping gesture by Ferdinand accompanied by abuse] by aiming the words “f*** off, f*** off, yeah, yeah and you f***ing black c***, f***ing k**bhead”, and possibly one or more other words, at Mr Ferdinand.
The defendant does not deny that he used the words, “f*** off, f*** off”, “f***ing black c***” or “f***ing k**bhead”. His case is that his words were not uttered by way of abuse or insult nor were they intended to be abusive or insulting.
He says they were used after a perceived false accusation made by Mr Ferdinand, the accusation being to the effect that the defendant had used the term “black c***” during their exchanges with each other. [The defence do not say whether Mr Ferdinand actually believed the defendant had used that expression or merely made the accusation in order to elicit a reaction.] Alternatively the case advanced on the defendant’s behalf is that although Mr Terry genuinely believes that Mr Ferdinand made a false allegation against him, nevertheless this could be a misunderstanding.
“The prosecution evidence as to what was said by Mr Ferdinand at this point is not strong.
“It is therefore possible that what he [Mr Terry] said was not intended as an insult, but rather as a challenge to what he believed had been said to him.“In those circumstances, there being a doubt, the only verdict the court can record is one of not guilty.”
