seagullsovergrimsby
#cpfctinpotclub
Why the facepalm ? Innocent until proved guilty is at the heart of our justice system.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
DLT...am feeling really sorry for him now.
- Thread starter ofco8
- Start date
Why the facepalm ? Innocent until proved guilty is at the heart of our justice system.
A journalist!!!! Wow, now perhaps you can explain where I have libelled someone as you understand those laws so well!!!!
Well, read this slowly in case you get confused.
If you persist in accusing someone of a crime which a jury has decided they have not committed (as happened with the majority of charges against DLT) you are potentially at risk of being sued for libel.
Fortunately, your opinion is so insignificant that it seems very unlikely you would be considered to have damaged his reputation so you should be in the clear
Well, read this slowly in case you get confused.
If you persist in accusing someone of a crime which a jury has decided they have not committed (as happened with the majority of charges against DLT) you are potentially at risk of being sued for libel.
Fortunately, your opinion is so insignificant that it seems very unlikely you would be considered to have damaged his reputation so you should be in the clear
Perhaps it is you that needs to read slower, or maybe get yourself a proof reader (preferably one that's not employed by the Argus). Where have I libelled DLT? Or to make it clearer for you, where have I said he did it? You can't, because I think you will find I have never said he actually did it, however, I suspect as a journalist you will probably twist something to suit your own agenda.
Here we go then, for the hard of thinking. Your words in bold...
"We don't know if he is innocent. All we know is that on some of the charges, the Jury decided there was not enough evidence to convict him!"
Except we do know he IS innocent because he was acquitted. To suggest he is a sex offender even though he was acquitted could certainly be considered defamatory (unless you can prove it's true in which case you'd best give the police a ring). There are currently, I believe, two remaining allegations which are unproven. To cast aspersions on his innocence before the retrial or question his character based on the first trial is even more dangerous ground. Potentially prejudicial. Not defamation - far more serious. Luckily, one ill-informed, abusive idiot spouting off on an internet forum isn't really going to provide a substantial risk of serious prejudice so you'll probably avoid prison.
Just because a jury were not convinced beyond reasonably (sic) doubt doesn't mean something didn't happen.
Erm. In the eyes of the law (and most people in this country, thankfully), yes, yes it does. And to suggest otherwise is straying into defamatory territory.
Legally he is innocent but you are still a tool as you can't see beyond the verdict.
Yes, legally he is innocent. So, legally, looking "beyond the verdict" to draw the conclusion that he's actually guilty is not the sort of ground anyone with any sense (a "tool" like me, for instance) would stray into.
"We don't know if he is innocent. All we know is that on some of the charges, the Jury decided there was not enough evidence to convict him!"
Except we do know he IS innocent because he was acquitted. To suggest he is a sex offender even though he was acquitted could certainly be considered defamatory (unless you can prove it's true in which case you'd best give the police a ring). There are currently, I believe, two remaining allegations which are unproven. To cast aspersions on his innocence before the retrial or question his character based on the first trial is even more dangerous ground. Potentially prejudicial. Not defamation - far more serious. Luckily, one ill-informed, abusive idiot spouting off on an internet forum isn't really going to provide a substantial risk of serious prejudice so you'll probably avoid prison.
Just because a jury were not convinced beyond reasonably (sic) doubt doesn't mean something didn't happen.
Erm. In the eyes of the law (and most people in this country, thankfully), yes, yes it does. And to suggest otherwise is straying into defamatory territory.
Legally he is innocent but you are still a tool as you can't see beyond the verdict.
Yes, legally he is innocent. So, legally, looking "beyond the verdict" to draw the conclusion that he's actually guilty is not the sort of ground anyone with any sense (a "tool" like me, for instance) would stray into.
The Camel
Well-known member
DLT wasn't found innocent.
He was found not guilty
Big difference.
He was found not guilty
Big difference.
Where have I said he is guilty? In none of those statements have I stated he is guilty so not sure why you have quoted them. I take it you are an english journo and not struggling with translation problems
? I am, and never have been, arguing about in the eyes of the law. I fully accept that he has been acquitted of a number of charges and is therefore legally seen as innocent as the state didn't prove to the jury, beyond their reasonable doubt, that he did it.
Why don't you just give up and go and write tomorrow's horoscopes for whatever rag or blog you contribute to.
I believe that concept is gently wafting over the heads of certain posters!!!
The Camel
Well-known member
In Scotland they have a third option for juries: "not proven"
I think that should be a verdict option south of the border too.
Then a verdict of not guilty would actually mean the defendant is innocent.
I agree (although innocence would still just be in the opinion of the jury and not necessarily fact!)
rouseytastic
Well-known member
?! Do you think the police put an invoice in when they get a conviction and all the investigation is free?
I was accused of something a few years back. Nicked. Day in a cell. Out on bail. Back to answer bail. Charged. Another 9 months on bail. Taken to court. Found not guilty and reimbursed my £2,500 I had spent on fees. All those months they had police working on a bullsh*t allegation that was totally false, the cost of a representation in court and then reimbursing me.
On the contrary anyone can make an allegation and the police will instantly spend money trying prove it correct and then when it's found to be nonsense they throw more money at it and walk away to the next one.
People should be made to pay the costs should their allegations prove to be lies. That way we might see less innocent (mostly) men dragged threw courts and having their reputations destroyed along with potentially losing their jobs/homes etc.
The whole system is utterly flawed
m20gull
Well-known member
PRESUMED innocent until proven guilty. Court cases are not about establishing innocence, but testing (or in the old sense of the word, proving) the evidence of guilt.
Be careful what you say - the NSC lynch mob will be rounding up the horses. You're not innocent, they just couldn't prove you guilty!
Sympathies with your position but a not guilty verdict doesn't necessarily mean the jury are 100% convinced the complainant is a liar. I think if evidence was presented in a court case that established that the complainant, in all probabilities, was lying then, I assume, that would give the defendant, having been found not guilty, the option of a civil action. Of course that would involve further costs which you may not get back and may not be worthwhile if the person you are suing has no assets! Alternatively, if someone is established to have lied under oath then they should be charged with perjury!
The system we have is far from perfect but when people suggests changes they may tend to benefit one set of circumstances but then throw up a whole lot of other problems. The suggestion you make would benefit you but the downside would be that fewer people would report crime which could mean actual rapists or child abusers etc remain free on the streets.
rouseytastic
Well-known member
Be careful what you say - the NSC lynch mob will be rounding up the horses. You're not innocent, they just couldn't prove you guilty!
Ah silly me! Where's my best disguise!
Joking aside though that is not that far removed from the reality. Especially when it relates to a woman accusing a man.
rouseytastic
Well-known member
The judge in my case thanked the witnesses for attended but stating their 'evidence was unreliable at best'. Stopping just short of saying they had all lied.
That aside I don't think those changes would lead to victims not reporting a crime. What it would do is make certain people who perhaps have other motives to think twice about wasting time and money purely to cause someone distress and upheaval.
If a victim has a cast iron reason (such as rape) then they should feel confident in reporting it.
Unfortunately for me and other people I know the 'justice system' is and can be used as a tool for personal grievances.
Also the current mindset by police (in general) towards allegations made by women towards men are completely warped and a man can be dragged through the system with minimal evidence where by a compliant the other way is generally given short thrift.
keaton
Big heart, hot blood and balls. Big balls
- Nov 18, 2004
- 9,975
That's not correct. The court case did not decide it didn't happen. It decided it couldn't be proved to have happened. There is a massive difference I would expect a journalist to appreciate.
But unless you personally can prove that DLT is guilty, probably best not to imply they were wrong, eh?
Of course, what you privately think may not be same as what should be printed/broadcast/put on the internet. Thankfully, in the interests of fairness.
Personally, in general I take the view that if a jury has heard weeks of evidence during an expensively prepared case and spent a long time considering it, then I'll accept their decision as being correct.
Otherwise, I'm just going to have to go through all that evidence myself every time before making an informed decision. But there just aren't enough hours in the day with all those horoscopes to write...