PJ Power

9 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said:

Girly Trainee has been accused of something. She is innocent until proven guilty. Johnny Kickpadz had been accused of something.  He is also innocent until proven guilty  

I’m not fucking talking in legal technicality. I’m talking about fanboys automatically believing their hero wouldn’t do such a thing and declare them innocent until proven guilty. Then they say the other party is guilty until proven innocent. Jesus fucking Christ. 

It's quite clear you still don't get it. Wilful ignorance is what I think they call it.

3 minutes ago, Tommy! said:

It's you who doesn't seem to be understanding a concept everyone else in the room does.

That's because the concept is a false equivalence - and for the record, the truth is not a popularity contest.

8 minutes ago, wordsfromlee said:

He can look at it from any side he wants but if you’re against the vaccine then you’re antivax.

I bet he’s well Brexit too. 
 

A case of logical fallacy here, since neither "B*ris" or his band of cronies are an authoritative source on the matter of vaccines and vaccination. Not to mention that "both sides of an argument" does not mean that each side holds the same level of authority.

1 hour ago, Keith Houchen said:

You’re talking as if I’m using it in a legal setting, I’m using it when arseholes declare their hero as innocent until proven guilty while declaring the allegations are false. I’m saying the person they accuse of the false allegation is innocent of that until it’s proven they made it up. In other words, if you’re saying one person is IUPG, you have to say the other party is too. I’m saying BOTH are innocent until proven guilty. 
 

I’m genuinely struggling here, I thought I’d described the position as clearly as possible. I’ll have one last go

Johnny Kickpadz gets accused by Girlie Trainee of sexual misconduct. @JohnnyKickpadz4lyf jumps to his defence saying “Johnny is a gent, how can you all turn on him! Trial by Twitter! Innocent until proven guilty! Girlie Trainee is a slag who made it all up”

Now, using @JohnnyKickpadz4lyf‘s logic, Girlie Trainee is accused of making it all up so she is ALSO innocent until proven guilty. Either they both are or they aren’t. This ties in with what I posted about bias we have regarding our favourites. 
 

And finally, for both clarity and the benefit of everyone reading this bollocks, I am not saying Tarquin St Robes QC is using this defence at trial, I use it when people only apply IUPG to one person. It’s not a gotcha, or an attempt at one, it’s pointing out BOTH are innocent until proven guilty. And fanboys aren’t keen on that. 

You still don't get it, do you?

The implication of "innocent until proven/presumed guilty" applies to the accused, not the accuser. It does not apply to anyone other than the accused, including those that (other than the accused) accuse the original accuser. Since the accuser(s) is/are not on trial, they cannot in practice at some stage of it be deemed guilty, therefore "innocent until proven/presumed guilty" doesn't apply. To do so is a case of misplaced correctness or false equivalence, a fallacy to apply a legal term outside of its own sphere. Hence those that say that the accused is "innocent until proven/presumed guilty" are correct when they do so expressing it as a legal term. You cannot simply retort to that saying that the accuser is "innocent until proven/presumed guilty" except as a case of either intellectual dishonesty or misapplication. "I reject your reality and substitute my own" does not wash.

Also, you have supported the idea of the (original) accuser(s) automatically having their statement to be true. If that is the case, then you have extrajudicially made the accused guilty until proved/presumed innocent - therefore you can not claim in this scenario that both (or multiple) parties are "innocent until proven/presumed guilty" because it is another logical fallacy.

I only wish things like this was taught at school, it would save a lot of headaches.

Keith clearly doesn't like his stuff thrown right back at them, probably because I've demonstrated that his false application of "innocent until proven guilty" is not the "GOTCHA" they think it is, especially when you take it to its logical step forward that those whom are not the accused that are claiming that the original accuser is lying are themselves "innocent until proven guilty".

18 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said:

My initial reply was based upon Twitter comments saying Allin is IUPG, a lot of these comments suggest the complainant is making the whole thing up. I’m stating that they must apply the maxim they wheel out for their hero to the complainant as well, as they’ve accused her of making it up. I thought it was bleeding obvious that I wasn’t talking in legal defence. 
 

And of course, these pisspipes are the first to think a not guilty verdict equals a false allegation. 

Well what do you know, there's shitty people on Twitter! 💩💩

Even if you leave aside any legal terminology behind "Innocent until proven/presumed guilty", if you take any such accusation as to be automatically true then logically that makes the accused as being guilty unless they can otherwise prove their innocence, which depending on how the accusation is framed may be impossible to prove. Can't have it both ways.

2 minutes ago, Tamura said:

No, it''s a straightforward question. Either you're willing go out drinking with someone accused of raping your mum at knifepoint, or you acknowledge that innocent until proven guilty doesn't always apply. Which?

It's nothing more than a loaded question, akin to asking "When did you stop beating your wife".

10 minutes ago, Tamura said:

The low prosection rate and high conviction rate may be explained by the Crown Prosecution Service's secret performance targets. Is anyone suggesting that the 53,691 reported rapes for which no conviction occured were also false accusations? That would be a rather unlikely figure of 97.3% being false by the way, for anyone not keeping up. Or perhaps, more obviously, people should argue that people making rape, and other sexual assault, accusations should be believed instead of dismissed?

I've already addressed the point regarding reported rape accusations above, but for the final sentence there is a difference between believing that someone has been raped or sexually assaulted and proving that it happened. To flip the legal standing of taking an accuser's statement as being true or probably true essentially places the burden of proof on the accused, making them guilty unless they can prove otherwise - that is something ripe for a massive increase in miscarriages of justice.

10 minutes ago, Tamura said:

I'm a full believer in innocent until proven guilty, but it doesn't mean what most people think it means. Innocent until proven guilty applies only to the right of the judicial system to impose punishment on criminals, not on the court of public opinion. If your mum phoned you up and said your best made had gone round her house, kicked the door in and raped her at knifepoint would you say "well innocent until proven guilty, I'm still going out drinking with him"?

That's a blatant Appeal to Emotion case right there. Not really a good example in the larger scheme of things.

14 minutes ago, Nick James said:

I don't get how Keith's words are being misinterpreted? Surely he means the accuser should always be believed until proven otherwise? Rather than told they are lying without evidence to say so? Victim blaming is the main reason victims don't come forward.

That is not the way the legal system works in this country or indeed most Western countries - it is up to those making the accusation to provide evidence of their claims. At the same time, a lack of evidence does not mean that they are in fact lying.

I've seen it banded about far too many times that in trials concerning rape/sexual assault that if the defendant is found not guilty, that the accuser was lying - unless the defence is able to provide strong evidence towards their acquittal that the evidence was falsified, then it is likely that the evidence from the prosecution was not strong enough to convict "beyond reasonable doubt". Not surprisingly for a lot of such cases like these, getting a successful conviction is tough.

44 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said:

Are you saying one of the two people accused aren’t innocent until proven guilty?

I'll explain this as concisely as I can.

The maxim of "innocent until proven (or presumed) guilty" or a Presumption of Innocence is a legal standing afforded to the accused/defendant.

Unless there has somehow been a colossal fuck up or major swerve along the way to from accusation to trial, the accuser(s) is/are not the accused. Only the defendants are. Legally, no one else involved in the accusation is given a presumption of innocence or guilt.

23 hours ago, Keith Houchen said:

My standard reply to this is always along the lines of “You’re absolutely right, the woman who made the allegation is totally innocent until proven guilty that she made it up” Quite often, they tend to not mention it again. 

I don't think you actually know what "innocent until proven guilty" means or how it's applied.

"What's Way Bryatt doing in the Impact zone?"

Someone had to say it.

Thunder Rosa's now officially signed with AEW.

23 hours ago, IANdrewDiceClay said:

The pop for Cena might have been the biggest in 20 years. How has ever gotten a reaction that loud? Austin in 2001? Hogan in 2002? Fucking mental.

The reaction Cena got in the 2008 Royal Rumble has to be up there.

R.I.P. Mr. #1derful.

Another "I don't think they'd use that today" cover...

...oddly enough this isn't in the list of Status Quo's Discography on Wikipedia, but Discogs does state that this was a compilation album released in 1979.

I'm gonna guess this cover would not be without controversy today...

54 minutes ago, air_raid said:

The same year that Street Fighter II came out, Tyson was also parodied in The Simpsons as Drederick Tatum, later managed by Lucious Sweet, a fairly transparent duplicate of Don King, although from the mouth of Homer, existing in a world in which King also exists. I’m fairly confused as to where the line is for needing permission to use a persons likeness (or indeed, name), and sometimes it seems like all is fair in the name of humour – but that can’t be true, can it?

'murica has some very loose rules regarding the presentation of parodies as fair use, even if they are done for profit. Probably the best wrestling examples would have to be the Huckster & Nacho Man by the WWF, "Oklahoma" in WCW as well as the Blue World Order in ECW.

Edit: Just to add with the Simpsons theme, you can add Rainier Wolfcastle being a blatant parody of Arnold Schwarznegger.

Thanks folks!

This might be a bit of an obscure ask, but here goes...

I've been digitising some old family VHS cassettes recently, and on one of the old tapes is a recording of an episode of Smackdown - a couple of minutes of internet searching dates it to the 13th January 2000 edition of the show, which opened with a segment involving HHH and Mankind/Cactus Jack a week and a half prior to their 2000 Royal Rumble match up for the WWF title. During the segment, a fake Mankind was brought out by HHH to mock etc which later gets beat up by Cactus Jack (whom had "morphed" from Mankind during it). I'm wondering who played this fake Mankind? Looking at their obscured face, I thought it might have been Mideon, but I'm not really sure?

Re: Drake Wuertz - it's strange to think that when he was addicted to Crystal Meth that he was more likely a more reasonable person. Do drugs, kids!

Obligatory "What's Brian Danielson doing in the Impact Zone?" post.

From this week's Popbitch...

Quote

The latest internal numbers at WWE suggest the average wrestling viewer is aged somewhere in their 60s. Oddly similar to the audience profile for Fox News, in fact.

3 hours ago, WyattSheepMask said:

Intrigued how this will be spun as being Megan’s doing

The Greenlandic town of Nanortalik lies further south than Lerwick in the Shetland Isles.

Also, Middle Island, Ontario lies further south than Crescent City, California.