Adrian wrote:
> Doug
riseup.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>>>>> Nope. The jury must have accepted the defence since it was the
>>>> protesters only defence and no other.
>
>>>
>>> It's not the defence's job to convince the jury, it's the defence's
>>> job to prevent the prosecution convincing the jury.
>
>> Don't be silly. Clearly the media and the court disagrees with your
>> peculiar personal opinion.
>
>
>
> I don't give a fuck about the media, but I think you'll find that the
> court would agree with that "peculiar opinion".
>
>>> "Beyond reasonable doubt"
>
>> What about it?
>
> You're priceless...
>
> Look, Duhg, you keep proving you don't even have the loosest
> understanding of our legal system - have you considered doing some
> basic research?
>
>> Here is another similar case.
>
> ...which has already been mentioned, both in the BBC article and in
> this thread...
>
>> What this opens up is the possibility of not being found guilty in
>> law of damaging cars and glueing locks, to name but two.
>
> It's certainly a valid hypothesis. Now it needs testing - which, in
> this case, requires somebody to do so in a court of law.
So Doug, have you got the bottle to put it to the test and risk imprisonment
or a fine?
Doug would need to make sure of is reasons of course. Taking revenge on a
third party for the inconsiderate actions of another is not a defence as
demonstrated in that article.
