Brexit, for once some facts.

[oyster]

I can see both sides of this.
Evidence...........False Evidence. (is it still evidence)
Testimony....….False Testimony (is it still Testimony)
Tits..................False Tits (are they still Tits)

I see evidence as the observations which have been established. Things are offered in evidence - a log book, a photo, a receipt of purchase with description.

But if the log book contains the wrong information, it changes from evidence of the model/engine/etc., to evidence of the description under which it was purchased and that the log book was wrong. A photo might show a blue Ascona with the appropriate number plate. Which is common ground regardless the engine. Another photo showing the actual engine might help to establish the capacity. But it has to be established that it really is a photo of the engine in that car.

It isn't so much that evidence has to be true (i.e. if the log book is untrue it ceases to be evidence at all) as that the interpretation is based on the truths taken from the evidence. The log book's evidential value changes depending on whether its content is believed or disproved.

 

[flecc]

The log book's evidential value changes depending on whether its content is believed or disproved.

Indeed, once falsehood is established, it is no longer evidence.

That was the basis of my challenge to Zlatan, who had maintained that even when shown to be false, it was still evidence.
.

 

[Zlatan]

I disagree, your discovery of the 2.2 engine was the evidence in this instance, the log book account a falsehood.

Prior to the discovery you believed you had evidence, but that belief was misplaced. The evidence didn't exist.
.

And what if the "truth" has not been proved. (which it very rarely is)
The evidence Bart Sifrel offers (if you read his book) is credible. I, m not saying either side is fact, both sides offer evidence. It is not beyond realms of possibility the whole episode was fabricated. When posters say it definitely happened (or didnt) they are simply expressing how they have decided on evidence supplied by either side. Evidence could be misleading, conflicting, fabricated or plain wrong but it remains evidence.
There are scientists who believe the Van Allen belt is impossible for human beings to pass through. Their evidence suggests man has not visited the moon. Nobody on here knows one way or other. You insist they have, VFR they havent. I, m open minded and read evidence supporting both scenarios.
As I said before, the evidence on back of wife's car suggest it is a 1.8.If somebody witnessed my car involved in a crime the evidence a witness provides would suggest it was a 1.8 involved. Even though factually wrong it is still evidence.
How many times are people arrested wrongly when evidence is wrong??
People have been convicted on wrong evidence? Irrelevant to the adjective describing the evidence, it remains exactly that, evidence.
What you are talking about is irrefutable evidence in support of a certain result. That is not the meaning of evidence in this sense.

Under fleccs definition of evidence none of the above would exist.

 

[Danidl]

Indeed, once falsehood is established, it is no longer evidence.

That was the basis of my challenge to Zlatan, who had maintained that even when shown to be false, it was still evidence.
.

I still must disagree. Evidence is all the materials, assertions, documents ,whether important ,relevent true or false presented in support of a case. Like I said it is the responsibility of the court to winnow the lies from the truth, and determine which set of statements are believable.
A person can assert in all truthfulness that a car was black, ..that is their true evidence, no lie no intention to decieve. However when the defence or prosecution counsel then query whether the car was seen under sodium lamps, it could well have been red but appears black. So it could exonerate or not .
It will be for the prosecution in the first instance to submit the body of evidence they believe will establish guilt, it is for the defence to show that there are other explanations for these facts, and perhaps to show that this evidence was in fact false. It is actually called the book of evidence in the court. Not the book of supposed evidence.

 

[oldgroaner]

Happy Easter everyone.

Jesus died for our sins. He is risen today.

Died for my sins? a couple of thousand years before I committed them?
He needn't have bothered, whatever he was selling I don't want.

 

[oldgroaner]

He is different in that if he gets in he will make sure the Brexit vote is honoured - I think we can all be pretty damm sure about that.

And then go and live abroad to avoid responsibility, as he said

 

[OxygenJames]

I’m not at all sure. I would have agreed with you 3 years ago, but after he did the great disappearance act post referendum, I have my doubts.

He disappeared because he thought his job was done. And if the rest of the idiot's in SW1 had stuck to the script that would have been the end of it.

He's back because they didn't do what they promised to do.

 

[gray198]

Why does a working-class brexiteer (or remainer, for that matter) feel they can in any way trust someone so far removed from being working class as Tice? (And ARM, for that matter.)

why would Labor voters trust someone such as Chukka or Keir Starmer who have probably never done a days honest work in their lives which labor voters can relate to

 

[OxygenJames]

Died for my sins? a couple of thousand years before I committed them?
He needn't have bothered, whatever he was selling I don't want.

To sin assumes you have choice. You don't. Sorry. Free will is a complete illusion.

If you don't think so - then pray tell me what your next thought will be. You can't - because you are not the author of your thoughts. They simply appear in consciousness like everything else does (sights, sounds, etc).

Which means 'your' decisions are not 'yours'. Because decisions simply appear too. You don't 'decide' anything - you never have - you were always and will be forever innocent.

This is the forgiveness Christ was trying to point us towards.

Well......

Come on.

It is Easter.

As another great man said:

"Life's but a walking shadow - a poor player who struts and frets his hour upon the stage and is then heard no more"

 

[oldgroaner]

To sin assumes you have choice. You don't. Sorry. Free will is a complete illusion.

If you don't think so - then pray tell me what your next thought will be. You can't - because you are not the author of your thoughts. They simply appear in consciousness like everything else does (sights, sounds, etc).

Which means 'your' decisions are not 'yours'. Because decisions simply appear too. You don't 'decide' anything - you never have - you were always and will be forever innocent.

This is the forgiveness Christ was trying to point us towards.

Well......

Come on.

It is Easter.

As another great man said:

"Life's but a walking shadow - a poor player who struts and frets his hour upon the stage and is then heard no more"

Utter rot.

 

[flecc]

And what if the "truth" has not been proved. (which it very rarely is)

That's the point Zlatan, you posted that even after something had been disproved, it is still evidence. Here is what you posted:

"Both parties in any trial provide evidence. The losing party still provided evidence even if proved wrong, inept, false or made up doesnt change the fact it was evidence."

That is untrue.

Of course when evidence hasn't been disproved, it is still evidence.
.

 

[flecc]

I still must disagree. Evidence is all the materials, assertions, documents ,whether important ,relevent true or false presented in support of a case. Like I said it is the responsibility of the court to winnow the lies from the truth, and determine which set of statements are believable.
A person can assert in all truthfulness that a car was black, ..that is their true evidence, no lie no intention to decieve. However when the defence or prosecution counsel then query whether the car was seen under sodium lamps, it could well have been red but appears black. So it could exonerate or not .
It will be for the prosecution in the first instance to submit the body of evidence they believe will establish guilt, it is for the defence to show that there are other explanations for these facts, and perhaps to show that this evidence was in fact false. It is actually called the book of evidence in the court. Not the book of supposed evidence.

That's just obfuscation Danidl. Once something is shown to be untrue, as in Zlatan's example, it is no longer evidence.

Try representing it in court, on the basis that, though disproved, it's still evidence, telling the judge his understanding is simplistic!
.

 

[Danidl]

That's just obfuscation Danidl. Once something is shown to be untrue, as in Zlatan's example, it is no longer evidence.

Try representing it in court, on the basis that, though disproved, it's still evidence, telling the judge his understanding is simplistic!
.

No.. you are confusing the findings of a court with evidence. .. We would occasionally have a judge say something like.. we find the evidence presented by X as compelling and we find the evidence as presented by Y to as untrustworthy. . the following taken from official documentation for the courts in Ireland .. from Citizens Advice Office

"In any court case, whether criminal or civil, evidence may be introduced by both sides. Evidence is something that tends to prove or disprove a particular fact - it makes the existence or non-existence of that fact more likely.

The law of evidence lays down rules to decide what items of evidence may be introduced to prove facts in a trial. An item of evidence is described as "inadmissible" if the law of evidence does not allow it to be introduced at a trial. Conversely, an item of evidence is described as "admissible" if the law of evidence allows it to be introduced to prove or disprove a particular fact.

In this section, you will find information on a wide range of types of evidence and you will find out when those types of evidence may be admissible or inadmissible in a case. We will consider the oral testimony of witnesses, real evidence and documentary evidence. We will also consider hearsay evidence, circumstantial evidence, unlawfully obtained evidence, identification evidence and confessions.

Some evidence may be relevant and it may be admissible but it may be privileged evidence so it cannot be introduced. Other evidence may be admissible but may be suspect evidence so that certain safeguards have to be put in place to protect the accused.

The rules on what may be admitted in evidence in a criminal trial are complex. The Criminal Justice Act 2006 provides for the admissibility of statements which were made by witnesses and which the witness subsequently refuses to stand over. The court now has the power to decide whether or not to admit such a statement and the Act sets out guidelines for the court in making the decision."

 

[50Hertz]

He disappeared because he thought his job was done. And if the rest of the idiot's in SW1 had stuck to the script that would have been the end of it.

He's back because they didn't do what they promised to do.

Do you think it would be fair to suggest the following:

Nigel Farage is a very charismatic man and promised a very simple solution to the complex issue of leaving the EU, plus some fringe benefits. When the public said, ok we like the sound of that, crack on and deliver us these things, he shat himself. He did so because he didn’t know how it would be possible to leave, and at the same time, reap all the rewards that had been promised.

At that point, he headed for the nearest fox-hole before the inevitable incoming, in the form of accountability for his promises, started to land. He used the, “my work here is done” statement as cover whilst he took shelter, when in fact, that was the precise point in time when he should have ratcheted up his EU offensive, and pressed home his referendum victory.

I think Farage is charming, charismatic, an excellent speech maker and easy to follow, but when the time to deliver arrives, he his found to be full of pi$$ & wind.

Is that a fair summary?

 

[flecc]

No.. you are confusing the findings of a court with evidence. .. We would occasionally have a judge say something like.. we find the evidence presented by X as compelling and we find the evidence as presented by Y to as untrustworthy. . the following taken from official documentation for the courts in Ireland .. from Citizens Advice Office

"In any court case, whether criminal or civil, evidence may be introduced by both sides. Evidence is something that tends to prove or disprove a particular fact - it makes the existence or non-existence of that fact more likely.

The law of evidence lays down rules to decide what items of evidence may be introduced to prove facts in a trial. An item of evidence is described as "inadmissible" if the law of evidence does not allow it to be introduced at a trial. Conversely, an item of evidence is described as "admissible" if the law of evidence allows it to be introduced to prove or disprove a particular fact.

In this section, you will find information on a wide range of types of evidence and you will find out when those types of evidence may be admissible or inadmissible in a case. We will consider the oral testimony of witnesses, real evidence and documentary evidence. We will also consider hearsay evidence, circumstantial evidence, unlawfully obtained evidence, identification evidence and confessions.

Some evidence may be relevant and it may be admissible but it may be privileged evidence so it cannot be introduced. Other evidence may be admissible but may be suspect evidence so that certain safeguards have to be put in place to protect the accused.

The rules on what may be admitted in evidence in a criminal trial are complex. The Criminal Justice Act 2006 provides for the admissibility of statements which were made by witnesses and which the witness subsequently refuses to stand over. The court now has the power to decide whether or not to admit such a statement and the Act sets out guidelines for the court in making the decision."

But once again obfuscation Danidl, simply because it isn't relevant to what I challenged in Zlatan's post.

He stated that even after being proven untrue, (e.g. the court finding in your opening sentence), something is still evidence.

That is untrue, as your opening sentence appears to suggest, where you think I'm confused. I'm not, I'm very clear on exactly what I challenged, and it's not the complexity of all the circumstances you cite, and which I freely acknowledge.
.

 

[Woosh]

Most normal people think that's a good thing. That's why they're going to vote for him. You're in denial about what's going on at the moment. The old agendas are finished. Most people have had enough of them. The Brexit vote was the start. The more the establishment has tried to deny it, the more momentum the anti-establishment movement gathers. It's now got to an overwhelming point. You're going to see something momentous in the European elections and again shortly after that in the general elections, just like what happened in Alberta yesterday. The polls showed them nearly level. The result was 63 to 24 against the old regime, which had previously had a majority of 52 to 25. Basically, the old social justice and globalisation regime got annihilated. Nobody wants that anymore. Time to move on. Sorry for your bad news. I hope it doesn't spoil your Easter day (that's if you're allowed to celebrate it).

Governments have traditionally promised more than delivered. They all have to borrow to spend, it is logically to expect that they can't please all the people all the time and there will be plenty of unhappy voters. In fact, recent governments are voted in by one in 3 voters.
let's just wait until reality hits home. As soon as interest rate goes up, half of the protest votes will disappear.

 

[Zlatan]

But once again obfuscation Danidl, simply because it isn't relevant to what I challenged in Zlatan's post.

He stated that even after being proven untrue, (e.g. the court finding in your opening sentence), something is still evidence.

That is untrue, as your opening sentence appears to suggest, where you think I'm confused. I'm not, I'm very clear on exactly what I challenged, and it's not the complexity of all the circumstances you cite, and which I freely acknowledge.
.

This discussion started because I made the statement"there is evidence to suggest both man has and hasnt been to moon". That statement is true, no matter what individuals think on here. Some choose to believe one side and some the other. There is evidence for both arguments. That is the standpoint disputed.
Even if Bart Sibrel is completely wrong he has still supplied evidence for his reasoning. Read his book. No individuals are in a positiion to say "well your information isnt evidence but yours is". (well they shouldnt be)
We should study evidence fron both sides and make a decision, not enter into the discussion with a closed mind and preconceived ideas.

 

[oyster]

why would Labor voters trust someone such as Chukka or Keir Starmer who have probably never done a days honest work in their lives which labor voters can relate to

Answer a question with a question rather than an answer...

Slightly closer to working class background:

Born in Southwark, Starmer was the second of four children of Josephine (née Baker), a nurse, and Rod Starmer, a toolmaker. He was named after the founder of the Labour Party Keir Hardie.

 

[Woosh]

why would Labor voters trust someone such as Chukka or Keir Starmer who have probably never done a days honest work in their lives which labor voters can relate to

why not? is it because they were lawyers before becoming MPs?
if you are concerned with how they earn their crust before becoming politicians, look at those MPs who previously run investment funds. Plenty of them among the conservative MPs. They are the ones who have nothing in common with ordinary, traditional tory voters.

 

[OxygenJames]

Utter rot.

Said by a true believer.