In article , michael adams
writes

"bert" wrote in message ...

In article , michael adams
writes


"Fredxx" wrote in message

A criminal is someone who has been caught, charged and sentenced.

Indeed.

A criminal is someone who has committed a criminal offence.

The presumption of innocence - that a person is innocent until proven
guilty in a Court of Law, has been a cornerstone of our British
Legal system and a bastions of our Liberty in this country
ever since the signing of Magna Carta in 1215.*

If you don't like the way we do things in this country Bert,
might I suggest you go and live somewhere else ?


Read what's there not what you want to be there.
If you commit a crime you become a "criminal" by definition.
As an individual charged with a crime you are presumed innocent until a
jury decides otherwise at which point you become a "convicted criminal".
Is that plain enough?
michael adams



* At a guess, this is most likely a banker question on the UK
Citizenship Test. So it's maybe just as well, for your sake if not
for anyone else's, that you're already living here. Otherwise you'd
have probably been sent back to wherever it was you came from.

...




--
bert

"bert" wrote in message ...

Read what's there not what you want to be there.
If you commit a crime you become a "criminal" by definition.

Except in the absence of written law which everyone can
access in theory at least, different people can have
different ideas of what they regard as "a crime".

Even when written law exists, it's the purpose of the
Criminal Justice System to first decide whether a
particular act could in fact be interpreted as a
crime. And secondly and most importantly provide a
mechanism - the rules of evidence etc which allow it
to be established beyond reasonable doubt, either
by a magistrate or jurors selected at random whether
the accused not actually committed the crime. Or
possibly in some cases whether he or she can be held
criminally responsible for an act which in all other
circumstances would indeed be regarded as a crime.

Anything short of this is simply mob law which can
result in innocent people being torched out if their
homes, or in extremis even hanging from lamposts.

As an individual charged with a crime you are presumed innocent until a jury decides
otherwise at which point you become a "convicted criminal".

So you're now claiming there's such a thing as an
"innocent criminal", are you ? Otherwise why make
the distinction ?


michael adams

....

In article , michael adams
writes

"bert" wrote in message ...

Read what's there not what you want to be there.
If you commit a crime you become a "criminal" by definition.

Except in the absence of written law which everyone can
access in theory at least, different people can have
different ideas of what they regard as "a crime".

I think we operate on the basis of written law in this country.
That might change of course if Corbyn ever gets elected.
Even when written law exists, it's the purpose of the
Criminal Justice System to first decide whether a
particular act could in fact be interpreted as a
crime. And secondly and most importantly provide a
mechanism - the rules of evidence etc which allow it
to be established beyond reasonable doubt, either
by a magistrate or jurors selected at random whether
the accused not actually committed the crime. Or
possibly in some cases whether he or she can be held
criminally responsible for an act which in all other
circumstances would indeed be regarded as a crime.

Anything short of this is simply mob law which can
result in innocent people being torched out if their
homes, or in extremis even hanging from lamposts.

Well a well known trade union leader did suggest something like that
about a Conservative minister. Mob rule by momentum if Corbyn is ever
elected.
As an individual charged with a crime you are presumed innocent until
a jury decides
otherwise at which point you become a "convicted criminal".

So you're now claiming there's such a thing as an
"innocent criminal", are you ? Otherwise why make
the distinction ?

No you are seemingly making such a claim.
I make the distinction because of statements you made in which you
ascribed certain false views to me which I see you have now omitted.
It's quite a simple distinction. Of course once a person has been
convicted they can be referred to directly as either a criminal or a
convicted criminal.
So the person who burgles your house is a criminal. But if you think it
was me or even know it was me technically you cannot call me a criminal
until I have been convicted.

michael adams

...



--
bert

In article ,
bert wrote:
Read what's there not what you want to be there.
If you commit a crime you become a "criminal" by definition.
As an individual charged with a crime you are presumed innocent until a
jury decides otherwise at which point you become a "convicted criminal".
Is that plain enough?

Then only that criminal can call himself a criminal. If everyone is
correct about him being a criminal, why bother with a trial?

But then I doubt you care much about justice.

--
*I get enough exercise just pushing my luck.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"bert" wrote in message ...

So the person who burgles your house is a criminal.

The act of burglary as with criminality can only be decided
in a Court of Law.

It isn't beyond the bounds of possibility that somebody who
lived in my house say 40 years ago, has had a mental breakdown
of some kind. Such that he still thinks he lives there and somebody
else me, is squatting in his house. Thinking this he could easily
act in ways which people without access to his mental state at
the time - as may subsequently discovered by interview etc,
could easily adjudge to be burglary in a Court of Law.

Howver as it is, his mental condition dictates that, contrary to
appearances, he didn't in fact burgle my house and can never
be found guilty of such in a Court of Law, and thus can't
be adjudged a criminal.

But if you think it was me or even know it was me technically you cannot call me a
criminal until I have been convicted.

Even if you'd never lived in my house bert, I'm sure a really
good brief, along with a sympathetic psychiatrist could find
some grounds or other, to get you off.

As with Turnip, all that time posting on UseNet might not be entirely
wasted.


michael adams

....

michael adams wrote
bert wrote

Read what's there not what you want to be there.
If you commit a crime you become a "criminal" by definition.

Except in the absence of written law which everyone can access in theory
at least,

Which hasn’t been the case for centurys now.

different people can have different ideas of what they regard as "a
crime".

Even when written law exists, it's the purpose of the
Criminal Justice System to first decide whether a
particular act could in fact be interpreted as a crime.

Don’t need a criminal justice system to do that with most crime.

And secondly and most importantly provide a
mechanism - the rules of evidence etc which allow it
to be established beyond reasonable doubt, either
by a magistrate or jurors selected at random whether
the accused not actually committed the crime.

And erring on the beyond reasonable doubt side.

Or possibly in some cases whether he or she can be held criminally
responsible for an act which in all other
circumstances would indeed be regarded as a crime.

In most cases in fact.

Anything short of this is simply mob law which can
result in innocent people being torched out if their
homes, or in extremis even hanging from lamposts.

Irrelevant to whether someone who did the crime
is a criminal or not.

As an individual charged with a crime you are presumed innocent until a
jury decides otherwise at which point you become a "convicted criminal".

So you're now claiming there's such a thing as an "innocent criminal", are
you ?

Nope, that at times there isnt adequate evidence
that a particular criminal did a particular crime
beyond reasonable doubt due to the lack of
witnesses etc. That criminal is still a criminal
if he actually did the crime;.

Otherwise why make the distinction ?

See above.

michael adams wrote
bert wrote

So the person who burgles your house is a criminal.

The act of burglary as with criminality can only be decided in a Court of
Law.

Wrong. Its burglary even if there isnt enough evidence to convict
the burglar in a court of law beyond reasonable doubt.

It isn't beyond the bounds of possibility that somebody who lived in my
house say 40 years ago, has had a mental breakdown of some kind. Such that
he still thinks he lives there and somebody else me, is squatting in his
house.

Doesn’t explain him taking the portable stuff
out of the house round to the fence's place.

But if you think it was me or even know it was me technically you cannot
call me a criminal until I have been convicted.

Even if you'd never lived in my house bert, I'm sure a really good brief,
along with a sympathetic psychiatrist could find some grounds or other, to
get you off.

Bull****.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

Nope, that at times there isnt adequate evidence
that a particular criminal did a particular crime
beyond reasonable doubt due to the lack of
witnesses etc.

Stone Me ! Biship Berkeley lives again !

If someone commits a "crime" to which there are no human
witnesses, God is the only possible witness who can confirm
that a crime has indeed been committed.

Therefore God must exist.

And for your next trick ?

Don't tell me - throwing witches in ponds.


michael adams

....

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

snip


Bull****.


snip


michael adams

....

In article , michael adams
writes

"bert" wrote in message ...

So the person who burgles your house is a criminal.

The act of burglary as with criminality can only be decided
in a Court of Law.

It isn't beyond the bounds of possibility that somebody who
lived in my house say 40 years ago, has had a mental breakdown
of some kind. Such that he still thinks he lives there and somebody
else me, is squatting in his house. Thinking this he could easily
act in ways which people without access to his mental state at
the time - as may subsequently discovered by interview etc,
could easily adjudge to be burglary in a Court of Law.

No sorry I've read it 3 times and it still doesn't make sense.
Howver as it is, his mental condition dictates that, contrary to
appearances, he didn't in fact burgle my house and can never
be found guilty of such in a Court of Law, and thus can't
be adjudged a criminal.

If he didn't commit burglary he isn't a criminal. You seem unable to
distinguish between the commitment of an act and a specific person being
considered guilty or not guilty of committing that act in the eyes of
the law.
But if you think it was me or even know it was me technically you
cannot call me a
criminal until I have been convicted.


Even if you'd never lived in my house bert, I'm sure a really
good brief, along with a sympathetic psychiatrist could find
some grounds or other, to get you off.


As with Turnip, all that time posting on UseNet might not be entirely
wasted.

Yet again you resort to personal abuse when you have lost the argument.
No doubt you will accuse me of the same thing in a petty tit-for-tat in
the future. Just like Plowman and Dennis.

michael adams

...



--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
bert wrote:
Read what's there not what you want to be there.
If you commit a crime you become a "criminal" by definition.
As an individual charged with a crime you are presumed innocent until a
jury decides otherwise at which point you become a "convicted criminal".
Is that plain enough?

Then only that criminal can call himself a criminal. If everyone is
correct about him being a criminal, why bother with a trial?

Eh?
But then I doubt you care much about justice.


--
bert

"bert" wrote in message ...
In article , michael adams
writes

"bert" wrote in message ...

So the person who burgles your house is a criminal.

The act of burglary as with criminality can only be decided
in a Court of Law.

It isn't beyond the bounds of possibility that somebody who
lived in my house say 40 years ago, has had a mental breakdown
of some kind. Such that he still thinks he lives there and somebody
else me, is squatting in his house. Thinking this he could easily
act in ways which people without access to his mental state at
the time - as may subsequently discovered by interview etc,
could easily adjudge to be burglary in a Court of Law.

No sorry I've read it 3 times and it still doesn't make sense.

Your loss. I've no intention of being trolled into explaining it
to you, step by step.

(As it happens a similar scenario featured in an episode of the
Sweeney from 40 odd years ago only the mentally unbalanced person
was Haskins' wife)


michael adams

In article ,
bert wrote:
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
bert wrote:
Read what's there not what you want to be there. If you commit a
crime you become a "criminal" by definition. As an individual charged
with a crime you are presumed innocent until a jury decides otherwise
at which point you become a "convicted criminal". Is that plain
enough?

Then only that criminal can call himself a criminal. If everyone is
correct about him being a criminal, why bother with a trial?

Eh?
But then I doubt you care much about justice.


Collins GEM English Dictionary

Criminal n. person guilty of a crime.

Note the word guilty. Do you need that explained too?

--
*A woman drove me to drink and I didn't have the decency to thank her

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
bert wrote:
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
bert wrote:
Read what's there not what you want to be there. If you commit a
crime you become a "criminal" by definition. As an individual charged
with a crime you are presumed innocent until a jury decides otherwise
at which point you become a "convicted criminal". Is that plain
enough?

Then only that criminal can call himself a criminal. If everyone is
correct about him being a criminal, why bother with a trial?

Eh?
But then I doubt you care much about justice.


Collins GEM English Dictionary

Criminal n. person guilty of a crime.

Doesn’t say guilty in a court of law. Clearly if the person
actually did the crime, they are guilty. That is an entirely
separate matter to whether there are reliable witnesses
or forensic evidence that is sufficient to see them
charged and convicted in a court.

Note the word guilty. Do you need that explained too?

In article ,
Simon Jones wrote:
Criminal n. person guilty of a crime.

Doesn’t say guilty in a court of law. Clearly if the person
actually did the crime, they are guilty. That is an entirely
separate matter to whether there are reliable witnesses
or forensic evidence that is sufficient to see them
charged and convicted in a court.

If you were a witness to someone committing a crime, you personally could
then call them a criminal. Anyone else doing it is simply guessing.

--
*Dancing is a perpendicular expression of a horizontal desire *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Simon Jones wrote:
Criminal n. person guilty of a crime.

Doesn't say guilty in a court of law. Clearly if the person
actually did the crime, they are guilty. That is an entirely
separate matter to whether there are reliable witnesses
or forensic evidence that is sufficient to see them
charged and convicted in a court.

If you were a witness to someone committing a crime, you personally could
then call them a criminal. Anyone else doing it is simply guessing.

Not if they have other evidence like what is on their CCTV,
or a report of what someone else has seen, or something
left behind by the criminal that identifies them.

In article ,
Simon Jones wrote:
If you were a witness to someone committing a crime, you personally could
then call them a criminal. Anyone else doing it is simply guessing.

Not if they have other evidence like what is on their CCTV,
or a report of what someone else has seen, or something
left behind by the criminal that identifies them.

Relying on someone else's opinion of who is a criminal is exactly the
point I was making. The sort of people who discover they have a
paediatrician living nearby and think that is a paedophile. And burn their
house down.

--
*Why is it that most nudists are people you don't want to see naked?*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Simon Jones wrote:
If you were a witness to someone committing a crime, you personally
could
then call them a criminal. Anyone else doing it is simply guessing.

Not if they have other evidence like what is on their CCTV,
or a report of what someone else has seen, or something
left behind by the criminal that identifies them.

Relying on someone else's opinion of who is a criminal

I'm not talking about someone else's opinion, saying that if
someone else has seen that in vidual leaving your house, that’s
as good as you having seen that yourself if they are reliable.

is exactly the
point I was making. The sort of people who discover they have a
paediatrician living nearby and think that is a paedophile. And burn their
house down.

That isnt what happens when someone else sees the criminal leaving
your house or sees them driving your car that they have stolen.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

If you were a witness to someone committing a crime, you personally could
then call them a criminal. Anyone else doing it is simply guessing.

Er no.

In the first place, for a "crime" to have been committed requires
two things; actus reus the actual physical act which may indeed
have been witnessed; and mens rea - the "criminal mind" which requires
both that the person doing the act intended to do so and that they
were mentally competent at the time.

In the second place, the only place where both these requirements
can be properly tested is in a Court of Law. At present anyway.
So did the person perform the act as claimed ? Which may be established
by witness evidence, forensics, or a plausible confession. All of
which can be challenged by the accused or their representive.

And secondly was it intentional and was the accused mentally competent
at the time ? For which it will be necessary to rely on the professional
competence of whoever carries out any necessary interviews and
psychological evaluations. All of which again can be challenged
by either side calling expert witnesses of their own.

Then and only then after having heard all the relevent evidence
will, depending on circumstances a magistrate, a judge, or a jury
be given the opportunity to decide whether or not a crime has been
committed of which the defendent is either innocent or guilty.

Fortunately, nobody thus far has sought to point out that
" Jimmy Savile is Innocent O.K ! ". Which is only fair really
as he's no longer in a position to defend himself. Certainly
not since they poured that concrete slab on top of his grave
to stop people digging him up. Oliver Cromwell ! you should have
been so lucky !


michael adams

....

michael adams wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote

If you were a witness to someone committing a crime, you personally could
then call them a criminal. Anyone else doing it is simply guessing.

Er no.

We'll see...

In the first place, for a "crime" to have been committed requires
two things; actus reus the actual physical act which may indeed
have been witnessed; and mens rea - the "criminal mind" which requires
both that the person doing the act intended to do so and that they were
mentally competent at the time.

And that’s obvious with most petty criminals.

In the second place, the only place where both these requirements
can be properly tested is in a Court of Law. At present anyway.

BULL****.

So did the person perform the act as claimed ? Which may be established by
witness evidence, forensics, or a plausible confession. All of which can
be challenged by the accused or their representive.

Meaningless waffle.

And secondly was it intentional and was the accused mentally competent at
the time ?

That’s obvious with most petty criminals.

For which it will be necessary to rely on the professional
competence of whoever carries out any necessary interviews and
psychological evaluations. All of which again can be challenged by either
side calling expert witnesses of their own.

More stupid waffle.

Then and only then after having heard all the relevent evidence
will, depending on circumstances a magistrate, a judge, or a jury
be given the opportunity to decide whether or not a crime has been
committed of which the defendent is either innocent or guilty.

More stupid waffle.

Fortunately, nobody thus far has sought to point out that " Jimmy Savile
is Innocent O.K ! ".

Yep, they arent that stupid, even if you are.

Which is only fair really as he's no longer in a position to defend
himself.

He did the crime anyway.

Certainly not since they poured that concrete slab on top of his grave to
stop people digging him up. Oliver Cromwell ! you should have been so
lucky !

You'll end up completely blind if you don’t watch out, boy.

In article ,
Simon Jones wrote:
Relying on someone else's opinion of who is a criminal

I'm not talking about someone else's opinion, saying that if
someone else has seen that in vidual leaving your house, that’s
as good as you having seen that yourself if they are reliable.

But that is a very big if. Many see what they want to see. And make things
up when it suits them too. Or are simply mistaken.

Hence the need for such evidence to be properly tested.

--
*There are 3 kinds of people: those who can count & those who can't.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Simon Jones wrote:
That isnt what happens when someone else sees the criminal leaving
your house or sees them driving your car that they have stolen.

That is a very good point. You have absolutely no idea if the person seen
driving your car is the one who stole it.

--
*Okay, who stopped the payment on my reality check? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Thu, 7 Jun 2018 19:42:51 +1000, cantankerous geezer Rot Speed produced
yet more rot:


Er no.

We'll see...

FLUSH all the other usual rot

Well, he certainly can seen now what the matter is with you, Rot! LOL

https://thetravellingtiles.files.wor...b6f9820001.jpg
Thorazine

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Simon Jones wrote:
Relying on someone else's opinion of who is a criminal

I'm not talking about someone else's opinion, saying that if
someone else has seen that in vidual leaving your house, that's
as good as you having seen that yourself if they are reliable.

But that is a very big if.

Only a small one.

Many see what they want to see. And make things
up when it suits them too. Or are simply mistaken.

Hard to get it wrong when seeing the perp leave your place.

Hence the need for such evidence to be properly tested.

Only when jailing or fining the perp.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Simon Jones wrote:
That isnt what happens when someone else sees the criminal leaving
your house or sees them driving your car that they have stolen.

That is a very good point. You have absolutely no idea if the person seen
driving your car is the one who stole it.

--
*Okay, who stopped the payment on my reality check? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Simon Jones" wrote in message ...

Hard to get it wrong when seeing the perp leave your place.

Hello Wodders.

I think you gave it away there, using the word "perp".

As "perp" doesn't sound a very "Simon" type word, to me.

Although to be fair, I don't think "Simon" has used the
word "trivial" yet.

Keep up the good work.


michael adams

....