Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Here it comes: Syria

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Here it comes: Syria

Old 12th Apr 2018, 11:49
  #2141 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: over the rainbow
Age: 70
Posts: 562
The test in the criminal law is "the jury must be sure of guilt".

I am sure the Russian State was involved in the poisoning of the Skripals, just as i am sure it was involved in the murder of Litvinenko.

Percentages do not come into it. Either one is sure or one is not.

The tenor of your posts on this issue suggest you are not sure.
roving is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2018, 11:53
  #2142 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,633
Originally Posted by BEagle View Post
glad rag, any 'evidence' must be beyond any doubt whatsoever. That Novichok was used in Salisbury might have been confirmed by Porton Down specialists, but where is the smoking gun of state involvement?

Quite plausible that 'someone' obtained the substance without the knowledge of the Russian state, but why on earth Russia hasn't been allowed to become involved in the investigation? I listen to the bluster from that bag of wind who is allegedly our Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs with despair and haven't trusted a single utterance from him ever since his flawed propaganda at the time of the 2016 plebiscite.

If someone uses something as a weapon, you need 100% proof before considering action. That's the same whether the weapon is stolen nerve agent, a barrel of bleach or whatever.

If Mother MayDay denies MPs a vote after having presented whatever evidence she claims to have, she must face a vote of no confidence.


Prove that the nerve agent was stolen then.
glad rag is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2018, 12:00
  #2143 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Ban Chiang,Thailand
Age: 62
Posts: 147
Originally Posted by Heathrow Harry View Post
"“We have planes on the tarmac in Akrotiri,” a Whitehall source said. “We are ready.”...."

If I was Assad I 'd tell the Govt of Cyprus that any strike from Akrotiri would mean Syria would retaliate - and there might well be collateral casualties in the local population...

Not only would it murder the tourist trade it would almost certainly stir up calls to close the bases........... and I don't think we really want that do we??
If Assad was to launch a strike against Cyprus, it will be one of his last acts on Earth.

Then this conflict could spread and the end game could involve nuclear weapons.
Thaihawk is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2018, 12:07
  #2144 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Baston
Posts: 1,637
Originally Posted by glad rag View Post
Prove that the nerve agent was stolen then.
Quite.

Motive? tick
Means? tick
Opportunity? tick

Either Russia did the Novichok job, or allowed some other agency to do it.

The creeping normalisation of such means must be stopped.

Syria is yet another example.
langleybaston is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2018, 12:29
  #2145 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: over the rainbow
Age: 70
Posts: 562
It appears that the Russian and US military are talking. Perhaps like the North Koreans, they do not want to call Trump's bluff.

Meanwhile the Telegraph posts

Boris Johnson has said the the Kremlin “must give answers” after an international watchdog confirmed that Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia were poisoned with a "high purity" strain of Novichok nerve agent in Salisbury.

The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons said that it had been able to “confirm” the findings of British scientists about the nerve agent.

It represents a significant boost to Theresa May, who has said that Russia was directly responsible for the attack. Mr Johnson said that only Russia has the “means, motive and record” to have carried out the attack.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...chok-chemical/
roving is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2018, 12:43
  #2146 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Moscow region
Age: 61
Posts: 515
Originally Posted by roving View Post
It appears that the Russian and US military are talking. Perhaps like the North Koreans, they do not want to call Trump's bluff.

Meanwhile the Telegraph posts

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...chok-chemical/





Porton Down experts can't say anythingabout the origin of the nerve agent (if any)

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/03/porton-down-experts-unable-to-verify-precise-source-of-novichok

And who is that strange guy (the one that does not have a hair comb ) to make conclusions? A Nobel prize chemistry scientist? Just a populist.

The same about the lady who studied geography at the university and then worked in the banking sector.


Looks like they soon will start talking about jet fighters and missiles :-)
A_Van is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2018, 12:48
  #2147 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: over the rainbow
Age: 70
Posts: 562
This seems to fit the bill.

The duck test is a form of abductive reasoning. This is its usual expression:

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

The test implies that a person can identify an unknown subject by observing that subject's habitual characteristics. It is sometimes used to counter abstruse, or even valid, arguments that something is not what it appears to be.
roving is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2018, 14:05
  #2148 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,470
Either Russia did the Novichok job, or allowed some other agency to do it.
Quite probably 'a Russian', but I await firm evidence that it was the Russian state per se.

Meanwhile, Boris-the-bull$hitter has been uttering his usual Trump-level crass non-diplomatic nonsense. Mother MayDay's government really does us no favours at present.

Last edited by BEagle; 12th Apr 2018 at 14:17.
BEagle is online now  
Old 12th Apr 2018, 14:14
  #2149 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: se england
Posts: 1,136
The UK government is facing the biggest crisis since WW2 in Brexit and what does it do - gets involved in the Middle East which is nothing to do with us.

As for moral high ground we were busy using chemical weapons before Putin was born.

And as for the USA -remember agent orange in Vietnam,

Not that I am cynical but.....
pax britanica is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2018, 14:43
  #2150 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: raf
Posts: 606
Originally Posted by roving View Post
The test in the criminal law is "the jury must be sure of guilt".

I am sure the Russian State was involved in the poisoning of the Skripals, just as i am sure it was involved in the murder of Litvinenko.

Percentages do not come into it. Either one is sure or one is not.

The tenor of your posts on this issue suggest you are not sure.
It's actually the prosecution must prove guilty beyond all doubt.
Even if there's 0.01% doubt then the accused must be acquitted.
All of the burden of proof is on the prosecution, the defence is innocent by default and it's perfectly acceptable for them to remain silent, their silence can't be interpreted as guilt.
A Judge once said to us that our [criminal] law is happy for criminals to slip through the net rather than send one innocent man to prison.
gr4techie is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2018, 14:45
  #2151 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,633
Originally Posted by pax britanica View Post
The UK government is facing the biggest crisis since WW2 in Brexit and what does it do - gets involved in the Middle East which is nothing to do with us.

As for moral high ground we were busy using chemical weapons before Putin was born.

And as for the USA -remember agent orange in Vietnam,

Not that I am cynical but.....
Well actually we do have the high ground morally...
glad rag is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2018, 14:47
  #2152 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,633
Originally Posted by gr4techie View Post
It's actually the prosecution must prove guilty beyond all doubt.
Even if there's 0.01% doubt then the accused must be acquitted.
All of the burden of proof is on the prosecution, the defence is innocent by default and it's perfectly acceptable for them to remain silent, their silence can't be interpreted as guilt.
A Judge once said to us that our [criminal] law is happy for criminals to slip through the net rather than send one innocent man to prison.
I'm sure if a jury were presented with ALL the facts
then it would be a pretty open and shut case.
glad rag is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2018, 14:48
  #2153 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Miles away
Posts: 57
Originally Posted by pax britanica View Post
The UK government is facing the biggest crisis since WW2 in Brexit and what does it do - gets involved in the Middle East which is nothing to do with us.
The old adage of 'trouble at home - start a war overseas' springs to mind!
Procrastinus is online now  
Old 12th Apr 2018, 15:01
  #2154 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 468
Originally Posted by gr4techie View Post
It's actually the prosecution must prove guilty beyond all doubt.
Even if there's 0.01% doubt then the accused must be acquitted.
All of the burden of proof is on the prosecution, the defence is innocent by default and it's perfectly acceptable for them to remain silent, their silence can't be interpreted as guilt.
A Judge once said to us that our [criminal] law is happy for criminals to slip through the net rather than send one innocent man to prison.
Gr4
Historically the test was ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ not ‘all doubt’
Also a jury may be invited to draw ‘proper inferences’ from the accused’s silence both in the Police interview and also at his Trial (Criminal Justice and Public Order Act SS 34&35) and, unsurprisingly, those inferences are invariably adverse.
NRU74 is online now  
Old 12th Apr 2018, 15:02
  #2155 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 7,435
GR4 - surely the prosecution must only prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, not 100% doubt?

If the Russian state is innocent then why did they not rush to show solidarity and immediately offer assistance? Instead they resorted to playground comments, ad hominem attacks and deliberate misinformation. Not the actions of an innocent bystander.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2018, 15:04
  #2156 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Clipperton island
Posts: 346
Arrow

Those two stories are such obvious fakes, that today everybody, from France to US, has been beck-pedalling.
Strikes will happen... one day. But not tomorrow.
And regarding UK and Teresa May, a big factor is not to let the British public realise that their country is following France, lagging behind in resolution to strike. A sort of competition, if you like.
recceguy is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2018, 15:04
  #2157 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Wherever it is this month
Posts: 1,200
The test in the criminal law is "the jury must be sure of guilt".
It's actually the prosecution must prove guilty beyond all doubt.
Even if there's 0.01% doubt then the accused must be acquitted.
Half right, and wrong. The criminal test is that guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. What ‘reasonable’ means is deliberately not quantified; all we can say for sure is that it is stricter than ‘the balance of probabilities’ and less strict than ‘absolute certainty’. However I would observe that the criminal standard of proof is generally considered to be a very high one, tending towards the ‘certain’ end of the spectrum. ‘The jury must be sure’ is a formulation which guides laymen towards that without requiring 100% mathematical certainty.

Last edited by Easy Street; 12th Apr 2018 at 15:18.
Easy Street is online now  
Old 12th Apr 2018, 15:26
  #2158 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 66
Posts: 1,954
Originally Posted by gr4techie View Post
It's actually the prosecution must prove guilty beyond all doubt.
Even if there's 0.01% doubt then the accused must be acquitted.
WOW!! That's a very very high bar. In the US the prosecution must prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. If the defense claims "ET did it, and not my client." they have certainly injected doubt. But that doubt is also completely unreasonable.
KenV is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2018, 16:00
  #2159 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: over the rainbow
Age: 70
Posts: 562
Originally Posted by gr4techie View Post
It's actually the prosecution must prove guilty beyond all doubt.
Even if there's 0.01% doubt then the accused must be acquitted.
All of the burden of proof is on the prosecution, the defence is innocent by default and it's perfectly acceptable for them to remain silent, their silence can't be interpreted as guilt.
A Judge once said to us that our [criminal] law is happy for criminals to slip through the net rather than send one innocent man to prison.
In my 30 years at the Bar I never heard of the 0.01% test.

The test is as I set out.
roving is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2018, 17:21
  #2160 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: raf
Posts: 606
Originally Posted by roving View Post
In my 30 years at the Bar I never heard of the 0.01% test.

The test is as I set out.
The point I'm getting at... if there's any doubt the accused must be acquitted.
Is this not correct?
gr4techie is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.