ChatterBank55 mins ago
Looks Like Sir Kier Has Nailed His Colours To The Mast.
63 Answers
Well I dont agree with him on this self declaring gender but at least he had the balls to do it unlike other ladies recently.
Not sure how it will go down with the women voters, perhaps a few ladies might like to inform us?
https:/ /www.da ilymail .co.uk/ news/ar ticle-1 0604829 /Keir-S tarmer- calls-r espectf ul-deba te-cont roversi al-issu e.html
Not sure how it will go down with the women voters, perhaps a few ladies might like to inform us?
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.//The person who breaks into my house and takes something hasn't stolen it until it can be proved.//
I'll make it simpler for you then. Imagine this:
You are in your house when somebody breaks in. They are a lot bigger than you and are brandishing a knife so you decide not to tackle them. But you watch them take a valuable ornament from your mantlepiece and leg it out the door. You don't know who they are, would be unable to give a description of them good enough to see them apprehended, so no conviction would be possible, nobody would be found guilty in court. By your reasoning, your valuable ornament hasn't been stolen and the person who took it isn't guilty of anything. I don't think you'd find too many people who would agree with you.
//NJ - you've see newspaper headlines with the word "alleged" in them when reporting on a court case right?//
I do indeed. It's because until they are proved in court, the criminal charges that are laid are just that - allegations. If the person who stole your ornament was apprehended and put before a court, any media reports on the proceedings would be bound to refer to the charge as "alleged" until they are proved. But it doesn't alter the fact that he stole your ornament and is guilty of theft. The word "guilty" does not only have a legal definition. It has a lay meaning which is "culpable or responsible for a wrongdoing." You can be responsible for doing wrong without being found guilty of a crime. You can be guilty of leaving the bathroom door open and allowing it to become cold; you can be guilty of forgetting to turn a light off. Similarly your thief can be guilty of stealing your ornament. Just because it does not end in a criminal conviction, it does not mean the guilt is eradicated.
As for the transgender business, we'll just have to agree to differ. I can't take some of the nonsense that spouts from people concerned about such things too seriously. It genuinely effects a very small number of people (you can find plenty of data to support this, since you asked, and I'm not digging it out for you) and they usually get the help they need. But I'm not making special considerations, such as speaking incorrectly by using plural pronouns when "he" or "she" is appropriate, to accommodate the people who just seem to want their fifteen minutes of fame.
I'll make it simpler for you then. Imagine this:
You are in your house when somebody breaks in. They are a lot bigger than you and are brandishing a knife so you decide not to tackle them. But you watch them take a valuable ornament from your mantlepiece and leg it out the door. You don't know who they are, would be unable to give a description of them good enough to see them apprehended, so no conviction would be possible, nobody would be found guilty in court. By your reasoning, your valuable ornament hasn't been stolen and the person who took it isn't guilty of anything. I don't think you'd find too many people who would agree with you.
//NJ - you've see newspaper headlines with the word "alleged" in them when reporting on a court case right?//
I do indeed. It's because until they are proved in court, the criminal charges that are laid are just that - allegations. If the person who stole your ornament was apprehended and put before a court, any media reports on the proceedings would be bound to refer to the charge as "alleged" until they are proved. But it doesn't alter the fact that he stole your ornament and is guilty of theft. The word "guilty" does not only have a legal definition. It has a lay meaning which is "culpable or responsible for a wrongdoing." You can be responsible for doing wrong without being found guilty of a crime. You can be guilty of leaving the bathroom door open and allowing it to become cold; you can be guilty of forgetting to turn a light off. Similarly your thief can be guilty of stealing your ornament. Just because it does not end in a criminal conviction, it does not mean the guilt is eradicated.
As for the transgender business, we'll just have to agree to differ. I can't take some of the nonsense that spouts from people concerned about such things too seriously. It genuinely effects a very small number of people (you can find plenty of data to support this, since you asked, and I'm not digging it out for you) and they usually get the help they need. But I'm not making special considerations, such as speaking incorrectly by using plural pronouns when "he" or "she" is appropriate, to accommodate the people who just seem to want their fifteen minutes of fame.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.