mikem8634 Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 attacking the poster is very poor form and contributes nothing apart from suspicion that he might be getting close to the truth. Once insults are used - the argument has been lost. The nature of your insulting reply makes me immediately distrust anything you may wish to post. Fair enough, whilst I consider a suggestion that Liverpool fans killed their own as highly insulting, I would hate to detract from the debate and have edited my post accordingly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rossyrooney Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 PLUS: surely the only way to consider anyone guilty is if a Court so holds. In that situation, "willing to accept convictions" is wholly meaningless! Convicted = convicted. As an avid reader of this thread from the sidelines i have noticed you become aggresive when Patnicks name is brought into the conversation. Is there a reason for this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maggidee Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 well said busdriver 1, its time this sad event moved on ,it will never be forgotten,and now we have all the orgreave story been raked up over again what next, the football betting scandel of the 60s footballers, drugs busts of the sheffield clubs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rossyrooney Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 well said busdriver 1, its time this sad event moved on ,it will never be forgotten,and now we have all the orgreave story been raked up over again what next, the football betting scandel of the 60s footballers, drugs busts of the sheffield clubs You've forgotten the rhino whips. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 As an avid reader of this thread from the sidelines i have noticed you become aggresive when Patnicks name is brought into the conversation. Is there a reason for this? No, I'm not aggressive- just seeking to explain how the English Legal System works, to those who don't seem to know. Anyone convicted of a criminal offence is guilty, by definition. Anyone who's not convicted isn't. See? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strix Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 well said busdriver 1, its time this sad event moved on ,it will never be forgotten,and now we have all the orgreave story been raked up over again what next, the football betting scandel of the 60s footballers, drugs busts of the sheffield clubsWhilstever the characters involved in the cover up are paraded on our televisions repeatedly, commenting on other cases, there is salt rubbed into those deep wounds, and moving on really isn't possible... their increasing rank and power... their lives unaffected, and possibly elevated thanks to what happened in '89 It is about time this mess was laid open and sorted out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rossyrooney Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 No, I'm not aggressive- just seeking to explain how the English Legal System works, to those who don't seem to know. Anyone convicted of a criminal offence is guilty, by definition. Anyone who's not convicted isn't. See? Are not morals to be discussed or opinions stated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strix Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 No, I'm not aggressive- just seeking to explain how the English Legal System works, to those who don't seem to know. Anyone convicted of a criminal offence is guilty, by definition. Anyone who's not convicted isn't. See? Actually, you surprise me - technically somebody is never 'guilty', but 'found guilty' - else there would be no need for a court of appeal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maggidee Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 yes i nearly put the rhino story .......................what year was that in the 50s,well that might very well be after orgreave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strix Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 Are not morals to be discussed or opinions stated?Don't confuse matters Jefferey usually posts facts and points of law, but rather oddly expressed opinions without supporting evidence when he joined this thread Can we return to the topic of this thread now guys? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now