Do the honest punters believe the clown is a tw@t?

And do you think that broke the law?

He doesn't answer direct questions about Trump being a rapist or a pedo.

I read half a dozen of his posts and blocked him.

As I said I quite enjoy him making a fool of himself.

The Dershowitz link sounds like a nothing burger, and I have not heard of any indictments since that video was done. I wouldn't worry about it too much unless there's an indictment. He was Epsteins lawyer at one time.

You can't speak the truth without being blocked by the feeble minded.

Jun 2, 2024 -- 9:05PM, Charlie wrote:

And do you think that broke the law?

You gonna answer?

If it was true it would be. Is that supposed to be a gotcha question?

You agreed he was found guilty of sexual abuse now surely you must admit that was against the law?

He was found liable in a civil case. If he did what he was accused of that would be illegal but I don't believe Carroll's story. It's the fishiest story in history. She couldn't remember which year it happened.

Make your mind up was he guilty of sexual abuse or not? Try running away from the question and you'll make yourself look even more foolish.

How about you think about it.

I am not running away from anything. I have not been inconsistent in what I have said. I believe there are too many cases against Trump in election year for it to be anything other than election interference. It is very obvious and blatant election interference so don't expect me to take any of these cases seriously. If you want to believe these lawfare cases have any merit that's your opinion but I do not find them credible.

The judge pointed out that the only aspect of sexual assault
was in fact rape, so he's been found guilty of rape.

This is child like stuff.



So child like it's simple, the act described in the sexual abuse charge that he was found guilty of is an act of rape.

What part do you need to wobble yer heed for?

It wasn't up to the judge to decide what he was guilty of, it was up to the jury and the jury explicity did not find him liable for rape.

Jun 2, 2024 -- 9:36PM, Ronaldmcdonald wrote:

It wasn't up to the judge to decide what he was guilty of, it was up to the jury and the jury explicity did not find him liable for rape.

Is it true that the rape law used is tighter than what the more modern rape laws are or what people would often understand as rape?

The jury found him guilty of an act of sexual assault
that is rape. The judge helped clarify the law.

It's quite simple

Trump is a rapist

Not really and it's a lawfare case anyway which means none of it is credible. What people understand as rape is a different thing to what was alleged in the carroll case. The questions the jury had to answer were was he libel for defamation, and was he liable for sexual abuse. If they wanted they could have asked the jury if he was liable for rape, but they were not asked that question. They jury decided whether he was liable on those issues not the judge.

I don't know what you mean about the rape law edy. The jury weren't asked to decide if he was liable for rape. But the bar is lower for civil cases than criminal cases.

If he had not raped her there would be no case

If he hadn't fiddled the payment to stormy daniels
that would never have gone to court.

The other cases arising and pending are due to
things he has done...

He's a felon and a rapist

Rape law is what is defined as rape by ....the law. Like, this can differ between e.g. strictly forced vaginal penetration with the penis, but it could also encompass a lot of additional circumstances. The law obviously matters when it comes to whether someone is technically a rapist under a specific jurisdiction, no doubt. Beyond that, however, there is what we as common people morally judge and understand as rape.

Let's imagine a scenario, Ronald.

There are some countries with bad rape laws out there. In quite a few of them marital rape is not a thing. You cannot rape your wife in those countries. Now, we know of a man in one of those countries that forcefully penetrates his wife. Legally and technically, that man is of course not a rapist in his specific jurisdiction. Should we align our moral judgement with that and not consider him a rapist?

Or can, or even should, we understand him as a rapist as his act covers a common understanding of what rape is?

You can consider him a rapist if you like that's up to you. I don't because I think all these cases which are being brought against Trump in the election year are election interference and not to be taken seriously.
If you look at the fact that there are 2 civil cases and 4 criminal cases right before the election no rational person would come to the conclusion that any of them are legitimate.

I didn't ask about Trump. So if you were so nice to answer....

Or did you mean to say you would not consider the man in my scenario a rapist even though you then talked about Trump in the same sentence?

In common law countries Edy there is usually a difference between civil and criminal cases.

The standard of evidence required for a criminal rape case would be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

The standard of evidence required for a civil rape case would be proven beyond the balance of probabilities.

For instance a guy called David Goodwillie was found not guilty in a criminal case then found liable for rape in a civil case.

Thanks, but what post or point of mine is that meant to address, Shrewd_dude?

He's a rapist, same as trump.

But that's not the point of law that judge pointed out.



Here's sky calling him a rapist

https://news.sky.com/story/david-goodwillie-rapist-footballer-says-he-is-an-innocent-man-over-civil-court-ruling-12924237

..

The importance of corroboration is unique to Scots criminal law.[1] A long-standing feature of Scots law, the requirement for corroborating evidence means at least two independent sources of evidence are required in support of each crucial fact before an accused can be convicted of a crime.[2] This means, for example, that an admission of guilt by the accused is insufficient evidence to convict in Scotland, because that evidence needs to be corroborated by another source.

What a lame country.

Sorry, Scotch, but that is lame.

The one where you supposed on rape law in different countries

Why is it lame?

I see. I guess it does add value and additional information to the general topic and discussion even if the distinction of the level of evidence needed in a criminal versus civil case is iirelevant for my post. Still, it's appreciated, so thank you!

Jun 2, 2024 -- 10:22PM, Shrewd_dude wrote:

Why is it lame?

If someone makes a sound and reasonable admission of a crime, then one should be able to judge that person on that.

If he said he done it, it can be corroborated by finger prints
or dna evidence left at the scene...

On a German true crime podcast there was murder on a cruise ship discussed. Obviously, if you throw someone over board, there's a good chance that it looks like an accident. Or nobody will be able to prove otherwise anyway. What evidence is there meant to be in most of those cases? Now, if the perpetrator cannot live with his guilt and wants to be sentenced for it, then let that person please go to prison.

Or would it count as corrobative evidence that you were on the ship at the time you say you threw someone overboard?

It's part circumstantial evidence to be near the crime scene

The CCTV would be a possible

As would an eye witness

Or if you kept a souvenir

Or filmed it on your phone

Ok, so the threshold for corrobative evidence seems to be lower than I imagined.

So do you think you should be prosecuted and potentially convicted on the basis of me saying you punched or touched me?

There are people who confess to crimes they have
not committed, either because they are
that way inclined, or to claim a crime to
allow the guilty party to go free.

So do you think you should be prosecuted and potentially convicted on the basis of me saying you punched or touched me?

I saw edy do it, and picked him out of a line up, as I've seen his image on here,

So yes we can prosecute, even in Scotland.

A decent brief will get edy off, and us two locked up...

Edy will testify on his own behalf, as he knows
he is innocent, and can account for his whereabouts
and didn't offer £130,000 to buy our silence

After you asked why it is lame I specifically made sure to point out in my answer, and in a following post as well, that someone should be able to be judged on an admission of guilt. Why you now come out whether I should be prosecuted and potentially convincted on the sole basis of you saying that I punched you is a bit of a different topic.

To clarify:

You telling police that you punched me -> the judicial system should principally be able to sentence you if they believe your story makes sense and e.g. I cannot be asked to confirm.
You telling police that I punched you -> there should be an investigation. If there is no further evidence, but only our contradicting statements, then it's Aussage vs. Aussage. Principally, a conviction should still be possible, but depending on the crime and potential sentence the trust and distrust in accused and accuser would probably have to be very, very well established.

Is the corrobation as an absolute must under all circumstances a thing in England and the other parts of the UK too? That wikipedia paste said "The importance of corroboration is unique to Scots criminal law."

So you have presented another scenario and said that that is corroboration?

What point are you trying to make?

Sorry, what are you referring to specifically there?

Do you know, yhtl, Ronald?

Never heard of him before he came on this forum.

Not "Do you know yhtl, Ronald?". I sought to ask both you, Ronald, and yhtl if you knew and understood what Shrewd_dude was referring to with his latest post.

What do you think he is saying?

I think he's trying to deflect away from, or to understand, the train of the discussion because he hasn't quite followed the hypotheticals, and logic.

I am completely puzzled here really. I wouldn't even know what other scenario I am meant to have presented and said about that scenario that that is corroboration.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

His point of law was different to the point of law
in trump case. And from that point...

At least I seem to not be the only one having a bit of trouble making sense of your latest post, Shrewd_dude.

....So can you please clarify and specify, Shrewd_dude? What's the other scenario I presented and said that that is corroboration?

Corroboration is a safeguard against a person being convicted solely on the evidence of a single witness.

I asked you a question whether you thought it was lame that a person could be convicted on the basis of what a sole witness has said and your response related to the scenario where a person admits they are guilty which you already told me you thought was lame.

If you think corroboration is lame solely because an admission of guilt isnt enough to prosecute someone then I'm sure you will take reassurance from the chances of a person admitting there guilt to a crime and there being no other evidence being highly unlikely.

Shrewd_dude • June 3, 2024 8:28 PM BST
Corroboration is a safeguard against a person being convicted solely on the evidence of a single witness.

I asked you a question whether you thought it was lame that a person could be convicted on the basis of what a sole witness has said and your response related to the scenario where a person admits they are guilty which you already told me you thought was lame.

If you think corroboration is lame solely because an admission of guilt isnt enough to prosecute someone then I'm sure you will take reassurance from the chances of a person admitting there guilt to a crime and there being no other evidence being highly unlikely.

That is very much inaccurate. Please be more careful in reading the post of others or if you read them carefully, be more careful in presenting them at least with a remote sense of accuracy. You asked me

Shrewd_dude • June 2, 2024 10:35 PM BST
So do you think you should be prosecuted and potentially convicted on the basis of me saying you punched or touched me?

In my reply I indeed again referenced what I had previously said about the admission of guilt, but I also picked up and answered regarding your scenario of Aussage vs. Aussage, the beginning marked in bold below.

edy • June 2, 2024 10:45 PM BST
After you asked why it is lame I specifically made sure to point out in my answer, and in a following post as well, that someone should be able to be judged on an admission of guilt. Why you now come out whether I should be prosecuted and potentially convincted on the sole basis of you saying that I punched you is a bit of a different topic.

To clarify:

You telling police that you punched me -> the judicial system should principally be able to sentence you if they believe your story makes sense and e.g. I cannot be asked to confirm.
You telling police that I punched you -> there should be an investigation. If there is no further evidence, but only our contradicting statements, then it's Aussage vs. Aussage. Principally, a conviction should still be possible, but depending on the crime and potential sentence the trust and distrust in accused and accuser would probably have to be very, very well established.

Well thankfully we had great figures during the enlightenment to bring in these legal safeguards.

Safeguard fine and good, but I asked earlier

edy • June 2, 2024 10:47 PM BST
Is the corrobation as an absolute must under all circumstances a thing in England and the other parts of the UK too? That wikipedia paste said "The importance of corroboration is unique to Scots criminal law."

If it's level of importance is as unique to Scottish criminal law as it sounds, then I am likely not all that alone in my stance.

If the level of importance

Well it's been around longer than your country has existed so I'd suggest it works quite well as a facet of the legal system.

So well they have reviewed it, and recommend it is scrapped...

Pretty sure the general principles of the legal system German has adopted have also been able to stick around for a bit of time by now, preceding the foundation of the Bundesrepublik.

Germany

So well they have reviewed it, and recommend it is scrapped...

And 13 years later it hasn't been.

And...

It hasn't been scrapped and highly likely won't be.

Funnily enough if it was the Tories trying to remove century old legal safeguards you'd probably have a daily thread up about it.

Lol, you are so thick, and bitter it makes me chuckle.

Dummy spat.

Put it back in, and take the chip off yer shoulder.

Pick up yer toys, put em back in pram.

lets be honest here
if you met tw4ts like charlie in the street
you would avoid them..so block him

if you met geriatrics like lfc waving a union jack
in the street you would listen and laugh
maybe take the pi55

if you met me we would go to the nearest pub
and i would buy you a pint
thats the irish mentality and respect for you

I really don't know why anyone replies to the clown you all know his threads are banal and biased. Just ignore him.

it's bizarre how much traction his trolling gets on here.

lol ,charlie and escaped .. natural born bullies

If you don’t wish to partake of the thread that’s fine ..

bye

Only one clown on here
Keeps posting straight after me ......

t's bizarre how much traction his trolling gets on here.

This forum is made up of 4 or 5 right-wing trolls and a load of left-wing fish.

People like Dr C, irishone, lfc etc etc must be pissing their sides

Have you considered the possibility that you sir, are the troll?

Ronald is not a right wing troll.

He is a leftist cosplaying as and parodying the dumbest, most NPC alt cringer he can imagine.

Ronald is not a right wing troll.

I wouldn't know. I read 2 of his posts and stuck him on my blocked list with all the other idiots like irishone & lfc.

It's really a badge of honour to be blocked by leftards.

Lovely to just ignore noblet

Doesn’t stop him stalking you and announcing he’s blocked you over and over again - and ?

Neediness is never a good look

The clown now denying he's a MAGA even though he starts numerous threads a day worshiping him. Not so much a clown as a cnt.

Talking of stalkers ^^^^

There's no reasoning with TDS victims, they can't get past orange man bad. They seem to think anyone who doesn't agree with their baseless smears must be MAGA. It's the same kind of people who say if you don't agree with me about Ukraine you are Putin apologist. It's completely feeble minded and it's very sad. These are not well informed punters, like some of the cleverer lads on here. It's 100% guaranteed these TDS victims like Charlie and Mexico are the people who lose the most money on here, because they don't care if they are badly informed.

The complete tw@t speaks yet agian.

I am so blessed with all these highly intelligent arguments from a TDS victims today.

Spoken like a true tw@t.

How much have you lost this year?

...baseless smears...

Convicted rapist, convicted felon, 65 photos in court evidence with pedo epstein, 26 outstanding court cases related to rape and sexual abuse, 57 outstanding felony charges, attempted coup.
and 100's of other scuzzi incidents.

baseless smears???

Yes baseless he's not a convicted rapist. How much have you lost on here?

Ronaldmcdonald • June 14, 2024 9:10 PM BST
There's no reasoning with TDS victims, they can't get past orange man bad. They seem to think anyone who doesn't agree with their baseless smears must be MAGA. It's the same kind of people who say if you don't agree with me about Ukraine you are Putin apologist. It's completely feeble minded and it's very sad. These are not well informed punters, like some of the cleverer lads on here. It's 100% guaranteed these TDS victims like Charlie and Mexico are the people who lose the most money on here, because they don't care if they are badly informed.

Ronaldmcdonald • June 14, 2024 2:15 PM BST
Something to do with palestine


Ronaldmcdonald • June 14, 2024 2:20 PM BST
Don't ask me I don't anything about palestine.

I am not claiming to know about palestine and I am not betting on it.

How much have you won on here?

Jun 14, 2024 -- 10:39PM, Ronaldmcdonald wrote:

I am not claiming to know about palestine and I am not betting on it.

But you don't care to showcase smears towards Biden based on being badly informed.

You can't get past Catholic Man Bad and don't even care to inform yourself regarding the basis for your smears.

Aren't you interested to know how much these TDS losers have lost? They must have lost fortunes with their cavalier attitude to information. No serious punter underestimates the importance of reliable information.

No, I have never been so massively insecure enough with myself to be interested in the winnings or losses of anyone at all on here.

I've never asked you about your winnings or losses either even though you evidently allow yourself to carry out badly informed biases regarding Biden.

And even though you prefer reading disinforming twitter headlines instead of informing yourself, doing your own research, regarding the actual words of Ukrainian generals.