...
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Bad beat/Moaning/Venting thread - Mammy told me not to come.
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
Originally posted by Hitchhiker's Guide To... View PostHopefully Jack and Denny are delighted that the guide-to-good-living-under-Trump show - the new Roseanne - is playing a belter in the US tv ratings. Just goes to show that if you build a show around a utopic existence under a benevolent leader that the people will tune in.
Comment
-
Originally posted by jack90210 View PostIt would appear he has a very very good chance of winning that case.You are technically correct...the best kind of correct
World Record Holder for Long Distance Soul Reads: May 7th 2011
Comment
-
Originally posted by Kayroo View PostHe won’t take the case. He would be insane to take that case. It’s a ploy by his lawyers. They say they’re going to sue the Senator who will inevitably back down and issue some middle of the road apology for how he phrased it and it’ll scare off other people from taking pot shots at Jackson.Turning millions into thousands
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hitchhiker's Guide To... View Postwhy would a [hypothetical person] in such a scenario not take the case?
If someone tweeted “hypothetical person raped other person” and defamation was alleged then there are a number of defenses open to the original defamor. Worst of the lot from the defamed’s point of view is truth. If the complainant in the criminal trial was willing to give evidence (god help me I don’t see why she would want to) then it becomes a trial about what happened. Except it’s not a criminal standard of proof - it’s civil. So it’s balance of probabilities.
Or he could argue honest opinion. Which could be based on his belief that based on the statements that Jackson and the girl both made that it was honest belief that such an act occurred.
Either way Jackson has to go through the trial again and he would be insane to do so on a civil standard of proof.
It’s how OJ was successfully sued for the murder of Nicole Brown, how Ryanair defended the Rosanna Davison defamation claim (even though they lost the award the jury gave was quite interesting)
I don’t think Jackson would want to take the risk.You are technically correct...the best kind of correct
World Record Holder for Long Distance Soul Reads: May 7th 2011
Comment
-
Originally posted by Kayroo View PostIf the complainant in the criminal trial was willing to give evidence (god help me I don’t see why she would want to) then it becomes a trial about what happened. Except it’s not a criminal standard of proof - it’s civil. So it’s balance of probabilities.
Comment
-
Originally posted by jack90210 View PostWould the complainant have the right to anonymity in such a scenario?
Albeit her actual anonymity is perfunctory at best, surely?You are technically correct...the best kind of correct
World Record Holder for Long Distance Soul Reads: May 7th 2011
Comment
-
Originally posted by Kayroo View PostNo, hence my comment about her having no good reason to testify. But the above hypothetical person wouldn’t need her to testify - defenses could be run without her involvement.
Albeit her actual anonymity is perfunctory at best, surely?Last edited by Tar.Aldarion; 30-03-18, 15:25.
Comment
-
Originally posted by DeadParrot View PostCan I just say, I'm very much enjoying these posts from Matt, I'm hoping he is not a next gen spambot that'll start selling us dickpills.
Just a poker enthusiast, and former British Cycling UCI registered rider
I am also a bit of a novice with the IT, so I would certainly not be a next gen. A roll back to zx spectrum would be more likely.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hitchhiker's Guide To... View PostHmm they tried that in the UK a while back, and a few were actually sued. These cases would be taking place in UK too where there's no real coverage of this case.I hold silver in tit for tat, and I love you for that
Comment
-
Originally posted by jack90210 View PostLeinster playing the guts of England in the quarters and the guts of Wales in the semis if all goes to plan.
Home wins all round this w/e please."We are not Europeans. Those people on the continent are freaks."
Comment
-
Originally posted by jack90210 View PostHopefully gets selected for the Australia tour in the summer for Ireland.
Anyway Scarlets have been playing him for 80 minutes week in, week out. Give him a break over the summer, let him bed into Munster and he might challenge for a squad place for WC19."We are not Europeans. Those people on the continent are freaks."
Comment
-
Wife went out with her friends for an Indian. They had a battle to convince the waiter the law had changed. Wasn't serving them.
She's staying in her Mam's, along with the kids as we've a guy coming up in the morn to build a kitchen.
I've a fridge full of beer, wings and wedges in the oven and Molly's Game lined up.
It's hereby changed to Awesome Friday.I hold silver in tit for tat, and I love you for that
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tar.Aldarion View PostI was in buying baileys a minute ago, hadn't even thought that oh, I used to not be able to do this. Of course the place is actually quiet, this new change probably caused less booze to be sold.
That Ready Player One film is out now Hitch, no idea if it's good.I hold silver in tit for tat, and I love you for that
Comment
-
Guest
Had hoped to drink that expensive wine today as an affront the paedo posse but have had a dodgy stomach all week. You win, god.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hitchhiker's Guide To... View PostIt looks so so bad that hopefully it's all an elaborate bluff and it's really amazeballs
Not looking at the Survivor spoilers, is this season any good so far? Thought the gimmick seemed pretty lame. Would love a back to basics season with maybe one hidden idol per tribe and no replacement.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hitchhiker's Guide To... View PostIt looks so so bad that hopefully it's all an elaborate bluff and it's really amazeballs
Comment
-
Bought a set of Van Barneveld darts this morning and went straight into the Kilmardinny to test them. Held the door for a fella a few strides behind me(think Bird from JB Keanes The Field)and I said to him first time in living history wha?. He nodded and sheepishly said howya. First time in living history.... good Friday I repeated and he kinda half nodded still thinking about the first address. Felt he didn't get the good Friday thing or hear it second time but felt I best not say it a third time.
Ordered a beer and was then told the darts room was being painted so couldn't play darts, ffs if I knew this I wouldn't have got a pint.
Sitting there looking at the book collection mostly books about hard nuts like Lenny McLean etc and the chap I held the door for came over and said "remember you said first time in history? I was saying to myself I don't know that fella and I don't know what he means, I don't know that fella I said to myself. I thought you meant it was the first time you ever held a door open for someone. Then It came to me good Friday and pubs open".
That's my good Friday story.
Comment
-
Guest
I was thinking about quantum mechanics and and determinism and abortion last night when I couldn't sleep. I typically avoid social issues so I'm not well informed, but I believe that one of the bones of contention is that 'life' begins at conception for the pro-life people, right? But why there? Surely the defining moment would be when the capacity for life exists which is sex. Conception itself requires sex, so the starting line needs to be wound back.
In a sort of Schrodinger's Uterus kind of way, a woman in the fertile time of her cycle is 10% pregnant every time she has sex (until we make the measurement). By refusing to have sex she is essentially agreeing to abort 10% of a baby. By the time she's refused sex 7 times she's aborted over half a baby. Now, if you count all the horn-dogs that women turn down for sex on nights out every single one of them has aborted >99% of a baby.
I reckon people should try this argument on nights out to get the ride with repeal campaigners. Success all but guaranteed.
Comment
-
Originally posted by The Situation View PostInternet/Social media more often than not leaves me with an overriding irritable feeling these days, the abundance of hysterical opinions is jarring on the soul.
Prior to the internet we had limited exposure to the scope and nature differing options. We also didn't have easily accessible platforms to express our true feelings. Maybe a truer, diverse picture, of human nature is being exposed now and we are struggling to deal with it. Our value systems seems under constant assault to evolve faster, but I would argue this is a positive.
When I was back in college in the late eighties\early nineties, the uniformity of opinion was a little scary. Most discussions on the subject de jour would inevitability end up with a regurgitation of an Irish Times opinion piece.
The Cambridge Analytica shenanigans are interesting in that they tried to alter the corpus of the debate, on particular issues, the US Presidential election and Brexit for example. I guess this is only the tip of the iceberg. But then there have always been impostors and re-regs, but not on this industrial scale. Industrial online manipulation bolstered, with advances in IA, could challenge the honesty of the debate for sure.
That said we are living in a golden age of free expression. Love or loath the internet\social media, we should be very wary of attempts to control or restrict it. Baby and bath water, sticks and stones, thicker skins and better filters.
jack90210 annoys the tits off me, but its testimony to the spirit of this place that he is still around. The optimist in me believe that Jack, for one, is becoming a better person as a result.Last edited by Wombatman; 31-03-18, 12:38.Happiness is not a goal; it is a by-product. ~Eleanor Roosevelt
Comment
Comment