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.

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.

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?

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 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.

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

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.

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.....

Really ? How's that then, the UK is going to nuke him ? And if Russian personal were killed by any of the forthcoming attacks and if Putin decided to attack the UK as the weak link rather than any US forces ?

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.

I think you may be on to something. But wasn’t there a big inquiry recently where one of the major criticisms was that Government had allowed maintenance of “access” and “influence” with partners to become the primary factor in its decision to take military action? Dillcott, or something? Anyone? :hmm:

Sense being spoken by the chair of the Defence Select Committee:

Amen. Lord Dannatt was also quoted the other day as saying that the West would have to drop its “Assad must go” rhetoric. He’s right. Russia, Iran and Assad have so much more at stake in Syria that this was always an absurd position to take, even without considering the consequences of the likely Islamist takeover of such a diverse state. The fact is that changes in the global balance of power and the poor outcomes of recent interventions have significantly reduced the West’s ability to back up its rhetoric on “norms” with meaningful action.

Before posting it would be useful to do some basic research.

The overarching principle of NATO is that an attack on one member is an attack on all members.

https://www.nato.int/cps/ua/natohq/topics_110496.htm

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.

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.

https://s31.postimg.cc/549u1zt57/Cabinet_Yes_No.jpg

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? :rolleyes:

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...

Modern warfare...

To avoid over-quoting I am not copying all your post here, but everything you wrote looks perfectly right.

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.