scentral Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 You must be slightly embarrassed at your exaggerations! Oh, I very much doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffragette1 Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Of course, and that would be an equally valid opinion of the matter. Personally I would be suprised if that were the case as the police know well enough that many people, press included, actually press especially, think that there is no smoke without fire. For example Chris Jefferies was totally vilified in the press after he was wrongly arrested for the Jo Yeates murder, not to mention all those who are attacked after being correctly or incorrectly labelled as paedophiles. But I digress. The point is that I still think people should be allowed to express a feeling or opinion on a matter without being patronised into silence. By the way, I am not expressing an opinion that this might be the case, just stating that none of us know. It does bother me, however, when people are willing to make judgements about a person's 'performance' at a press conference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 no someone didn't, those words do not apply when you are talking about instincts. I wasn't disagreeing with you in that gut instincts play some part in the process, but no ones guilt (or innocence) should be decided purely on based on that phenomena. no I'm not supporting them why would you think that?....I'm joking of course we know why you wrote it! I think that because of what you've written or at least how I interpreted it, why else would you think I posted what I did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Oh, I very much doubt it. ..and you'd be right to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 I wasn't disagreeing with you in that gut instincts play some part in the process, but no ones guilt (or innocence) should be decided purely on based on that phenomena. I think that because of what you've written or at least how I interpreted it, why else would you think I posted what I did. You cannot have interpreted it that way, it would not make sense. I don't think anyone was claiming they were guilty, they said they felt something was wrong. Which is why there is nothing wrong with listening to your gut instincts. There would be if they were a juror and that was all they based a guilty verdict on-we are not jurors though are we! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 whooooooahhhh there, so we are not allowed to think that they might have caused the fire themselves but you are allowed to suggest that the police are charging people with no evidence. I don't understand the rules:huh: The rules are very simple; in fact, there is only one rule. People are innocent unless, and until, they are convicted in a court of law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Are you claiming "spleen venting" was an accurate description? And "pitchforks"? "gobfrothers"? Remember most people were saying they thought there was something not quite right about the way they were acting. They weren't calling for vigilantism or even for the police to lock em up and throw away the key. You must be slightly embarrassed at your exaggerations! ...it's sailing way over your head isn't it? If you (and others) are so woefully offended by being described as 'gobfrothers and spleen venters', how do you think people feel when they're accused of murdering their own children based on innuendo and their performance at a press conference? Ever heard that quote: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I love that quote. Ever heard the quotes.. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones or if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen? I love those quotes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 The rules are very simple; in fact, there is only one rule. People are innocent unless, and until, they are convicted in a court of law. That is not a rule of expressing an opinion on this forum. It is a legal rule, entirely different...Unless you feel we should not be able to express opinions until they are no longer opinions but fact? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 ...it's sailing way over your head isn't it? If you (and others) are so woefully offended by being described as 'gobfrothers and spleen venters', how do you think people feel when they're accused of murdering their own children based on innuendo and their performance at a press conference? Ever heard the quotes.. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones or if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen? I love those quotes. I think I hit a nerve:D I didn't accuse them of murder actually, I am arguing with your accusations of everyone who doesn't agree with you as being a spleen venter. My opinion was that they were acting oddly and not as I would expect to act had that happened to me but then I don't know how I would act and would be less likely to know how to expect someone I don't know to act. It sounds a lot like your opinion really except that I didn't have a go at anyone. Lets read posts before starting accusations shall we Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffragette1 Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 whooooooahhhh there, so we are not allowed to think that they might have caused the fire themselves but you are allowed to suggest that the police are charging people with no evidence. I don't understand the rules:huh: I never said that it was my own view, I threw it out there to illustrate how none of us know the true facts and this endless speculation based on 'gut feelings' and instant dislike is somewhat distasteful. Nor I am not prepared to pronounce them guilty based on their behaviour at a press conference. In the eyes of the law, even if they are arrested and charged, they are still innocent until proven guilty. I would hope and expect to be afforded the same treatment if I ever find find myself in position where I have been arrested, which hopefully I never will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.