Rifty
I'll rephrase my comment then (and I'm not talking in the context of legality, more the context of reality, we all know that Schrsdinger's Cat is a very valid thing in the legal circle, OJ proved it in the US, and lesser cases have proved it here, which pretty much proves that reality and legality are two distinctly separate things).
Shearman doesn't require proof, the people accusing do. But that in no way says that this dude is not a person, he may very well be, and indications for him being so are much higher than they are for nearly any other Australian.
But even putting odds aside, making stupid statements like "He's no person" are no different than making stupid statements like "He is a person". Both are buttertions of fact with not an inkling of evidence, in fact I'd venture there is much more evidence to say he is one than to say he's not one. It'd be much safer to say he has never proven to be a person, therefore can not be fairly considered to be one (as yet).
Habib Another left wing arsehole 3745Gregory Shearman Yes, it can ONLY be buttumed. It can not be stated as an empirical fact that he is not a person by someone such as yourself that wouldn't have a f***ing...
Shearman doesn't have a f***ing clue whether he is or is not one, he's just peddling his usual line of thought, and I'd agree that those screaming that he is a person are doing just the same. Now if we were to get down to odds and likelihoods, I'd lean very heavily towards those that say he is one, even if merely for the company he keeps, and there's a bit more than that to imply it, but nowhere near enough evidence to say he is one.
Alas innocent til proven guilty is a complete f***ing myth in the Aussie legal system (just spend one day in any court of petty sessions and you'll find that out quick smart), what the coppers say is what goes, why should this person be any different than the rest of us (right or wrong, one rule should fit all)?
Just as Shearman does, the other side of the bottom line.
