BBC exposes BNP

[Solly]

Well I note you're avoiding making any predictions relating to the actual issue of those being questioned, despite apparently having letters after your name that ought to provide you with the means to.

[Whaleboy]

He doesn't need to. Critically speaking, the burden of proof is on you, and Laz is perfectly free to refute them. Nonetheless, I find his logic to be generally flawless, even his justifications of censorship with which I disagree (different logic) and yours less so. *toilet break*

[Solly]

"Critically speaking, the burden of proof is on you"

Individuals are innocent till proven guilty, so that's idiotic.

[Whaleboy]

They are innocent before proven guilty because the proposition of guilt is not being made by them, and so it is the prosecution that have the burden of proof. Surely that's more than obvious?

[Solly]

Whaleboy; how the conversation went.

PA: The law isn't easy to predict in cases like this

LatG: Apparent refutation, but of course he didn't put his balls on the line and say it outright (so insinuation: law is easy to predict)

PA: Questions what the outcome will be, given the refutation of my above comment

LatG: Sidesteps question and insult.

So where you get that a "burden of proof" rests with me I don't know. You could try explaining in Plain English.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Let's take the case of the young activist. He claimed to have kicked the Asian unconscious "because he was there and asking for it". He later repeated his claim, going on to elaborate on how he went on kicking the man as he was on the ground. This was independently backed up by Police evidence.

What basis do I have to call that man a liar?

[Solly]

Let's take the case of the young activist. He claimed to have kicked the Asian unconscious "because he was there and asking for it". He later repeated his claim, going on to elaborate on how he went on kicking the man as he was on the ground. This was independently backed up by Police evidence.

What basis do I have to call that man a liar?

The basis that he was trying to impress someone he thought was racist and so whom would be impressed by his tale, perhaps.

Will he repeat the story to the police in a statement that we know i) isn't co-erced, and ii) isn't under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs?

And if the police already had independent evidence, where was the arrest/questioning already?

[Whaleboy]

PA: The law isn't easy to predict in cases like this

You have to prove.

LatG: Apparent refutation, but of course he didn't put his balls on the line and say it outright (so insinuation: law is easy to predict)

Insinuation is irrelevant. The apparent refutation appeared fine to me. Any other thoughts?

LatG: Sidesteps question and insult.

Yours was hardly critical material

So where you get that a "burden of proof" rests with me I don't know. You could try explaining in Plain English.

If you have a problem with words in the 3-5 syllable range, I could buy you a set of flash-cards if you wish? Nonetheless, if you need some help:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=justification

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=censorship

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=proposition

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=logic

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=idiot

[Solly]

"You have to prove."

How on earth can I prove that!

The only proving that can be done is by proving that the law can be predicted - and hence make an accurate claim regarding the likely punishment that will be handed out. I can't predict it, that's for sure. If someone can, feel free.

[Whaleboy]

If you want me to be pedantic, see Maslow's hierarchy of needs, something you should have been familiar with from your degree. Also see the difference in and between intent and consequence.

Your proposition was that the law is essentially unpredictable, to whatever degree you also have to show. But generally, you need to provide premises, reasoning and a conclusion as to why the law is unpredictable, the proposition of such does not critically obligate your opponents to find contrary examples, merely reasoning to refute you.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Park Avenue


The basis that he was trying to impress someone he thought was racist and so whom would be impressed by his tale, perhaps.

Will he repeat the story to the police in a statement that we know i) isn't co-erced, and ii) isn't under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs?

And if the police already had independent evidence, where was the arrest/questioning already?

Earlier in this thread you admitted having shaky memory about the documentary. Allow me to refresh your memory- he had already been questioned by the police about it. Due to the photographs, etc.

Incidentally, when you've a spare afternoon, try looking up the legal basis for the presumption of innocence in English criminal law. The results may surprise you.

[Solly]

Earlier in this thread you admitted having shaky memory about the documentary. Allow me to refresh your memory- he had already been questioned by the police about it. Due to the photographs, etc.

Even so, I'm wondering with your superior background, why you can't seem to state what will happen with this chap. I mean, you make it seem so open-and-shut, shall we say.

[Whaleboy]

There is nothing illiberal about wanting to stop the immigration of illiberal masses of people.

If you mean liberal in the classical sense of cultural relativism, we cannot ascribe liberalism to any external cultures, merely exercise our own liberalism and use it as an egocentric cultural description. Outside they merely "are", without such notions attached.

[Ramo]

Liberal ideas are fundamentally about being tolerant towards those with differing beliefs. As such, excluding those with differing beliefs entirely from your country is antithetical to liberalism.

[Provost Harrison]

Stew - look at it this way - the evidence is compelling against him: a taped confession to committing the act corroborated with police evidence and events. I can't see there is much he can pull off against that. What do you think a jury will think? Bear in mind they are unlikely to be remotely sympathetic to the BNP 'cause'.