They're just protecting the brand.andrew Ivimey wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 7:04 pm It's interesting that Prince Andrew is guilty until proved innocent ( or not)...
Nothing In Particular
#13756 Re: Nothing In Particular
Sorry, I couldn't resist!
-
- Old Hand
- Posts: 860
- Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2017 9:19 am
#13757 Re: Nothing In Particular
Everything Andrew does suggests he’s guilty . This is over a prolonged period. You cannot therefore blame the media and social sites if they operate under that assumption
- pre65
- Amstrad Tower of Power
- Posts: 21400
- Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 11:13 pm
- Location: North Essex/Suffolk border.
#13758 Re: Nothing In Particular
Dennis, you, of all people, should only rely on EVIDENCE in a court of law to form a verdict.Daniel Quinn wrote: ↑Fri Jan 14, 2022 9:50 am Everything Andrew does suggests he’s guilty . This is over a prolonged period. You cannot therefore blame the media and social sites if they operate under that assumption
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
Edmund Burke
G-Popz THE easy listening connoisseur. (Philip)
Edmund Burke
G-Popz THE easy listening connoisseur. (Philip)
#13759 Re: Nothing In Particular
Nope, DQ is right. It is a civil law case where the ‘balance of probability’ is the test. The criminal standard of ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’ does not apply here.pre65 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 14, 2022 10:44 amDennis, you, of all people, should only rely on EVIDENCE in a court of law to form a verdict.Daniel Quinn wrote: ↑Fri Jan 14, 2022 9:50 am Everything Andrew does suggests he’s guilty . This is over a prolonged period. You cannot therefore blame the media and social sites if they operate under that assumption
-
- Old Hand
- Posts: 860
- Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2017 9:19 am
#13760 Re: Nothing In Particular
Look I can tolerate you responding to all my posts , but stop responding with irrelevant clap trap.pre65 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 14, 2022 10:44 amDennis, you, of all people, should only rely on EVIDENCE in a court of law to form a verdict.Daniel Quinn wrote: ↑Fri Jan 14, 2022 9:50 am Everything Andrew does suggests he’s guilty . This is over a prolonged period. You cannot therefore blame the media and social sites if they operate under that assumption
What the rule of law as got to do with peoples perception of Andrew I’ve no idea.
#13761 Re: Nothing In Particular
Yes, that's the point I think. A verdict is not the same as an opinion. I can have many opinions and I can act on those opinions but they are not all based on the same amount of evidence.
If you were to claim to have seen a unicorn, I would require a lot more evidence to believe that it was true than if you claimed to have seen a red squirrel.
If you were to claim to have seen a unicorn, I would require a lot more evidence to believe that it was true than if you claimed to have seen a red squirrel.
Whenever an honest man discovers that he's mistaken, he will either cease to be mistaken or he will cease to be honest.
- pre65
- Amstrad Tower of Power
- Posts: 21400
- Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 11:13 pm
- Location: North Essex/Suffolk border.
#13762 Re: Nothing In Particular
The key word is "evidence".Nick wrote: ↑Fri Jan 14, 2022 11:54 am Yes, that's the point I think. A verdict is not the same as an opinion. I can have many opinions and I can act on those opinions but they are not all based on the same amount of evidence.
If you were to claim to have seen a unicorn, I would require a lot more evidence to believe that it was true than if you claimed to have seen a red squirrel.
Claims to have seen a unicorn, aliens, or the Loch Ness monster are not based on "evidence", and any evidence put forward is 99.99% fraudulent.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
Edmund Burke
G-Popz THE easy listening connoisseur. (Philip)
Edmund Burke
G-Popz THE easy listening connoisseur. (Philip)
-
- Old Hand
- Posts: 860
- Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2017 9:19 am
#13763 Re: Nothing In Particular
I made no conclusions about the validity of their opinions , I merely said in acting guilty you can’t blame commentators for assuming he’s guilty
That’s all I said
That’s all I said
#13764 Re: Nothing In Particular
Yes, I was replying to Phils post not yours.Daniel Quinn wrote: ↑Fri Jan 14, 2022 12:33 pm I made no conclusions about the validity of their opinions , I merely said in acting guilty you can’t blame commentators for assuming he’s guilty
That’s all I said
Whenever an honest man discovers that he's mistaken, he will either cease to be mistaken or he will cease to be honest.
#13765 Re: Nothing In Particular
Yes, that's because those claims are extraordinary so they will require verifiable evidence if they are to be believed.pre65 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 14, 2022 12:18 pmThe key word is "evidence".Nick wrote: ↑Fri Jan 14, 2022 11:54 am Yes, that's the point I think. A verdict is not the same as an opinion. I can have many opinions and I can act on those opinions but they are not all based on the same amount of evidence.
If you were to claim to have seen a unicorn, I would require a lot more evidence to believe that it was true than if you claimed to have seen a red squirrel.
Claims to have seen a unicorn, aliens, or the Loch Ness monster are not based on "evidence", and any evidence put forward is 99.99% fraudulent.
However in the case here we have someone who was known to be a acquaintance with two people who are convicted sex offenders, and are known to have provided girls to their wealthy friends. The person in question is wealthy, and there is documented photographic evidence that they were in contact with such a girl. The girl claimed that sex occurred and when questioned the person has provided a strange at best set of excuses for why its didn't occur.
It would seem reasonable to me that it would require a much lower threshold of evidence than a unicorn for us to believe these claims.
Whenever an honest man discovers that he's mistaken, he will either cease to be mistaken or he will cease to be honest.
- pre65
- Amstrad Tower of Power
- Posts: 21400
- Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 11:13 pm
- Location: North Essex/Suffolk border.
#13766 Re: Nothing In Particular
I accept that.
To be honest what happens in this particular case (Andrew) is not high on my list of things to be interested in.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
Edmund Burke
G-Popz THE easy listening connoisseur. (Philip)
Edmund Burke
G-Popz THE easy listening connoisseur. (Philip)
#13767 Re: Nothing In Particular
Phil instead of responding to Mr. Quinns post's with an auto-response you should read them - he said that Andrew's actions suggest he is guilty and anyway, it's not a 'court of law' situation as its' a civil case so the burden of proof is lower.
Whoops, should have read the other posts first!
Sorry, I couldn't resist!
#13768 Re: Nothing In Particular
No Phil, you seem more interested in responding to Mr. Quinn's posts - you don't do yourself any favours by treating his posts as a sort of click bait.
Last edited by Ray P on Fri Jan 14, 2022 7:32 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Sorry, I couldn't resist!
- pre65
- Amstrad Tower of Power
- Posts: 21400
- Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 11:13 pm
- Location: North Essex/Suffolk border.
#13769 Re: Nothing In Particular
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
Edmund Burke
G-Popz THE easy listening connoisseur. (Philip)
Edmund Burke
G-Popz THE easy listening connoisseur. (Philip)
- pre65
- Amstrad Tower of Power
- Posts: 21400
- Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 11:13 pm
- Location: North Essex/Suffolk border.
#13770 Re: Nothing In Particular
Click bait ?
Certainly not.
I choose when I want to respond, or not. Depends how bored I am at the time.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
Edmund Burke
G-Popz THE easy listening connoisseur. (Philip)
Edmund Burke
G-Popz THE easy listening connoisseur. (Philip)