DLT...am feeling really sorry for him now.

[keaton]

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...

I'm not implying he's guilty by correcting your definition of the legal system.
And there's absolutely no way you could be libelled for saying that.

You could be libelled for saying that the assualts not taking place is a fact as you have done though.

 

[drew]

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...

You can make an informed opinion, just as the jury have but you can't say one way or another that you know what happened as fact unless you actually witnessed the events or were with a defendant at the time an alleged incident supposedly happened.

Let's try and make it simple for you.

I steal a newspaper from a newsagent. The newsagent doesn't see me pick up the paper but knows one is missing and that I was the only person in the shop at the time although there are no other witnesses either inside or out and no CCTV to prove I was there.

Question: Am I guilty of having committed a crime, ie stealing?
Answer: Yes.

Moving on, the newsagents reports the matter to the Police and the CPS, in their stupidity, decide to proceed. At Court, I have three upstanding members of society, a Doctor, a headteacher and maybe even a local councillor, all of whom I have know since childhood. I persuade them to say in court I was with them at the time of the incident. The jury have hear the circumstantial evidence from the Newsagent and the alibi from my three friends. The jury decidde that my friends are more believable and give a verdict of not guilty.

Question. Does the not guilty verdict mean I never stole the newspaper?
Answer. No, I still stole the newspaper, I still know I am guilty of committing a crime but 'in the eyes of the law', I am innocent.


Now, does that rather simplistic scenario enable you to understand the point I and a few others are making about our legal system?

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

This may be a good thread to ask this question as it was ticking over in my mind today.

On the radio they said something along the lines that "a further 12 victims of Jimmy Saville have claimed he etc etc etc".

Not for one moment am I saying he didn't do all these things as it is accepted he did, but I was a bit confused at to what point they all became fact rather than alledged. What do you do when someone has passed away and a trial isn't possible?

Again, obviously I'm not defending him, I'm just curious to the legal system in terms of claimimg as a fact that he definitely did all these things.

 

[keaton]

This may be a good thread to ask this question as it was ticking over in my mind today.

On the radio they said something along the lines that "a further 12 victims of Jimmy Saville have claimed he etc etc etc".

Not for one moment am I saying he didn't do all these things as it is accepted he did, but I was a bit confused at to what point they all became fact rather than alledged. What do you do when someone has passed away and a trial isn't possible?

Again, obviously I'm not defending him, I'm just curious to the legal system in terms of claimimg as a fact that he definitely did all these things.

It is a bit odd. I'm not sure how (apart from sheer weight of numbers of accusations) the case would have been proven against Saville.

 

[Bold Seagull]

You can make an informed opinion, just as the jury have but you can't say one way or another that you know what happened as fact unless you actually witnessed the events or were with a defendant at the time an alleged incident supposedly happened.

Let's try and make it simple for you.

I steal a newspaper from a newsagent. The newsagent doesn't see me pick up the paper but knows one is missing and that I was the only person in the shop at the time although there are no other witnesses either inside or out and no CCTV to prove I was there.

Question: Am I guilty of having committed a crime, ie stealing?
Answer: Yes.

Moving on, the newsagents reports the matter to the Police and the CPS, in their stupidity, decide to proceed. At Court, I have three upstanding members of society, a Doctor, a headteacher and maybe even a local councillor, all of whom I have know since childhood. I persuade them to say in court I was with them at the time of the incident. The jury have hear the circumstantial evidence from the Newsagent and the alibi from my three friends. The jury decidde that my friends are more believable and give a verdict of not guilty.

Question. Does the not guilty verdict mean I never stole the newspaper?
Answer. No, I still stole the newspaper, I still know I am guilty of committing a crime but 'in the eyes of the law', I am innocent.


Now, does that rather simplistic scenario enable you to understand the point I and a few others are making about our legal system?

However in this scenario, anyone who subsequentlycalls you a thief could be taken to court by you for libel. Again with your above witnesses, you may well have a great chance of winning damages for being called a thief.

You can make an informed opinion certainly, but to say it publicly / put it in print / on the internet, you risk a defamation / libel case.

 

[trueblue]

You could be libelled for saying that the assualts not taking place is a fact as you have done though.

So by saying that someone is innocent of the charges against them after they have been acquitted on those charges, I've libelled the person that made the accusations? Haha. Good luck with that.

Incidentally, I was talking in terms of the thread as a whole - not saying you'd potentially libelled anyone

 

[trueblue]

You can make an informed opinion, just as the jury have but you can't say one way or another that you know what happened as fact unless you actually witnessed the events or were with a defendant at the time an alleged incident supposedly happened.

Let's try and make it simple for you.

I steal a newspaper from a newsagent. The newsagent doesn't see me pick up the paper but knows one is missing and that I was the only person in the shop at the time although there are no other witnesses either inside or out and no CCTV to prove I was there.

Question: Am I guilty of having committed a crime, ie stealing?
Answer: Yes.

Moving on, the newsagents reports the matter to the Police and the CPS, in their stupidity, decide to proceed. At Court, I have three upstanding members of society, a Doctor, a headteacher and maybe even a local councillor, all of whom I have know since childhood. I persuade them to say in court I was with them at the time of the incident. The jury have hear the circumstantial evidence from the Newsagent and the alibi from my three friends. The jury decidde that my friends are more believable and give a verdict of not guilty.

Question. Does the not guilty verdict mean I never stole the newspaper?
Answer. No, I still stole the newspaper, I still know I am guilty of committing a crime but 'in the eyes of the law', I am innocent.


Now, does that rather simplistic scenario enable you to understand the point I and a few others are making about our legal system?

And after all that, I say that you're a thief. You have been libelled.

 

[trueblue]

This may be a good thread to ask this question as it was ticking over in my mind today.

On the radio they said something along the lines that "a further 12 victims of Jimmy Saville have claimed he etc etc etc".

Not for one moment am I saying he didn't do all these things as it is accepted he did, but I was a bit confused at to what point they all became fact rather than alledged. What do you do when someone has passed away and a trial isn't possible?

Again, obviously I'm not defending him, I'm just curious to the legal system in terms of claimimg as a fact that he definitely did all these things.

You can say that Jimmy Savile was a monstrous paedophile, no problem. You can't libel the dead.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

You can say that Jimmy Savile was a monstrous paedophile, no problem. You can't libel the dead.

I understand that.

What I mean is, at what official point was it accepted as the truth? I mean, even Saville's family apologised for what he had done, so they had accepted it also.

 

[keaton]

So by saying that someone is innocent of the charges against them after they have been acquitted on those charges, I've libelled the person that made the accusations? Haha. Good luck with that.

I didn't say that though did I?
Are you a journalist for The Argus by any chance?

Of course you can state he's innocent of the charges (the ones that have been settled). If you stated as a fact the alleged assualts were fictitious or didn't take place or that the alleged victims were liars, you could be libelled

 

[trueblue]

I understand that.

What I mean is, at what official point was it accepted as the truth? I mean, even Saville's family apologised for what he had done, so they had accepted it also.

I suppose the point is they know Jimmy Savile was a sexual predator. But they don't know for a fact that the new people accusing him are telling the truth. So it's more about accuracy of reporting rather than a legal consideration I think.

 

[trueblue]

I didn't say that though did I?
Are you a journalist for The Argus by any chance?

Of course you can state he's innocent of the charges (the ones that have been settled). If you stated as a fact the alleged assualts were fictitious or didn't take place or that the alleged victims were liars, you could be libelled

I'd feel fairly confident in saying they didn't take place as that's what a jury decided.

 

[keaton]

I'd feel fairly confident in saying they didn't take place as that's what a jury decided.

Honestly, this is basic NCTJ stuff. They didn't decide that, they decided that they could not be sure that they did.

 

[trueblue]

Honestly, this is basic NCTJ stuff. They didn't decide that, they decided that they could not be sure that they did.

I'm talking about ten charges on which he was acquitted. Not guilty. Doesn't get much more basic than that. Personally I'd take no chances saying anything that questions the defendant's character with a retrial pending on two other charges but that's just me. Maybe that's why I haven't ended up in court in the past 25 years.

 

[Nibble]

Some people on here have a very limp grasp of the law.

 

[keaton]

I'm talking about ten charges on which he was acquitted. Not guilty. Doesn't get much more basic than that. .

No in the charges he was acquitted of the jury didn't decide they didn't happen, they only decided they weren't sure that they happened. They could all of thought it probably did happen but weren't sure so returned a Not Guilty verdict.

 

[Blues Rock DJ]

Some people on here have a very limp grasp of the law.

they could get called up for jury service soon.

 

[Nibble]

they could get called up for jury service soon.

Oh my.

I did Jury service once. However I mentioned that on the other identical DLT thread a couple of weeks back.

 

[drew]

However in this scenario, anyone who subsequentlycalls you a thief could be taken to court by you for libel. Again with your above witnesses, you may well have a great chance of winning damages for being called a thief.

You can make an informed opinion certainly, but to say it publicly / put it in print / on the internet, you risk a defamation / libel case.

Wouldn't argue with that and never have done. Fact would remain that I committed a crime and got away with it. To maintain that deception I may well take you to court for libel but that wouldn't change the fact I stole a newspaper.

And after all that, I say that you're a thief. You have been libelled.

Still won't acknowledge it will you! You'd be right, I am a thief but to protect myself I would maintain the lie and sue you (and more likely your paper that you printed the 'lies' in).

 

[drew]

Some people on here have a very limp grasp of the law.

Out of interest, is that directed at me or at TrueBlue?