|
|
Post by martin44 on Apr 10, 2023 21:30:54 GMT
My favourite news outlet.... Aljazeera? i doubt it. 
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2023 21:33:22 GMT
Why?
Which got me wondering about the Guardian
I've only read it twice. In 1978 and again in 2011. I thought I ought to give it a second chance. But no, not my sort of paper at all.
So why you think I read the Guardian? You might be confused by the two largest news web sites in the UK if not the English speaking world being the Mail and the Guardian and frankly, who in their right mind would quote the mail?
But generally I suspect I quote Kyiv Independent, Bellingcat and the BBC more than the Guardian.
Aljazeera is my favourite, after the Economist.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2023 7:35:02 GMT
Just for the record, I consider myself to be pretty right wing but I expect politicians to be competent, not xenophobic, misogynistic, racist and sufficiently well educated to deal with civil servants.
Growing up I almost left the country as Wilson and Heath had just about destroyed the country. Luckily for me along came Mrs T with her strong views on the climate, the unions and privatisation.
Since then we have had too many leaders who think education is an non-issue (or the worst that it is an issue but no drive, no drive, no drive to solve it), that monopoly authorities are best left to the market (duh) and that asking the incumbant in an industry how to develop it is a good thing.
Why you think I would read the Guardian.....................
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Apr 11, 2023 7:57:33 GMT
Just for the record, I consider myself to be pretty right wing but I expect politicians to be competent, not xenophobic, misogynistic, racist and sufficiently well educated to deal with civil servants.
Growing up I almost left the country as Wilson and Heath had just about destroyed the country. Luckily for me along came Mrs T with her strong views on the climate, the unions and privatisation.
Since then we have had too many leaders who think education is an non-issue (or the worst that it is an issue but no drive, no drive, no drive to solve it), that monopoly authorities are best left to the market (duh) and that asking the incumbant in an industry how to develop it is a good thing.
Why you think I would read the Guardian.....................
+1 Though given where the mainstream 'right wing' appears to have currently shifted to I'm not sure I still use that tag in polite company.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2023 8:14:24 GMT
+1 Though given where the mainstream 'right wing' appears to have currently shifted to I'm not sure I still use that tag in polite company. Oh what Brexit and the Brexit party has done to the Conservative party is beyond words. Like a fungal infection with their co-infection the ERG they brought stupidity where there was once competence, while the party's election process has gone downhill bringing the "clown" and the "dunce" to power. Even now the "adult" is surrounded by children.
While Labour was fighting off Corbynism and its fellow travellers, the Conservatives never got a vaccine.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2023 10:51:04 GMT
Just to close out what the Jury has to swear
"Do you solemnly, sincerely and truly affirm and declare that you will conscientiously try the charges against the Defendant, and you will decide them according to the evidence. You will also not disclose anything about the Jury's deliberation other than as required by law"
Conscientiously
in a thorough and responsible way.
"he applied himself conscientiously to his profession"
in a way that is motivated by one's moral sense of right and wrong.
"he could not conscientiously take the oath"
Now if a judge bans some things from evidence. How do you resolve your moral sense of right and wrong. The thing is the whole thing, not just the bit you like.
I'm not sure we want to join the list of countries where protesters start holding up blank sheets of paper.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2023 6:50:39 GMT
These LTNs are too much :-)
|
|
keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 2,624
|
Post by keitha on Apr 14, 2023 9:42:56 GMT
Just to close out what the Jury has to swear "Do you solemnly, sincerely and truly affirm and declare that you will conscientiously try the charges against the Defendant, and you will decide them according to the evidence. You will also not disclose anything about the Jury's deliberation other than as required by law" Conscientiously
in a thorough and responsible way.
"he applied himself conscientiously to his profession" in a way that is motivated by one's moral sense of right and wrong.
"he could not conscientiously take the oath" Now if a judge bans some things from evidence. How do you resolve your moral sense of right and wrong.
The thing is the whole thing, not just the bit you like. Judges are allowed to exclude information being given to the jury, rather than evidence, so in a trial for criminal damage a judge instruct the defendants not to speak about doing it because of climate change etc. if it comes down to "I did it because...." then I would suggest many shoplifters could say "I did it because I had no food in the house, and I have no money because my benefits have been stopped" and honestly as a bit of a softy I'd probably vote to acquit on the grounds they needed to do it. Ditto many of the people done for not paying council tax or TV licence they don't pay because they can't afford to, but they have still committed the offence. One that always used to amuse me was Ladies of negotiable affectation, being fined in court, for pitys sake it's the only way some of them have of making money, fining them means they have to go do it to pay the fines.
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,385
Likes: 2,784
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Apr 14, 2023 14:17:15 GMT
Just to close out what the Jury has to swear "Do you solemnly, sincerely and truly affirm and declare that you will conscientiously try the charges against the Defendant, and you will decide them according to the evidence. You will also not disclose anything about the Jury's deliberation other than as required by law" Conscientiously
in a thorough and responsible way.
"he applied himself conscientiously to his profession" in a way that is motivated by one's moral sense of right and wrong.
"he could not conscientiously take the oath" Now if a judge bans some things from evidence. How do you resolve your moral sense of right and wrong.
The thing is the whole thing, not just the bit you like. Judges are allowed to exclude information being given to the jury, rather than evidence, so in a trial for criminal damage a judge instruct the defendants not to speak about doing it because of climate change etc. if it comes down to "I did it because...." then I would suggest many shoplifters could say "I did it because I had no food in the house, and I have no money because my benefits have been stopped" and honestly as a bit of a softy I'd probably vote to acquit on the grounds they needed to do it. Ditto many of the people done for not paying council tax or TV licence they don't pay because they can't afford to, but they have still committed the offence. One that always used to amuse me was Ladies of negotiable affectation, being fined in court, for pitys sake it's the only way some of them have of making money, fining them means they have to go do it to pay the fines. Doesn't why they did whatever it was they did, come in as mitigation to sentence, they are actually guilty but reasons can be taken into account in the sentencing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2023 14:28:32 GMT
Just to close out what the Jury has to swear "Do you solemnly, sincerely and truly affirm and declare that you will conscientiously try the charges against the Defendant, and you will decide them according to the evidence. You will also not disclose anything about the Jury's deliberation other than as required by law" Conscientiously
in a thorough and responsible way.
"he applied himself conscientiously to his profession" in a way that is motivated by one's moral sense of right and wrong.
"he could not conscientiously take the oath" Now if a judge bans some things from evidence. How do you resolve your moral sense of right and wrong.
The thing is the whole thing, not just the bit you like. Judges are allowed to exclude information being given to the jury, rather than evidence, so in a trial for criminal damage a judge instruct the defendants not to speak about doing it because of climate change etc. if it comes down to "I did it because...." then I would suggest many shoplifters could say "I did it because I had no food in the house, and I have no money because my benefits have been stopped" and honestly as a bit of a softy I'd probably vote to acquit on the grounds they needed to do it. Ditto many of the people done for not paying council tax or TV licence they don't pay because they can't afford to, but they have still committed the offence. One that always used to amuse me was Ladies of negotiable affectation, being fined in court, for pitys sake it's the only way some of them have of making money, fining them means they have to go do it to pay the fines. The question of judges excluding evidence is an interesting one. They do not have carte-blanche and the removal of that piece of evidence has to be evidence itself.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2023 14:29:37 GMT
Judges are allowed to exclude information being given to the jury, rather than evidence, so in a trial for criminal damage a judge instruct the defendants not to speak about doing it because of climate change etc. if it comes down to "I did it because...." then I would suggest many shoplifters could say "I did it because I had no food in the house, and I have no money because my benefits have been stopped" and honestly as a bit of a softy I'd probably vote to acquit on the grounds they needed to do it. Ditto many of the people done for not paying council tax or TV licence they don't pay because they can't afford to, but they have still committed the offence. One that always used to amuse me was Ladies of negotiable affectation, being fined in court, for pitys sake it's the only way some of them have of making money, fining them means they have to go do it to pay the fines. Doesn't why they did whatever it was they did, come in as mitigation to sentence, they are actually guilty but reasons can be taken into account in the sentencing. In a logical world that might be true. But no.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2023 11:29:09 GMT
It's April. Water company asks customers to not flush after a wee
Meanwhile in Florida, it's raining.....rain, hallelujah
anyone who isn't doing everything they can to wean themselves off carbon is a fool
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Apr 15, 2023 12:03:50 GMT
It's April. Water company asks customers to not flush after a wee
To be fair, the head of Thames Water isn't asking that because we have a shortage of rain in April. It was a non-seasonal comment about the unsustainability of Britain's water usage. Which as I recall, on a per person basis is noticeably higher than say our european colleagues. Personally, for many years I have worked on the principle of "if its yellow let it mellow, if its brown flush it down".
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2023 7:23:46 GMT
I've been off grid in the last 24 hours. This looks great.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,333 
Likes: 11,552
|
Post by ilmoro on Apr 21, 2023 22:37:58 GMT
Just Stop Oil shocked by jail sentences handed out to guilty protesters - normal people amazed that Courts have actually punished lawbreakers
|
|
