Free speech

[monkers]

Isn't it for a qualified legal professional to use the word "alleged" if the charge has not been proven?

To my ears it sounds unusual for a legal professional to state it that way. Ordinarily the legal professional would say ''that is a matter for the judge'' in a test of civil law, otherwise in a trial of criminal law would say ''that is a matter for the jury to decide''.

 

[icowden]

To my ears it sounds unusual for a legal professional to state it that way. Ordinarily the legal professional would say ''that is a matter for the judge'' in a test of civil law, otherwise in a trial of criminal law would say ''that is a matter for the jury to decide''.

Actually - fair point, Spen did say that they were "accused" of criminal damage, which is true. Not sure why we are not allowed the opinion that it some of it seems a bit spurious though.

 

[monkers]

Actually - fair point, Spen did say that they were "accused" of criminal damage, which is true. Not sure why we are not allowed the opinion that it some of it seems a bit spurious though.

Fair enough. This is but a tiny internet forum. I'm happy to compare notes with you about why you say it seems a bit spurious - there's some interesting legal questions and points within.