From webstump at ..iark.greenend.org.uk Fri Aug 02 20:35:18 2024 Return-path: To: JNugent73 at ..il.com Subject: Re: Re: Successful failed prosecution References: <9lo6ajd32tbg66brnujage5ed0r9osn3cl@4ax.com> <2at6ajt89gg7oq7fjm3dtetceq66f5qbrp@4ax.com> In-Reply-To: Reply-To: matthewv+ulmtestmod at ..riolis.greenend.org.uk Errors-To: webstump+ulm-bounces at ..iark.greenend.org.uk X-Webstump-Event: [172259986617215] reject abuse Message-Id: From: webstump+ulm-bounces at ..iark.greenend.org.uk Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2024 20:35:18 +0100 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 The post that you submitted to uk.legal.moderated has been rejected by a moderator. Your message appears to the moderator to be abusive or hurtful to another contributor. The group charter and moderation policy can be found at https://uklegal.weebly.com/ Disputed moderation decisions can be discussed in the newsgroup uk.net.news.moderation ============================================ Full text of your message follows > From webstump@chiark.greenend.org.uk Fri Aug 02 12:57:46 2024 > Return-path: > Envelope-to: webstump+?@slimy.greenend.org.uk > Received-SPF: pass (mailhub-cam-d.mythic-beasts.com: domain of uni-berlin.de designates 130.133.4.89 as permitted sender) client-ip=130.133.4.89; envelope-from=mod-submit@uni-berlin.de; helo=outpost5.zedat.fu-berlin.de; > X-STUMP-Warning-0: Next header (DKIM-Signature) truncated! > X-STUMP-Warning-1: Next header (DKIM-Signature) truncated! > X-STUMP-Warning-2: Next header (DKIM-Signature) truncated! > X-STUMP-Warning-3: Next header (DKIM-Signature) truncated! > DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=uni-berlin.de; s=fub01; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:Mime-Version:Reply-To:References:Message-ID:Date:Subject:From:To :Sender:Cc:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help: List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=qXbWtXw3gKFXPQnVo6nVJfjPkZajcT7GBfCDEeRZ4eg=; t=1722599864; x=1723204664; b=Bi040K3vejqMbgs > From: JNugent > Newsgroups: uk.legal.moderated > Subject: Re: Successful failed prosecution > Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2024 12:57:42 +0100 > Organization: Home User > Message-ID: > References: > > > <9lo6ajd32tbg66brnujage5ed0r9osn3cl@4ax.com> > > <2at6ajt89gg7oq7fjm3dtetceq66f5qbrp@4ax.com> > > > > > > > > > > Reply-To: JNugent73@mail.com > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > X-Orig-X-Trace: individual.net 3Qpy84ndsjJXT1su2mz/IgQtulmQ/TKbezgQMiU9fSsqeoB3T8 > Cancel-Lock: sha1:lycqSZsvZavHydeK/PjwUokPHOo= sha256:hIDCBAv+c3sVmLyZWH5BRUORCCDijunBqLyURIhzIoU= > User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1 > Content-Language: en-GB > X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 240802-2, 8/2/2024), Outbound message > X-Antivirus-Status: Clean > X-Originating-IP: 130.133.4.5 > X-ZEDAT-Hint: RO > X-Mythic-Source-External: YES > X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: 31 > X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.2 > Delivered-To: usenet-uk-legal-moderated@usenet.org.uk > X-BlackCat-To: usenet-uk-legal-moderated@usenet.org.uk > X-Mythic-Originator: uid-1081-on-lynx.mythic-beasts.com > X-STUMP-Warning-4: Unfolded headers Received: Received: Received: Received: Received: DKIM-Signature: DKIM-Signature: DKIM-Signature: DKIM-Signature: User-Agent: > > On 02/08/2024 08:45 am, billy bookcase wrote: > > > "JNugent" wrote: > >> On 01/08/2024 04:53 pm, billy bookcase wrote: > >>> "JNugent" wrote in message > >>> news:lh1foeF6fu7U1@mid.individual.net... > >>>> On 01/08/2024 12:10 pm, billy bookcase wrote: > >>>>> "JNugent" wrote: > > >>>>>> No-one is guilty unless they have been convicted. > > > >>>>> But then on that basis you have no real basis for believing *anything* about > >>>>> Jimmy Savile at all, have you ? > > > >>>> Is that important? > >>>> The same applies to David Beckham, Andre Previn and... you. > > > >>>>> As he's never been inside a Court of Law, none of the purported facts about > >>>>> his life have been put to a jury either. > > > >>>> Did he never appear in court, not ever? > > > >>>>> So you have no real basis for believing that he was born in Yorkshire, > >>>>> worked as a Bevin Boy, was a dance hall manager, a professional > >>>>> wrestler, a racing cyclists or even if you never watched much TV that he > >>>>> appeared on Top of The Pops As none of these things were confirmed > >>>>> in a Court of Law either > > > >>>> Do they HAVE to be? > > > >>> Exactly. > > > >>> So why is it that some things about Savile - that on the basis of numerous allegations > >>> its fair to assume he was a sexual predator - you'd only be prepared to believe if he > >>> was found guilty of them in a Court of Law. Whereas with other things presumably, > >>> you'd be prepared to take them on trust ? > > > >> It doesn't matter whether I trust anyone, except to me. And I'm free not to engage with > >> anyone the cut of whose jib I do not like, without any need for explanation of > >> justification. > > > > The premiss is that you're engaging with say a work colleague in a pub > > whose word you trust in such matters. Not whether you'd trust JImmy Savile. > > > Do you believe *everything* said to you in the pub? > > >>>> Not that it matters or has the status of anything but another of your attempts at > >>>> strawmen, but all or most of those matters will be borne out, one way or another, in > >>>> official records at St Katherine's House and HMRC, as well as in the official > >>>> records of various hospitals and the finance department of the BBC. > > > >>> Well no. Because when people are told details about somebody in > >>> the course of everyday conversation, they don't immediately go checking > >>> up on them at St Katherine's House do they ? > > > >> And why is that? > >> Because they couldn't care less. > >> It isn't important. And some people are known to have been 39 for years. I'm prepared > >> to let that glide by. It doesn't disadvantage me. > > > > Whereas believing all the allegations about Jimmy Savile, that he was > > indeed a sexual predator would disadvantage you in what way exactly ? > > > > You seem to have missed the point rather widely. > > It doesn't matter what you think about it. It doesn't matter what I > think about it. > > > Not of course, that you've actually expressed an opinion either way on the > > matter. > > > My opinion is that the law and its administration is the important > deciding factor. > > Someone is guilty only when found guilty by a court. Until then, they're > not. > > Even you must have heard "Innocent until [which should be "unless"] > proven guilty". > > >>> So that if you were in > >>> a pub and a trusted colleague remarked that Jimmy Savile was a > >>> Bevin Boy, you'd be inclined to take that remark on trust, Whereas > >>> if they said that as it turned out he was a sexual predator, presumably > >>> you'd immediately turn round and contradict them, pointing out > >>> that he wasn't found guilty of anything, > > > >>> Spot the difference ? > > > >> Can you spot the difference? > >> What if someone in a pub said that that billy bookcase is a sexual predator? > >> Should I take that on trust as a matter of straightforward fact needing no further > >> proof? > > > Maybe they should lay off the Ikea Catalogues for a bit ? > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEfWu6wfyjzX88oocanSrwpvmn4x4FAmatNPYACgkQnSrwpvmn 4x433wf/c/HVvFe9JXcZnzerl6HfJExqEsUnMAeZ3mo/CwvEvDwqjOluQhwR+d1W nPEgY30fWPEySAOZxE4p0vjY36nzkkW49atoTZaUizx9AsmRwzMa1LPumIAEc6kr CVgNoIY5manabNIAfbCpLpsuIFsVUTNJa5jhoy/GbrfQE9EvGnRmE/gyrJJtebjZ p3c0769HCLS+r0zFa4QmPi1WVtjp5npEiEUsysFU7BtsNGUu6hFWWTtX/kMV9G1n /XbagR9dtXyiS5mU+knZR1aFxW5ERkQz3ydgtm7Wd0Si2iBojKAlRUMojfR9sj9C WVbw5/StEe0Jn+4OsU6K+xztVoXcLw== =DSqM -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----