egafd.com

David Johnson wrote:

> My view on this:
>
> I believe in innocent until proven guilty. Full stop."

I don't.

If someone have committed the crime they are guilty, whether a court has deemed that proven or not.

There is a punishment handed out by the state (or not), and that is naturally governed by the courts - and that is at it should be. However, I do not defer my own judgement of people to the courts, or the formal justice system in general. Because that system has short-comings, get-out-clauses, loop-holes etc. The historical record for the prosecution of war crimes is particularly woeful, usually some very patchy form of victor's justice. And don't get me started on the protection of the establishment...

So I condemn some of the non-proven villains (and that can also go the other way sometimes) in my mind, my speech, my writing. However, the punishment in my court is merely my disdain. No more, no less.

What is your obsession with Bill Roache? Is he the only celebrity that you've heard of? Every time you bring him up. Find another example, please...

That attack was in revenge for Malala (or Malaria as Naomi Campbell calls her) for winning the Nobel Prize.

Ahmed Rashid, an expert on the Islamic militants, told the BBC that the insurgents had various reasons to attack the school ? one of which was to send a message to Malala's supporters.

The Taliban has previously warned that Malala had forged a pact with 'Western satanic forces'.

Views?

For as long as we have apologists like DJ we will always have terroism

For as long as we have apologists like DJ we will always have terrorism

Apologists for terrorism? In what way am I an apologist for terrorism?

The Taliban attack on the school was a horrific, indefensible crime. I hope the murderers have a slow and terrible death.

It would appear that in your world, Andy that anyone who ever suggests that the likes of Blair and Bush slaughtering hundreds of thousands of Muslims either directly or indirectly might have made the threat of terrorism worse is an "apologist for terrorism".

This strikes me as a thoroughly daft interpretation.

You have confused me with Sam Slater. Not an easy thing to do.

It is Sam Slater who defended Tony Blair by citing William Roache. This struck me as ludicrous, which is why I mentioned it.

Your view seems eminently sensible. The implications of Sam's view which I suspect he has not thought through are that Hitler was innocent and not a war criminal because he was not tried in a court of law, nor was Stalin or Pol Pot.

Most people I suspect would view this as being a strange line to take. The mark of someone who is desperately trying to defend the indefensible.

That is fine as long as you make it clear it is your own judgement. I think you've taken my post too literally. Normally, when someone says 'I believe in innocent until proven guilty' they do not mean you cannot have or express your own opinion.

It is because, after calling Blair a war criminal (he stated it like it was a fact) I said that was wrong and would be like calling Bill Roache a rapist before he went to trial.

A perfectly good comparison given both were suspected of crimes before going to trial at the time.

Now he's turned it into a 'Coronation Street' analogy to make it look like it was a silly comparison when in reality my point was sensible and spot on. It's just more dishonesty from David because he lost the point.

He's no obsession with Bill Roache, just an obsession in covering his own arse for me catching him out on something stupid.