Nothing In Particular

Subjects that don't have their own home
User avatar
Ray P
No idea why I do this anymore
Posts: 6294
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2007 5:18 pm
Location: Somerset

#13756 Re: Nothing In Particular

Post by Ray P »

andrew Ivimey wrote: Thu Jan 13, 2022 7:04 pm It's interesting that Prince Andrew is guilty until proved innocent ( or not)...
They're just protecting the brand.
Sorry, I couldn't resist!
Daniel Quinn
Old Hand
Posts: 859
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2017 9:19 am

#13757 Re: Nothing In Particular

Post by Daniel Quinn »

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
User avatar
pre65
Amstrad Tower of Power
Posts: 21373
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: North Essex/Suffolk border.

#13758 Re: Nothing In Particular

Post by pre65 »

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
Dennis, you, of all people, should only rely on EVIDENCE in a court of law to form a verdict.
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)
User avatar
Greg
Social outcast
Posts: 3198
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 11:14 am
Location: Bristol, UK

#13759 Re: Nothing In Particular

Post by Greg »

pre65 wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 10:44 am
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
Dennis, you, of all people, should only rely on EVIDENCE in a court of law to form a verdict.
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.
Daniel Quinn
Old Hand
Posts: 859
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2017 9:19 am

#13760 Re: Nothing In Particular

Post by Daniel Quinn »

pre65 wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 10:44 am
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
Dennis, you, of all people, should only rely on EVIDENCE in a court of law to form a verdict.
Look I can tolerate you responding to all my posts , but stop responding with irrelevant clap trap.

What the rule of law as got to do with peoples perception of Andrew I’ve no idea.
User avatar
Nick
Site Admin
Posts: 15706
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 10:20 am
Location: West Yorkshire

#13761 Re: Nothing In Particular

Post by Nick »

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.
Whenever an honest man discovers that he's mistaken, he will either cease to be mistaken or he will cease to be honest.
User avatar
pre65
Amstrad Tower of Power
Posts: 21373
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: North Essex/Suffolk border.

#13762 Re: Nothing In Particular

Post by pre65 »

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.
The key word is "evidence".

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)
Daniel Quinn
Old Hand
Posts: 859
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2017 9:19 am

#13763 Re: Nothing In Particular

Post by Daniel Quinn »

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
User avatar
Nick
Site Admin
Posts: 15706
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 10:20 am
Location: West Yorkshire

#13764 Re: Nothing In Particular

Post by Nick »

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
Yes, I was replying to Phils post not yours.
Whenever an honest man discovers that he's mistaken, he will either cease to be mistaken or he will cease to be honest.
User avatar
Nick
Site Admin
Posts: 15706
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 10:20 am
Location: West Yorkshire

#13765 Re: Nothing In Particular

Post by Nick »

pre65 wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 12:18 pm
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.
The key word is "evidence".

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.
Yes, that's because those claims are extraordinary so they will require verifiable evidence if they are to be believed.

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.
User avatar
pre65
Amstrad Tower of Power
Posts: 21373
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: North Essex/Suffolk border.

#13766 Re: Nothing In Particular

Post by pre65 »

Nick wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 1:42 pm
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.
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)
User avatar
Ray P
No idea why I do this anymore
Posts: 6294
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2007 5:18 pm
Location: Somerset

#13767 Re: Nothing In Particular

Post by Ray P »

pre65 wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 10:44 am Dennis, you, of all people, should only rely on EVIDENCE in a court of law to form a verdict.
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!
User avatar
Ray P
No idea why I do this anymore
Posts: 6294
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2007 5:18 pm
Location: Somerset

#13768 Re: Nothing In Particular

Post by Ray P »

pre65 wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 4:27 pm
Nick wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 1:42 pm
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.
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.
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!
User avatar
pre65
Amstrad Tower of Power
Posts: 21373
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: North Essex/Suffolk border.

#13769 Re: Nothing In Particular

Post by pre65 »

Ray P wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 7:25 pm Whoops, should have read the other posts first!
:lol:
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)
User avatar
pre65
Amstrad Tower of Power
Posts: 21373
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: North Essex/Suffolk border.

#13770 Re: Nothing In Particular

Post by pre65 »

Ray P wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 7:31 pm
No Phil, you seem more interested in respondin do Mr. Quinn's posts - you don't do yourself any favours by treating Daniel's (Dennis - what should we call you?) posts as a sort of click bait.
Click bait ?

Certainly not.

I choose when I want to respond, or not. Depends how bored I am at the time. :lol:
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)
Post Reply