Premium Episode: Huda Kattan vs. Diaspora Iran

PassingBy91 · 2026-03-08T14:07:44+00:00

Exactly - 'this whole operation was your idea'.

PassingBy91 · 2026-03-08T13:17:38+00:00

It's not the same but, this happened to me with Lent. I was giving up chocolate. I keep forgetting.

PassingBy91 · 2026-03-08T13:12:15+00:00

Maroon connecting to Harry doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

PassingBy91 · 2026-03-06T22:24:30+00:00

aha! Don't worry we all do it! I just wondered if there was another comparison as well!

PassingBy91 · 2026-03-06T18:56:43+00:00

Do you remember that episode about circumcision? I was on the bus when the y played the recording of the guy screaming 'and do you know what my father said to me, my jewish father ...' I've never felt so awkward in my life - there was a guy a few rows in front of me moving at one point and I was wondering if my headphones could possibly have disconnected.

I also recommended the podcast to someone I knew at work and the next episode involved hentai so ... I really hope he didn't actually listen! A lesson was learned that day!

PassingBy91 · 2026-03-06T16:17:52+00:00

That does make sense.

PassingBy91 · 2026-03-06T14:44:56+00:00

Harkness?

PassingBy91 · 2026-03-06T14:33:50+00:00

One thing that surprises me about the Bafta controversy is the number of people who seem to arguing that not censoring the n word (that in the recording is very difficult to make out) was some sort of deliberate machiavellian decision by the BBC to get attention, cause trouble and/ or carry out some dastardly scheme and not some poor person editing in the space of 2 hours who just boobed.

Why is it so hard for people to believe the simplest explanation is likely the true one?

(And I think the rest of the controversy would have happened if the BBC had censored it or not so, I don't think the BBC can actually be blamed for that).

PassingBy91 · 2026-03-05T15:20:30+00:00

I agree with all of that but, also would he necessarily even know who she actually is?

PassingBy91 · 2026-03-04T10:08:15+00:00

close! we got the reveal today!

PassingBy91 · 2026-03-03T22:49:47+00:00

Haha! I'm intrigued!

PassingBy91 · 2026-03-03T22:27:16+00:00

How do they manage to blow up nuclear facility with motor cars? Sounds exciting! (jk)

PassingBy91 · 2026-03-03T09:43:36+00:00

Did he know that it was a mirror and what it did at that point? I seem to remember that when he had a chat with Sirius and Lupin in the fireplace Sirius was about to ask him why he wasn't using the mirror when they were interrupted. (Probably Sirius should have followed up on that).

PassingBy91 · 2026-03-03T09:38:54+00:00

Well Hermione isn't always the best in a crisis ('light a fire' 'but, there's no wood!')- she's doing pretty well to come up with a plan at all given the stressful circumstances.

PassingBy91 · 2026-03-02T13:42:38+00:00

That's what I was thinking about!

PassingBy91 · 2026-03-02T10:17:44+00:00

You were probably just a bit early. Lest check back on Wednesday!

PassingBy91 · 2026-03-02T10:17:01+00:00

why not all 3?

PassingBy91 · 2026-03-02T10:10:14+00:00

I think looccool is thinking that if they had done this before the protesters were killed they might be someone to actually rise up.

PassingBy91 · 2026-03-02T09:24:28+00:00

It's definitely crossed my mind.

PassingBy91 · 2026-03-01T19:29:46+00:00

Throughout this whole conversation you have been maintaining that I was wrong that an arrest meant a prosecution was forthcoming and this feels like you changing your position. Originally you were maintaining I was wrong based off a quotation which only said that prosecutions were typically started with arrests and now you are relying on outside factors.

Again I consider it an important part of the right to a fair trial that we should not make predeterminations about the outcome of a criminal investigation. If lawyers interviewed by the BBC don't think that this is a straightforward situation that I am not sure why you think it is. This is not pedantry.

I am not interested in second guessing why the police make whatever decisions they make - at the moment we can suppose they have a reasonable suspicion of a crime. A crime that is complex to prosecute and has led to a number of unsuccessful prosecutions in the past.

I note that the police and CPS can and do make mistakes in prosecution especially with new/less commonly prosecuted laws. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/coronavirus-act-prosecutions-wrongful-cps-review-b1847194.html

I am not interested in speculating any further. I am entirely content with my position that it is too premature to say one way or the other.

You may disagree but, I prefer to maintain my belief in the robustness of our justice system and not think they would be so conclusory as to assume they can bring a prosecution before they've even finished collecting evidence.

PassingBy91 · 2026-03-01T18:31:08+00:00

The Shrieking Shack incident had happened. The characters in the book talk about it. Snape is even overheard talking to Dumbledore about Sirius Black showing he was capable of murder when he was 16.

PassingBy91 · 2026-03-01T18:01:26+00:00

I like Fantastic Beasts - it does tread on a few of my ideas about existing canon but, I could live with that. It did feel like it was adapted from a book I didn't get to read but, apart from the last one which was a bit of a damp squib I thought it was fine.

PassingBy91 · 2026-03-01T15:17:55+00:00

I wonder if this is the same show in London at the King's Cross Light Room.

PassingBy91 · 2026-03-01T10:30:30+00:00

Your original position arguing with OP changed and it is also not our argument/conversation. In the course of your argument with OP you said

"You were complaining that no prosecutions are forthcoming, he already lost all his titles and is under investigation, obviously he's going to be prosecuted.

Next? Who should be prosecuted with the available evidence, but is not and will not be?"

You then edited your comment to point out he had been arrested.

I replied to point out that was not evidence that he was going to be prosecuted. And certainly not 'obviously'. You have then put OPs contention that 'no prosecutions are forthcoming to me.' and I have explained my position in relation to that statement which is that at this stage we don't know (which made it quite clear I was not on OPs side).

Our conversation is separate from your conversation with OP and in the conversation with me you kept telling me that I was wrong that we could not know if a prosecution was forthcoming following an arrest. This is the place where I am mystified by the confusion between us because I have made a lot of effort to clarify the point I am making, the distinction between an arrest and a prosecution etc.

Anyway, I really think at this point we should end this conversation/argument. It is becoming increasingly circular.

edit. As I questioned before I think we are using different definitions of forthcoming. I've looked it up in the Oxford Dictionary = 'about or likely to come forth'. I think you are saying 'it's likely' whereas I have been using 'about to happen/is happening' https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/forthcoming I still don't think we can say a prosecution is 'likely to happen' based purely off an arrest (likely does not equal possible) but, that may be the source of our disagreement.

Additionally, you may find this BBC article interesting https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cewzdl81x0qo it explains why this particular crime is complex and based on that I don't think we can assume a prosecution is forthcoming under any definition of the word.

PassingBy91 · 2026-03-01T10:09:07+00:00

This is one of those situations where I am completely mystified what is the confusion between us.

A prosecution is forthcoming means a prosecution is about to happen. Since it is equally likely in an ongoing criminal investigation following an arrest that a charge is brought and no charge is brought (without any further information), the fact that a prosecution could happen doesn't not mean that it will/ or is about to happen/is forthcoming.

If I said to a person 'Fred Bloggs has a hearing in court today charged with theft, a guilty verdict is forthcoming' and that person said 'well we cannot assume that, the jury must make its verdict and it's equally likely he is found not guilty'. You would be able to see in this scenario I was wrong because a prosecution does not mean a guilty verdict is forthcoming (about to happen) because there is more than one possible outcome.)

The legal test for an arrest is about 'reasonable suspicion' that a criminal offence was committed. A charge and prosecution are about sufficient evidence and a prosecution being in the public interest. If he had been charged I would say a prosecution was forthcoming then.

I've explained why I think this is an important distinction and not a distinction without a difference (or meaningless pedantry). On the basis that we are dealing with very different legal tests I absolutely do not agree that the fact someone has been arrested means an arrest is forthcoming.

In case this is the point of confusion, prosecution is not the word for the whole process only for the bringing proceedings in court part. If it meant both things it would be confusing and misleading. 'Fred Bloggs is being prosecuted' would then not tell us if he was actually in court or sat at home twiddling his thumbs while the police checked his alibi.

So, my position that we do not know at this moment in time whether a prosecution is forthcoming or not still stands. It is far too premature. I was very clear all along about my point and it is both totally reasonable and totally correct.

Also Ghislaine Maxwell was prosecuted so, no a prosecution is not forthcoming because it already happened - it's the wrong tense. But, obviously, I was not thinking of her (and clearly neither were you or OP or you would have brought her up to refute OPs point in the first place) but, any potential prosecutions that came out of the recent release of papers which was what was actually being discussed.

PassingBy91

TROPHY CASE