Here it comes: Syria
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.
Even if there's 0.01% doubt then the accused must be acquitted.
Last edited by Easy Street; 12th Apr 2018 at 14:18.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: over the rainbow
Age: 75
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
The test is as I set out.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: raf
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, as already explained above.
The jury may not even be unanimous as the judge may accept a majority verdict.
The checks and balances are provided by the appeals system, not a mythical 0.01% test.
The jury may not even be unanimous as the judge may accept a majority verdict.
The checks and balances are provided by the appeals system, not a mythical 0.01% test.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
The burden on the prosecution is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. That is, to the point that a reasonable person would consider guilt had been proved.
No percentages are involved, the words are plain English and intentionally so.
No percentages are involved, the words are plain English and intentionally so.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
I see the Torygraph has a firm grasp of geography. The Astute submarine s with a 1000 mile range would have to lie off the coast of Syria, Lebanon or Israel. Or West of Crete perhaps?8
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the US, for criminal cases all jury verdicts must be unanimous. If the jury cannot bring a unanimous verdict, it is a "hung jury" and a retrial is required. For civil cases the prosecution must prove guilt "by a preponderance of the evidence," so a much lower standard than criminal cases and the jury verdict does not need to be unanimous.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Which explains why over 95% of trials in the USA are decided by plea bargaining between the lawyers before a jury is even sworn in.....
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: birmingham
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I was Putin and knowing the underlying discord in the UK to any further ' adventures ' in the Middle East I would go on RT tonight and announce that any deaths of his men would be answered by an attack on UK bases in the region. Just watch the sh1t storm then, Social media would go into meltdown, Tory MPs would panic and Corbyn could be PM by next week. Would Trump start a war with Russia by responding to a Russian attack on Akrotiri ?
If May attacks Syria she knows she does not have the backing of Parliament or the British people. She is only going into this to continue the pretence that the UK is the best friend of the US and its Presendent, a man she can't stand and not to be shown up by Trump's new best European friend Macron.
If I was Putin I would look to the example of Stalingrad, don't got for the Germans but go for the Italian and Romanian forces on the flanks.
To my mind May is a bloody idiot for getting into this. I hope British forces don't end up paying the price.
She is only going into this to continue the pretence that the UK is the best friend of the US
Sense being spoken by the chair of the Defence Select Committee:
Dr Julian Lewis: "We mustn't get sucked in to supporting monsters on one side, the Syrian regime, or maniacs on the other, the Syrian rebels who are overwhelmingly led by Islamists and jihadi nutcases."
Last edited by Easy Street; 12th Apr 2018 at 20:18.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: over the rainbow
Age: 75
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I was Putin and knowing the underlying discord in the UK to any further ' adventures ' in the Middle East I would go on RT tonight and announce that any deaths of his men would be answered by an attack on UK bases in the region. Just watch the sh1t storm then, Social media would go into meltdown, Tory MPs would panic and Corbyn could be PM by next week. Would Trump start a war with Russia by responding to a Russian attack on Akrotiri
The overarching principle of NATO is that an attack on one member is an attack on all members.
Highlights
Collective defence means that an attack against one Ally is considered as an attack against all Allies.
The principle of collective defence is enshrined in Article 5 of the Washington Treaty.
NATO invoked Article 5 for the first time in its history after the 9/11 terrorist attacks against the United States.
NATO has taken collective defence measures on several occasions, for instance in response to the situation in Syria and in the wake of the Russia-Ukraine crisis.
NATO has standing forces on active duty that contribute to the Alliance’s collective defence efforts on a permanent basis.
Collective defence means that an attack against one Ally is considered as an attack against all Allies.
The principle of collective defence is enshrined in Article 5 of the Washington Treaty.
NATO invoked Article 5 for the first time in its history after the 9/11 terrorist attacks against the United States.
NATO has taken collective defence measures on several occasions, for instance in response to the situation in Syria and in the wake of the Russia-Ukraine crisis.
NATO has standing forces on active duty that contribute to the Alliance’s collective defence efforts on a permanent basis.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: birmingham
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So if Russian forces get killed by British bombs in a country that is nothing to do with NATO then the US will go nuclear ?? Really ? Let me say this again, there is no underlying UK interest in Syria, all that has happened is politicians playing games in the sandpit, remind me how well that's gone in recent years ?
Assad is the legitimate elected leader of the Syrian Arab Republic, Russian forces are in country by invitation by said legitimate President. UK and US forces are not. You kill Russians when they are there by invite and you are not and that is a very sticky legal position in my book. The Russians would be entitled to defend their forces by military action including attacking a base operated by those who have killed their men. Can you deny that ?
Putin does not even go that far, all he has to do is go on TV and state his intentions if his men get killed and just watch what happens to May. She is an idiot. She thinks that she can play games and there are no possible consequences to the UK, she is wrong.
Assad is the legitimate elected leader of the Syrian Arab Republic, Russian forces are in country by invitation by said legitimate President. UK and US forces are not. You kill Russians when they are there by invite and you are not and that is a very sticky legal position in my book. The Russians would be entitled to defend their forces by military action including attacking a base operated by those who have killed their men. Can you deny that ?
Putin does not even go that far, all he has to do is go on TV and state his intentions if his men get killed and just watch what happens to May. She is an idiot. She thinks that she can play games and there are no possible consequences to the UK, she is wrong.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: North Up
Posts: 489
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not tonight, darling
The Cabinet meeting outcome announcement does not appear to describe authorisation for a bombing campaign against a fellow sovereign state member of the UN. More of a holding statement in absence of an agreement to go to War.
If the PM cannot persuade her own appointees in her own Cabinet Room, imagine her trepidation at the prospect of persuading her more wayward backbenchers in a minority in the House.
Open house for party goers at Akrotiri and UK bases, for sure. Some Istar and tankering to show moral support, also for sure, as with some Tiffy top cover outside Syria's 12nm territorial zone, but that's just about all for the moment.
If the PM cannot persuade her own appointees in her own Cabinet Room, imagine her trepidation at the prospect of persuading her more wayward backbenchers in a minority in the House.
Open house for party goers at Akrotiri and UK bases, for sure. Some Istar and tankering to show moral support, also for sure, as with some Tiffy top cover outside Syria's 12nm territorial zone, but that's just about all for the moment.
There is so much that is 'wrong' about the UK's response to this:
1. May wants to curry favour with Trump to stay on the right side of him for future trade talks.
2. The UK wants to continue to maintain and hold up its perceived position as a saviour of the world. Unfortunatley we carry about as much respect in this new world as another third world country...who exactly is GB these days?
3. We have 4 nuke subs, 2 of which are at sea at any one time....that's IT.
4. Are we really going to contribute to collateral killing of Russian troops and precipitate a possible nuclear war?
5. What is the UK's end game? EVERYTIME we have interfered in another country's war, we have made it WORSE!
Chemical weapons are just another form of WEAPON. What's the difference between chemical weapons and conventional weapons? They are designed to do the same job.
The UK needs to wake up and smell the coffee. We are a second class economic nation and a third class military force. Let's concentrate on what we are good at - erm there is...? ooh, um then there is?
1. May wants to curry favour with Trump to stay on the right side of him for future trade talks.
2. The UK wants to continue to maintain and hold up its perceived position as a saviour of the world. Unfortunatley we carry about as much respect in this new world as another third world country...who exactly is GB these days?
3. We have 4 nuke subs, 2 of which are at sea at any one time....that's IT.
4. Are we really going to contribute to collateral killing of Russian troops and precipitate a possible nuclear war?
5. What is the UK's end game? EVERYTIME we have interfered in another country's war, we have made it WORSE!
Chemical weapons are just another form of WEAPON. What's the difference between chemical weapons and conventional weapons? They are designed to do the same job.
The UK needs to wake up and smell the coffee. We are a second class economic nation and a third class military force. Let's concentrate on what we are good at - erm there is...? ooh, um then there is?
So - now the ever firm and decisive Trump (sarcasm alert) is backing down.
"...Could be very soon or not so soon at all!"
The message that will send to Assad, and to Putin... is that the west is a paper tiger.
What is it they say - don't bring a gun to a fight unless you intend to use it...
"...Could be very soon or not so soon at all!"
The message that will send to Assad, and to Putin... is that the west is a paper tiger.
What is it they say - don't bring a gun to a fight unless you intend to use it...
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Modern warfare...
BREAKING: Washington and Moscow are now secretly negotiating about incoming airstrikes against #Syrian military infrastructures. In exchange for #Russia's permission, #US will only carry out large scale cruise missile strike against some of already evacuated bases of Syrian Army
BREAKING: Despite extremely limited combat capability of #RoyalAirForce, #UK has intension to carry-out a political airstrike against #Syria during which Syrian MOD building which is already evacuated in #Damascus can be a target for SCALPs launched from #RAF's Tornado GR.4s.
BREAKING: Despite extremely limited combat capability of #RoyalAirForce, #UK has intension to carry-out a political airstrike against #Syria during which Syrian MOD building which is already evacuated in #Damascus can be a target for SCALPs launched from #RAF's Tornado GR.4s.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Moscow region
Age: 65
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding Putin, in spite of tons of reservations I have about having that man in charge of the country, I have to admit that he does have some patience. Or people in his crowd have it and influence him. IMHO, this is why he does not go on TV: everything was said by the generals and he does not want to escalate further.
In particular: if the missiles/bombs fly towards the spots where the Russian personnel is located, Russia will respond. Not just attempting to intercept the missiles, but also shoot at its carriers. IMHO planes and ships are such carriers, not the base in Cyprus if UK forces are considered.
I think negotiations are now taking place between US and Russia concerning the list of targets. Russia is likely to agree that some Syrian facilities may be destroyed (like a year ago) and they will not use their AD complexes, leaving the issue to the Syrians and their obsolete SAMs. US obviously want a very long list of such targets.
If so, the situation will remain in the same status: very hot, but still not crossing the red button line.
