Protest Paddy Jackson playing at the weekend?

Homelander

greencap wrote: »

this also means the plaintiff was a liar.

You were grand until this part. It absolutely does not mean this whatsoever. That's a dangerous view to take and completely warped.

alastair

greencap wrote: »

Doesn't matter. He's not been proven guilty, so he returns to the default under EU law of innocent.

There is no, ehh, 'EU law of innocent'.

is_that_so

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Why is there no "innocent" verdict then? Why does each legal system actually go out of it's way not to have an "innocent" verdict if both legally mean the same thing?

There's a link above in my last post which should help clarify.

alastair

Send me location wrote: »

No sh1t sherlock. There are people wrongly convicted and there are people who get away with crimes. Do you think most people don't know this?

Soo... Is OJ innocent? Is that a fact?

Sleeper12

greencap wrote: »

no, thats wrong.
you're innocent until proven guilty. before, during, after, with or without any trial.

he wasn't found guilty so he's back to the default state of innocent.

this also means the plaintiff was a liar.

Not in bold I totally agree with. The bit in bold is obviously totally wrong & shows you have no understanding of the legal system. You can have an opinion that she lied but the verdict doesn't make her a liar

Raisins

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I suggest asking on the legal forum. They will explain the massive difference in found guilty & found innocent (if there was such a thing). One requires reasonable doubt. This is not guilty. The other, found innocent, would require 100 percent certainty like DNA evidence or proof that you were in a different country at the time.

As I say if you don't believe me the legal forum will put you straight.

No offence but maybe it’s you that needs to be set straight in the legal forum. Found innocent would not “require” anything, DNA or otherwise. It doesn’t exist!

You can’t be “found innocent” because you don’t need to be - that is what you are before the trial and after the trial unless you’re found guilty. It’s got nothing to do with the law not being happy the evidence proves innocence. The verdict is either guilty or not guilty because you’re assumed innocent at the time of the verdict so they don’t embark on a exercise of trying to give a person a status they already enjoy. Not guilty simply means you retain the innocence status, it’s not complicated. I don’t think it’s a good policy to be treating someone differently in society because - while they’re not guilty in a court of law - maybe they are actually guilty in reality, so let’s keep them out of prison but sack them and protest. On the other hand if the protest is all about his general conduct and the WhatsApp messages than that’s fair enough. It’s disproportionate given the number of messages he actually wrote IMO but I respect that not all people would share that view.

In this trial the divergence in the accounts was enormous. For example the complaint was that they had vaginal intercourse which Jackson denied ever took place. Nobody could say they’re both telling the truth from their own points of view. Someone was not telling the truth. That was one of many uncomfortable features of the trial. I think that leads a lot people to suspect he’s guilty because they can’t believe any complaint would not tell the truth. IMO as he’s not been found guilty he deserves to be treated as an innocent man. It was a unanimous verdict.

alastair

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Not in bold I totally agree with. The bit in bold is obviously totally wrong & shows you have no understanding of the legal system. You can have an opinion that she lied but the verdict doesn't make her a liar

There's no presumption of innocence before or after a trial. So everything this poster claims is incorrect.

greencap

Homelander wrote: »

You were grand until this part. It absolutely does not mean this whatsoever. That's a dangerous view to take and completely warped.

Yeah but sure why not, if thats the standard.

He's guilty.

- why.

you know, because.

greencap

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Not in bold I totally agree with. The bit in bold is obviously totally wrong & shows you have no understanding of the legal system. You can have an opinion that she lied but the verdict doesn't make her a liar

sure if we're going by opinions. he's guilty and she's a liar. who needs a court.

i mean everyone has lied at some point, so technically she is a liar.

greencap

alastair wrote: »

There is no, ehh, 'EU law of innocent'.

thats the default state. you misread the sentence Quincy.

alastair

greencap wrote: »

thats the default state. you misread the sentence Quincy.

There is no default state. You made that up.

alastair

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2012/05/no-innocence-in-presumption/

"The legal presumption exists only in determining guilt or innocence at a criminal trial. It has no other application to criminal justice; nor in civil proceedings; nor, in particular, outside a courtroom. If innocence were always presumed, no bail application could fail, no application to freeze alleged proceeds of crime could succeed."

SJW Lover

alastair wrote: »

There's no presumption of innocence before or after a trial. So everything this poster claims is incorrect.

First post ever and a controversial topic to jump in on but here goes: I am a Solicitor, 12 years' qualified. Spent my first 4 years working in criminal law and, unfortunately, had my fair share of rape cases to deal with in those 4 years. And you have zero clue what you're talking about. So, please, stop.

greencap

alastair wrote: »

There is no default state. You made that up.

nope. its in the link. innocent (i.e. default state) until proven guilty (which he wasn't).

SJW Lover

alastair wrote: »

"The legal presumption exists only in determining guilt or innocence at a criminal trial. It has no other application to criminal justice; nor in civil proceedings; nor, in particular, outside a courtroom. If innocence were always presumed, no bail application could fail, no application to freeze alleged proceeds of crime could succeed."

A bail application has nothing to do with innocence or guilt. A bail application's main consideration is whether there is a flight risk involved. An application to freeze alleged proceeds of crime falls under the injunctive laws within equity. Neither have anything to do with the basic tenet that there is a presumption of innocence. Stop googling and start thinking.

Yurt2

alastair wrote: »

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2012/05/no-innocence-in-presumption/

"The legal presumption exists only in determining guilt or innocence at a criminal trial. It has no other application to criminal justice; nor in civil proceedings; nor, in particular, outside a courtroom. If innocence were always presumed, no bail application could fail, no application to freeze alleged proceeds of crime could succeed."

The ECHR holds that the principal applies in civil proceedings so he's wrong on that count.

alastair

greencap wrote: »

nope. its in the link. innocent (i.e. default state) until proven guilty (which he wasn't).

Nope. It's not.

greencap

Yurt! wrote: »

The ECHR holds that the principal applies in civil proceedings so he's wrong on that count.

I can't be wrong, I'm using the same standard as certain others, my own subjective opinion. If courts say otherwise it doesn't matter, I just decide that something means what I want and thats it.

alastair

Yurt! wrote: »

The ECHR holds that the principal applies in civil proceedings so he's wrong on that count.

No it does not. It applies to criminal case law, not civil.

Article 6(2) and (3) of the ECHR, which reads as follows:

"2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:

(a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;
(b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence;
(c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;
(d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;
(e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court."

JMNolan

Yurt! wrote: »

The ECHR holds that the principal applies in civil proceedings so he's wrong on that count.

https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf

No chance you'd do the decent thing and admit you were wrong?

Screw Attack

Hunky Monster wrote: »

So far 41 people have signed up to go... I think it'll be the pink hair brigade who believe in 86 genders.

You're wrong. Gender is a spectrum.

Sleeper12

Raisins wrote:

No offence but maybe it’s you that needs to be set straight in the legal forum. Found innocent would not “require†anything, DNA or otherwise. It doesn’t exist!

I have been saying this all day. "found innocent" is a made up term. It's a nonsense term with no meaning.

walshb

Protests mean next to nothing now since every Tom, dick and Harry discovered social media and bumped aboard the latest populist bandwagon...

I do agree, however, with protesting against lads’ banter on WhatsApp...

How could they.........🤪

BDI

What if he scored a try then they all celebrated by pretending to WhatsApp each other while in groups of three,


That would be top bants. It’d go viral on WhatsApp.

Homelander

With regards the lads banter thing, to be perfectly honest, if things me and my friends said to one another within what we assumed to be the exclusive privacy of our whatsapp group were outed in public, people would be calling for our crucifixation.

Shefwedfan

Homelander wrote: »

With regards the lads banter thing, to be perfectly honest, if things me and my friends said to one another within what we assumed to be the exclusive privacy of our whatsapp group were outed in public, people would be calling for our crucifixation.

Lads always think their watsapp group are terrible....have a look at an all female group and they are 10 times worse

tabby aspreme

If these protesters, want something to do, between now and the weekend, they should head to Enniscorthy, some details of the Enniscorthy protest in the Wexford forum.

tabby aspreme

Just heard that P Jackson will not be playing this weekend.

Feisar

Homelander wrote: »

With regards the lads banter thing, to be perfectly honest, if things me and my friends said to one another within what we assumed to be the exclusive privacy of our whatsapp group were outed in public, people would be calling for our crucifixation.

No. "We're all top shaggers"? Oh sweet Jesus, anyone who comes out with that needs to go to prison for a year anyway.

Yurt2

JMNolan wrote: »

https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf

No chance you'd do the decent thing and admit you were wrong?

Why would I when case law pertaining to the Article 6.2 (presumption of innocence) has already confirmed the principal extends beyond the criminal into civil proceedings?

http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2015/11/the-new-directive-on-presumption-of.html?m=1

"Article 6 (2) ECHR refers to a “criminal offence” but this has been interpreted to encompass types of cases beyond the classically “criminal”, for example, professional disciplinary proceedings or certain administrative offences which may fall within the ambit of the criminal head of Article 6 (e.g. Lutz v Germany, No. 9912/82, 25/08/1987; Bendenoun v. France 12547/86, 24/02/1994)."

Sucks to be you