It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

'Conspiracy Author' David Icke Banned From EU, Labeled A "Terrorist"

page: 26
68
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 27 2022 @ 08:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

See, again you can only use your poor understanding of the law as a defence of Ickes comments. That's all you've done for the last 10 pages or so.
You havent spoken about his comments in his books other than to deny his antisemitism.


I will advise you to refrain from making further comments or accusing others without any evidence. You don't want this to become a legal matter. Or do you? Unless you want Icke on these threads.

If he makes a claim about you then you will find it hard to defend it. Taking legal advice in your position will be a wise option. So I caution you on this matter.

Let's see if we back bring Icke around here.

You are oblivious to the facts and who has to prove what.
edit on 27-11-2022 by Asmodeus3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2022 @ 08:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Asmodeus3

You cant seem to grasp the basics here.
The phrase "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't literally mean we're affirming the accused didn't commit the crime. It just means that they can't convict them of anything yet. It's an assumption of neutrality in the absence of evidence untill its shown or proven.




Denial is a common tactic that substitutes deliberate ignorance for thoughtful planning.
CHARLES TREMPER



posted on Nov, 27 2022 @ 08:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Asmodeus3




I will advise you to refrain from making further comments or accusing others without any evidence. You don't want this to become a legal matter. Or do you? Unless you want Icke on these threads.

If he makes a claim about you then you will find it hard to defend it. Taking legal advice in your position will be a wise option. So I caution you on this matter.

Let's see if we back bring Icke around here.


Your complete lack of understanding of English law and assumptions on here are laughable.
Also your attempts at trying to frighten me with your poor understanding because you can't refute Ickes own commments in his books really does show your support of his "beliefs" here.




Denial is a common tactic that substitutes deliberate ignorance for thoughtful planning.
CHARLES TREMPER



posted on Nov, 27 2022 @ 08:19 AM
link   
The last 4 pages of this Thread has degenerated into just 3 people all vying to have the last word!



posted on Nov, 27 2022 @ 08:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

You cant seem to grasp the basics here.
The phrase "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't literally mean we're affirming the accused didn't commit the crime. It just means that they can't convict them of anything yet. It's an assumption of neutrality in the absence of evidence untill its shown or proven.




Denial is a common tactic that substitutes deliberate ignorance for thoughtful planning.
CHARLES TREMPER


I will be more concerned if I was you not with my understanding of the law but with your own unsubstantiated accusations that are everywhere.

The matter you are discussing is a strawman that tries to deflect from the point of this conversation. I understand well what the law says. It is you who had placed yourself in an impossible position.

Again I will ask you to refrain from making accusations. That can land a defamation claim against you. You still haven't grasped what is going on.

The default position is the presumption of innocence. Which I still maintain.

You have made a series of claims and I argue you strongly to stop. If Icke was to make a counterclaim you will find yourself in a very difficult position.



posted on Nov, 27 2022 @ 08:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3




I will advise you to refrain from making further comments or accusing others without any evidence. You don't want this to become a legal matter. Or do you? Unless you want Icke on these threads.

If he makes a claim about you then you will find it hard to defend it. Taking legal advice in your position will be a wise option. So I caution you on this matter.

Let's see if we back bring Icke around here.


Your complete lack of understanding of English law and assumptions on here are laughable.
Also your attempts at trying to frighten me with your poor understanding because you can't refute Ickes own commments in his books really does show your support of his "beliefs" here.




Denial is a common tactic that substitutes deliberate ignorance for thoughtful planning.
CHARLES TREMPER


The lack of understanding comes from your part where you don't seem to have a single clue of where the burden of proof is when you make accusations.

It's up to you if you want to continue accusing Icke but he has to have a look himself on these threads.

Let's see what we can do about this.
edit on 27-11-2022 by Asmodeus3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2022 @ 08:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: teapot
The last 4 pages of this Thread has degenerated into just 3 people all vying to have the last word!



It isn't like this though.

The other member is trying hard to place the burden of proof to the defendant and that cannot allow to happen.



posted on Nov, 27 2022 @ 08:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Asmodeus3

The only person that has made strawman arguements is you my friend, you make no attemps to refute Ickes claims in his books other than to use the word "refute" and make poor attempts at using English law with no understanding of the subject.
I'll post this again as you can't seem to grasp what it means...


The phrase "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't literally mean we're affirming the accused didn't commit the crime. It just means that they can't convict them of anything yet. It's an assumption of neutrality in the absence of evidence untill its shown or proven.

This is a forum, something you also can't seem to understand and I've only posted my opinions and quotes from Ickes own books and mouth. I 'm not the one who puiblished antisemitic comments in books!





Denial is a common tactic that substitutes deliberate ignorance for thoughtful planning.
CHARLES TREMPER



posted on Nov, 27 2022 @ 08:44 AM
link   
www.allaboutlaw.co.uk...
It's not for the claimant to prove a statement is false, the burdllen proof is on the defendant to show it's true.

"The Burden of Proof problem
In the lUK, the burden of proof in a libel case is on the defendant. In other words, it is not up to the plaintiff to prove that the statement in question is false—it is up to the defendant to prove that the statement is true. It is often difficult to prove the truth of a statement one way or the other—and when neither side submits convincing evidence, the party with the burden of proof loses. This one aspect of UK libel law likely causes more self-censorship than any...."


edit on 27-11-2022 by Oldcarpy2 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-11-2022 by Oldcarpy2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2022 @ 08:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

I know you're in the "Biz" so to speak and I was going to message you about Asmodeous3 rediculous threats of law here and ask you to comment, but I didn't want to waste your time with his crazy claims.
I know this is a forum and these are just my opinions and all I've posted are Ickes own quotes and comments.

edit on 27-11-2022 by Kurokage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2022 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Asmodeus3

It's civil law, not criminal.

In defamation cases in England and Wales, the burden of proof is reversed.



posted on Nov, 27 2022 @ 09:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Asmodeus3

It's civil law, not criminal.

In defamation cases in England and Wales, the burden of proof is reversed.


It's precisely what I have said.
Kurokage doesn't seem to understand this little and very important detail.

In addition making accusations against others online or offline without much evidence can cost you a fortune.
edit on 27-11-2022 by Asmodeus3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2022 @ 09:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Hahaha and now the flip flopping begins again, you could decide on who was taking who to court to begin with....





Denial is a common tactic that substitutes deliberate ignorance for thoughtful planning.
CHARLES TREMPER

edit on 27-11-2022 by Kurokage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2022 @ 09:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Kurokage

Didn't you say this?

"The other member is trying hard to place the burden of proof to the defendant and that cannot allow to happen."



posted on Nov, 27 2022 @ 09:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

no
But Asmodeous started off by saying I should take Icke to court if I have such great proof but when I posted about who has to prove what, he changed it to say Icke should be invited by him to see my comments so he could then take me to court.
Hence the term "flip flopper"!!

edit on 27-11-2022 by Kurokage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2022 @ 09:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Kurokage

Sorry, I meant to reply to him, not you.

Fat fingers on my phone!



posted on Nov, 27 2022 @ 09:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

No problem.
I hardly ever use the mobile app, I'm 6' 2 14 stone and phones though bigger now are still small when using some of these apps.




posted on Nov, 27 2022 @ 09:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Kurokage

Didn't you say this?

"The other member is trying hard to place the burden of proof to the defendant and that cannot allow to happen."


That's in the case he is the one to make accusations and trying to prove someone is guilty of a given offences.

In the case of libel & defamation the burden of proof is reversed.

I have already stated this several times and used even the most basic information from Wikipedia


English defamation law puts the burden of proof on the defendant, and does not require the plaintiff to prove falsehood. For that reason, it has been considered an impediment to free speech in much of the developed world.


And here


A defamatory statement is presumed to be false, unless the defendant can prove its truth



posted on Nov, 27 2022 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

no
But Asmodeous started off by saying I should take Icke to court if I have such great proof but when I posted about who has to prove what, he changed it to say Icke should be invited by him to see my comments so he could then take me to court.
Hence the term "flip flopper"!!


If they have the evidence then you should try.

But that not a libel and defamation case.

You seem to misunderstand when the burden of proof is reversed.



posted on Nov, 27 2022 @ 09:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

no
But Asmodeous started off by saying I should take Icke to court if I have such great proof but when I posted about who has to prove what, he changed it to say Icke should be invited by him to see my comments so he could then take me to court.
Hence the term "flip flopper"!!


If Icke is invited here to see your comments then he could potentially ask you to prove your accusations and this can in theory lead to a liberal & defamation case.

So in case you are not clear yet there are two different cases.

One where you make accusations against him and take him to court.

And another one where he takes you to court on the basis of what you have written here accusing him of being an antisemite and a holocaust denier. That will be on the grounds of libel & defamation.
The first case is rather different.







 
68
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join