Scum?
High Court Rules...
- Thread starter Odds
- Start date
-
- Tags
- palestine protests
Scum?
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2025
- Messages
- 374
- Reaction score
- 26
- Country
Errr, supporters of Israel ethnic cleansing?
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 26,340
- Reaction score
- 6,051
- Country
I think nosenout thinks I'm frightened to list them for fear of defamation. Fortunately it's another legal concept he knows nothing about.
I'm not listing them and their crimes because it would take hours.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2025
- Messages
- 374
- Reaction score
- 26
- Country
...of you searching for something that might resemble some names that would take anyone else some more hours to refute your claim.
The defendants admitted intentionally damaging the equipment and the property. Therefore, following the judge's directions below, they should have been found guilty. I am happy that, applying the law, this makes their actions criminal. Obviously, they weren't convicted. But that was a political, not a legal decision by the jury.
'Count 2: Criminal damage (all defendants)
2.1 Are you sure that property in Elbit’s premises was intentionally destroyed or damaged by one or more of the defendants?
If no: Verdict on count 2 is “not guilty.” Do not consider count 2 further.
If yes: Go to question 2.2.
2.2 Are you sure that the defendant either personally destroyed or damaged property, or encouraged or assisted another person to do so, intending that property be destroyed or damaged)?
If no: Verdict on count 2 is “not guilty.” Do not consider count 2 further.
If yes: Verdict on count 2 is “guilty.” Do not consider count 2 further'
'Count 2: Criminal damage (all defendants)
2.1 Are you sure that property in Elbit’s premises was intentionally destroyed or damaged by one or more of the defendants?
If no: Verdict on count 2 is “not guilty.” Do not consider count 2 further.
If yes: Go to question 2.2.
2.2 Are you sure that the defendant either personally destroyed or damaged property, or encouraged or assisted another person to do so, intending that property be destroyed or damaged)?
If no: Verdict on count 2 is “not guilty.” Do not consider count 2 further.
If yes: Verdict on count 2 is “guilty.” Do not consider count 2 further'
Therefore they are not criminals because the court system says so...
Glad you agree at last
Regardless of the reasons, they weren't found guilty in a court of law...
Which means they are not criminals, and that's all.
Do you not agree with the principle of having the right to a fair trial and to be judged by your peers?
Of course.
But I also agree with being allowed to analyse and discuss a verdict and decide whether it had a rational legal basis or whether it was perverse.
- Joined
- 7 Nov 2023
- Messages
- 16,123
- Reaction score
- 9,774
- Country
and he would still call you a liar regardless.
What terrorist act did PA perpetrate? Damaged RAF aircraft? The alleged sledge hammer incident? They are criminal acts with more than enough common law remedies. They should never have been proscribed.
You can have an opinion, but when it comes down to it this is how our legal system works...
I would suggest that those who claim that those not convicted of a crime are still criminals is a 'perverse' viewpoint!
Take that to the extreme and then why bother having trials at all?
Something that is often used as an argument against the legal systems of 'third world' countries and calling them 'uncivilised'!
Perverse verdict is grounds for appeal by the alleged crim or the government.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 26,340
- Reaction score
- 6,051
- Country
Criminals
belonging to a criminal organisation committing criminal acts. I could understand the argument if they’d been acquitted of all charges.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 26,340
- Reaction score
- 6,051
- Country
I agree - just a bunch of loonies who need locking up for committing.serious crimes.
You are throwing in a lot of straw men.
This is how I would break it down:
The defendants admitted that they intentionally damaged the property.
The judge instructed the jury that these actions met the standard for the crime of criminal damage.
The judge instructed the jury that the defendants had no legal defence under English law.
However, the jury failed to reach a verdict. We need to look logically at the possible reasons why this happened.
Presumably, the jury accepted the defendants' admissions that they carried out those actions.
Presumably, the jury accepted the judge's guidance that none of the defences they put forward were legal under English law.
So, the only logical conclusion is that the jury must have based their decision on matters that had no legal basis.
