"The dogs on the street"

Victor

Is this incorporated in any legal phrases or concepts?

It would seem that a judge could apply the concept to a witness giving Jesuitical answers.

Peregrinus

Sorry, what?

Victor

Peregrinus wrote: »

Sorry, what?

Where someone is denying things that are ordinarily known to everyone.

Prosecutor: Is this you here in the video, wearing the sky blue jacket?
Accused: No, I can't see anyone in that video wearing a sky blue jacket.
Accused (internally): The sky is transparent, it can't be blue. It merely appears blue because it bends light.
Prosecutor: Here. [Points ----->]
Accused: No. It can't be.
Judge: Are you sure?
Accused: Definite.
...
3 hours later.
...
Judge: The dogs* in the street call the colour of that jack sky blue!! Did you bring your pyjamas?



* Technically, dogs can only see in black and white, but you get the point.

GM228

Victor wrote: »

* Technically, dogs can only see in black and white, but you get the point.

Going off topic, but that is actually a myth, dog vision is similar to the human condition of Deuteranopia. They can see black, white, blue and yellow and anly combination of blue and yellow.

Peregrinus

I'm not sure what your issue is. The phrase is colloquial, and probably wouldn't be included in a legislative provision or in the terms of a court order, but I wouldn't be surprised to hear it used, in an appropriate context, in speech in a courtroom.

Victor

So, there is no principle of not having to prove what is obvious. Note 'res ipsa loquitur' is similar but refers to a different principle.

This thread brought to you by Sleep Deprivation™.

Peregrinus

I don't think it's a question of "proving it".

If a witness denies that the photograph shows a sky blue jacket, when the judge can plainly see that it does, that will obviously affect the weight and credibility that will be attached to the witness's evidence. I suppose if he gets smart-alecky enough about it, the judge can consider holding him in comtempt.

All of this is still true if the witness happens also to be the accused, but with this additional factor; the accused doesn't have to give evidence at all but, if he chooses to do so, he generally wants his evidence to be taken seriously and to be believed. So he would be very, very, very stupid to undermine his own credibility as a witness with this kind of idiocy.

nuac

Whatever happened to the man on the Clapham omnibus?

GM228

nuac wrote: »

Whatever happened to the man on the Clapham omnibus?

In 2014 Lord Reed said "in recent times, some additional passengers from the European Union have boarded the Clapham omnibus", the man is busy trying to offload them as the omnibus reaches the Brexit terminus.

Eggs For Dinner

nuac wrote:

Whatever happened to the man on the Clapham omnibus?

He gets the Metro now. He got tired of only meeting like minded people to himself

the_pen_turner

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't think it's a question of "proving it".

If a witness denies that the photograph shows a sky blue jacket, when the judge can plainly see that it does, that will obviously affect the weight and credibility that will be attached to the witness's evidence. I suppose if he gets smart-alecky enough about it, the judge can consider holding him in comtempt.

All of this is still true if the witness happens also to be the accused, but with this additional factor; the accused doesn't have to give evidence at all but, if he chooses to do so, he generally wants his evidence to be taken seriously and to be believed. So he would be very, very, very stupid to undermine his own credibility as a witness with this kind of idiocy.

How would something like that picture of the dress that people were saying g was different colours effect something like this.

Just because one person sees blues doesn't mean it actually is blue or that someone else sees blue

usernamegoes

The dogs on the street know what a photocopier is!

Credit Checker Moose

I could clearly see that being contempt if it was tried in an Irish court.

tayto lover

Credit Checker Moose wrote: »

I could clearly see that being contempt if it was tried in an Irish court.

A man with 2 pints might agree/disagree with you.