Site Ideas
12 Jul 08
18 Sep 08
Originally posted by no1marauderAs you point out the legal definitions are not necessarily those followed by the mods but in general they are reasonable guidelines in any walk of life
The Criminal Justice Act is hardly applicable to the RHP forums.
Even assuming that English law now varies from common law precedents regarding what is and isn't hearsay (those precedents were codified in the FRE), your Civil Evidence Act of 1995 explicitly states:
"In civil proceedings evidence shall not be excluded on the ground th ...[text shortened]... istent with it is admissible for the purpose of showing that he had contradicted himself.[/b]
Re Civil Proceedings
The Act moves some of the focus of hearsay evidence to weight, rather than admissibility, setting out considerations in assessing the evidence (set out in summary form):[15]
* reasonableness of the party calling the evidence to have produced the original maker
* whether the original statement was made at or near the same time as the evidence it mentions
* whether the evidence involves multiple hearsay
* whether any person involved had any motive to conceal or misrepresent matters
* whether the original statement was an edited account, or was made in collaboration with another, or for a particular purpose
* whether the circumstances of the hearsay evidence suggest an attempt to prevent proper evaluation of its weight
19 Sep 08
Originally posted by MctaytoGuidelines for any walk of life? You must be a barrel of laughs at your local pub.
As you point out the legal definitions are not necessarily those followed by the mods but in general they are reasonable guidelines in any walk of life
Re Civil Proceedings
The Act moves some of the focus of hearsay evidence to weight, rather than admissibility, setting out considerations in assessing the evidence (set out in summary form):[15]
* ...[text shortened]... cumstances of the hearsay evidence suggest an attempt to prevent proper evaluation of its weight
20 Sep 08
Originally posted by no1marauderJust try and say the words "You are right and I am wrong." I would really like to know if you are even capable of putting that sentence together. I didn't even read what you are arguing this time, maybe you are right, who knows, but just try and say those words. I have a feeling your arrogance in thinking you know everything will lock your jaw.
You are incorrect as a general matter and incorrect according to the facts of this specific circumstance.
The general definition of hearsay is "a "statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted." FRE 801. It doesn't matter if the ...[text shortened]... need not look to hearsay exceptions as the statement is non-hearsay for the reason given.
20 Sep 08
Originally posted by PocketKingsWe all know that any forum user has a 89% chance to go to court over things that happen in a forum. The other 11% is a close split between die, and have fun.
Just try and say the words "You are right and I am wrong." I would really like to know if you are even capable of putting that sentence together. I didn't even read what you are arguing this time, maybe you are right, who knows, but just try and say those words. I have a feeling your arrogance in thinking you know everything will lock your jaw.
FACT!
P-
20 Sep 08
Originally posted by PocketKingsIf you're too lazy and/or stupid to bother to try to understand what we are discussing, then you don't have much of a leg to stand on to expect me to say "I'm wrong" (when I'm not). So flame me if you want to; I'm sure you'll pick up some of the recs you find so precious.
Just try and say the words "You are right and I am wrong." I would really like to know if you are even capable of putting that sentence together. I didn't even read what you are arguing this time, maybe you are right, who knows, but just try and say those words. I have a feeling your arrogance in thinking you know everything will lock your jaw.
20 Sep 08
Originally posted by no1marauderSo typical, your past history of posting gives me plenty of "a leg to stand on." The recs just come with agreement, which is very rare in your case.
If you're too lazy and/or stupid to bother to try to understand what we are discussing, then you don't have much of a leg to stand on to expect me to say "I'm wrong" (when I'm not). So flame me if you want to; I'm sure you'll pick up some of the recs you find so precious.
20 Sep 08
Originally posted by PocketKingsYou would have been very disappointed if you were around when the rec count was given right next to every user's name.
So typical, your past history of posting gives me plenty of "a leg to stand on." The recs just come with agreement, which is very rare in your case.
21 Sep 08
Originally posted by no1marauderThe good old days when You, Shav, Me, Nemesio, and a couple other users had well over a thousand recs for our 'great ideas' and posts.
You would have been very disappointed if you were around when the rec count was given right next to every user's name.
Before the 'Fun' died... or should I say was murdered.
P-
22 Sep 08
Originally posted by CrowleyI don't pay much attention to korch threads, unless someone tells me I should see something he had to say. 😉 😛 Other than that I don't even bother to go in and look at it. You have such a big problem with my english, I am sure his broken english must drive you pretty nuts huh. 😉
No, that happened recently - Korch made a thread about it.