Peace protesters cleared of air base damage!

If only I knew what a dappy was!! I don't know whether to be pleased or insulted But thanks for the welcome. (depablo, I know where you live!!!!)

 

I didn't think they were found guilty, I thought they got away with breaking the law.......or have I read this thread wrong??

 

And thanks again for the welcome

 

can I suggest you read lithiums last post again.

Thought you might !!!

 

I'm glad they were cleared of all charges!
Peace wished to all.

 

Bout time I did something other than just read these on your 'puter

 

Also new to using quotes, hence my answer to the first part of yours being joined!!!

 

They were cleared but feel that activist protest is never a good thing. It can get out of control.

 

I do try and avoid talking with you as well - sometimes you are the only person available -and I naively hope you have the decency to give from time too time.
Mr L - we have not concerened ourselves with each other other the last few months very much.
When we have it has not fostered a productive sharing of information.
All I asked was a bit of help - if you are bored with me a simple No or no response would have been adequate.
If you speak of the last few years - then my memory might not be as good as yours.
All you needed to say is NO - i'd quite happily ask someone else.
Just a quick YES/NO would have been adequate.

 

Quite possibly - a more productive solution would be to ask someone else.
I am not questioning his logic - even though imho it requires a active imagination to come to the conclusions he has. I just wanted a bit more info - end of.

It seems he is suggesting this case makes the weapons used illegal - that can not be true can it ? - not that it is worth argueing with him on this point -

All I wanted was further information not fascilitated by the links and posters within this thread..

 

oh you are all talking shit and you arent even good at it ! its really bad shit youre all talking

 

I never said it makes these weapons illegal. I think most of what your tenacious arguing is about is you simply not following what's being said. I apologise for my terseness, but I find this really quite infuriating.

A jury verdict does not set a precedent, only a judge's ruling can do that. What I did say is that the jury's verdict is a recognition that the use of these kinds of weapons is potentially a war crime. The pair were acquitted on the basis that they were attempting to prevent a war crime. The war crime they were attempting to prevent was the the use of indiscriminate weaponry like cluster munitions and DU which are well known to cause vast numbers of civilian casualties and are therefore arguably in breach of the geneva conventions' stipulations regarding the responsibility of warring armies to prevent civilian casualties at all costs. That the jury accepted that a war crime could have taken place is tacit recognition of the potential criminality of the use of these kinds of weapons.

 

Dappy is our nickname for Dapablo. Welcome to the forums by the way

 

lithium you are mad - thing is that sometimes you just have to step back from your own opinion and judge in a non partisan way. The judgement was not guilty !!
now thye judge would have said to the jury you can only bring in a not guilty verdict if xxxxx is true and yyyyy was not true if xxxxx is true yyyyy cannot be true therefore not guilty - if it was a precedent decision or one which implicated the government he would have tempered his statements with platitudes to the effect that there is an incongruity between what the law cvalls legal and what the law calls not guilty - here he did not say that becuse the jury find not guilty it is therefore legal - it is simple a verdigt of not guilty with no verdict of not guilty because performing a legal action - just not guilty without qualificatiuon

 

Thanks for the welcome. Now I know what Dappy is, I think I'll take it as an insult Mind you, I'm not sure what nicknames will come up for me in the future:& I'm sure there will be many!!!

 

dappys cool man have you met dippy deppy duppy doppy yet

 

I'm not argueing anything - If what I THINK you are saying is unrepresentative to what you actually meant - then fair enough - I'm sorry.
I was not argueing you were wrong in your assumptions - quite possibly how I subsequently read you - I got your accusations wrong.

Well quite possibly the under current of your accusations were not far off what I was reading into your posts - I appreciate your language avoided a direct connection to what you were saying and what I may have misrepresented in your posts.

As I do not think either of us can be bothered to argue about wording meaning and intent. I'll accept what you say you are saying - and leave it at that. Not that I was not accepting what you were saying from the outset.
Like I keep saying I just wanted a bit more info.

 

Could YOU provide some more information on the case that is NOT within this thread ?.

 

Lives not a mile from me. That's how I discovered this wonderful place full of wonderful people (& some right weido's, hence why I feel so at home!!):H

 

you must be barking mad man born on the same date and month an all man arty: