General News Thread

[leicsmac]

16 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Yeh I know you won't agree with it, it was more that whatever the reason - we do it well. 

Nah, no angle here, just making a statement that agrees with yours - like you said, whatever the reason we do it well. 

[bovril]

Rebel citizens protest visitor of Emperor to otherwise loyal satrapy.

[leicsmac]

12 minutes ago, bovril said:

Rebel citizens protest visitor of Emperor to otherwise loyal satrapy.

Pretty sure there's a Star Wars/Andor joke in there somewhere. 

[Trav Le Bleu]

26 minutes ago, bovril said:

Rebel citizens protest visitor of Emperor to otherwise loyal satrapy.

 

 

 

[Trav Le Bleu]

32 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Nah, no angle here, just making a statement that agrees with yours - like you said, whatever the reason we do it well. 

Over a thousand years of practice, unlike these upstart nations with no history.

[Super_horns]

Quite a change to the Scottish legal system .

For the better ?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy8rndyyp7vo

[Bellend Sebastian]

2 hours ago, bovril said:

Rebel citizens protest visitor of Emperor to otherwise loyal satrapy.

Yes, big crowd, looks about 10-12 billion people at a guess

[Trav Le Bleu]

36 minutes ago, Super_horns said:

Quite a change to the Scottish legal system .

For the better ?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy8rndyyp7vo

Interesting, isn't it?

 

I have sat at on a jury years ago and one of the cases was very much one person's word against the other's, so you couldn't prove anything really. I was heavily not guilty, with no real proof (innocent until proven), but some on the jury wanted the other way.

 

The "not proven" verdict would have been useful for this case 

[Parafox]

6 hours ago, Tommy G said:

My surprise 

Quelle

[Jattdogg]

The whole royal BS sucking Trump off has irritated me to no end as a Canadian. Think it is time we question the point of the commonwealth and leave. Not sure what purpose it serves if Charles is just going to lick our crack one day and then suck Trumps without a moral compass in his being.

 

We are past egos at this stage it just looks pathetic and Trump is laughing about it in your face and ours.  We just need to fight back against Trump as best we can without relying on someone who has essentially no say.

 

 

 

 

 

[Free Falling Foxes]

7 minutes ago, Jattdogg said:

The whole royal BS sucking Trump off has irritated me to no end as a Canadian. Think it is time we question the point of the commonwealth and leave. Not sure what purpose it serves if Charles is just going to lick our crack one day and then suck Trumps without a moral compass in his being.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Careful now.

 

You want to leave.

Trump wants Canada.

Trump is having a chat with your Head of State as we speak. 

[Jattdogg]

1 minute ago, Free Falling Foxes said:

Careful now.

 

You want to leave.

Trump wants Canada.

Trump is having a chat with your Head of State as we speak. 

Charles asking him not to release the epstein files for Canada as a trade lol.

[Parafox]

32 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Interesting, isn't it?

 

I have sat at on a jury years ago and one of the cases was very much one person's word against the other's, so you couldn't prove anything really. I was heavily not guilty, with no real proof (innocent until proven), but some on the jury wanted the other way.

 

The "not proven" verdict would have been useful for this case 

"Its supporters argue that it reduces the risk of wrongful conviction – but critics say the verdict is confusing and fails to provide closure for victims".

 

Is the closure for victims more important than a wrongful conviction? What if the person on trial was wrongly convicted and sentenced, and then several years later pardoned. How would that affect closure?

 

If it's not proven then there's surely an element of doubt, but then could the judge decide on the balance of probabilities? 

 

Could that still result in a wrongful conviction? Potentially, I suppose.

 

 

[Parafox]

20 minutes ago, Jattdogg said:

Think it is time we question the point of the commonwealth and leave. Not sure what purpose it serves

 

Maybe you need to assess the benefits of being part of the Commonwealth?

[Wymsey]

7 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

Someone has to draw a line under these legal challenges.  

But it's 'human rights' etc..

[Trav Le Bleu]

25 minutes ago, Parafox said:

"Its supporters argue that it reduces the risk of wrongful conviction – but critics say the verdict is confusing and fails to provide closure for victims".

 

Is the closure for victims more important than a wrongful conviction? What if the person on trial was wrongly convicted and sentenced, and then several years later pardoned. How would that affect closure?

 

If it's not proven then there's surely an element of doubt, but then could the judge decide on the balance of probabilities? 

 

Could that still result in a wrongful conviction? Potentially, I suppose.

 

 

Personally I would think that if a case cannot be satisfactorily proven, then you are obliged to give a not guilty verdict. This is just applying logic of course and we know how that works out for a lot of people.

[Parafox]

7 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

Someone has to draw a line under these legal challenges.  

 

21 minutes ago, Wymsey said:

But it's 'human rights' etc..

 

And there's the rub.

 

The challenges are legal. Until they go through a lengthy process of bringing about a change in the law through Parliament to make them illegal, which is never going to happen.

[Parafox]

20 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Personally I would think that if a case cannot be satisfactorily proven, then you are obliged to give a not guilty verdict. This is just applying logic of course and we know how that works out for a lot of people.

 

This makes sense and I hadn't really thought about that aspect having read the article. Proven beyond all reasonable doubt is the only way. I understand now why the Scottish "not proven" is faulty and why that would not give closure. 

 

That said, the Timothy Evans case shows how flawed the system can be even though that was decades ago and I accept things have moved on.

 

Edit: also why I cannot ever support the death penalty

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 17 September 2025 by Parafox

[Jattdogg]

14 minutes ago, Parafox said:

 

Maybe you need to assess the benefits of being part of the Commonwealth?

I mean we could become a banana republic but non of this will happen as it always opens up 800000 Pandora boxes. 

 

Just get annoyed with the silly posturing and boot licking.  Grow a pair and backbone!

 

 

[Trav Le Bleu]

1 hour ago, Jattdogg said:

I mean we could become a banana republic but non of this will happen as it always opens up 800000 Pandora boxes. 

 

Just get annoyed with the silly posturing and boot licking.  Grow a pair and backbone!

 

 

Unfortunately centuries of aristocratic inbreeding make this unlikely.

[Jattdogg]

Just now, Trav Le Bleu said:

Unfortunately centuries of aristocratic inbreeding make this unlikely.

Sadly, I hear you.

[bovril]

Yeah I'm quite pro monarchy but I'm not sure there's much point to it if you're rolling out the red carpet for someone who threatened to annex a country where you're head of state 

[Parafox]

Watching the sycophantic welcome to trump on the news and I'm sickened.

Why all that opulence and grandeur and so many at a feast. It's disgusting and shows us the country as simple lapdogs and further reinforces trumps psychopathic traits.

I'm disappointed that this country has bent to the knee of a paranoid narcissitic psychopath. I get the need for US/UK diplomacy but it doesn't need to be so ott. 

I know Trump must have absolutely loved it. And that makes me feel worse about it all.

Edited 17 September 2025 by Parafox

[Parafox]

It's like giving a big bully your lunch in the hope they'll stop because you show you're scared of them

[Parafox]

Now watched Newsnight and maybe there is an underlying tactic in the sycophantic tone