London Banter - View Single Post

Adrian · March 2nd 11, 03:02 PM posted to uk.transport.london

d gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

Don't be daft, man. It's plain bloody English.

Its also meaningless because theres no such thing as "unreasonable
doubt". If anyone has a doubt then to them its not unreasonable.

So the 9/11 "truthers" and holocaust deniers are merely exercising
reasonable doubt?

From their point of view perhaps, not from anyone elses.

So they would, or wouldn't fail "beyond reasonable doubt"?

Who decides what's reasonable and what isn't? The jury? What if there's a
"truther" on the jury, and they convince the other jurors? Should that
jury's decision be over-ruled, because you don't find their decision
"reasonable"?

Beyond reasonable doubt simply means no doubt at all.

So how come you're arguing in favour of a stronger test?

*sigh*. Logically thats what "beyond reasonable doubt" means but what
the court means is "only a tiny amount of doubt".

So what you're saying is that the legal test is "beyond reasonable
doubt", and that you're happy that that's a perfectly plain English
language phrase - but it's just not what they actually mean?