This Just In!

[icowden]

The parent is wrong about that, sending naughty pics is an offence for a 16 or 17-year-old, even if the teenager is keen to do it.

The 17 years old thing is an unproven allegation at the moment.

But the parent still believed the only redress would be via the BBC.

Possibly because he might not have been 17 when anything that would have been illegal was done.

 

[matticus]

That's not true at all. You cannot be found to be innocent. You can be found not guilty but this does not confer innocence.


It is, but as I say, not being guilty is not the same as being innocent.

I'm sure you can delve into some arcane academic or professional tome to support your view, but in common usage it certainly is. I didn't need to tweak anything to get this as the first google result:

 

[Cirrus]

That's not true at all. You cannot be found to be innocent. You can be found not guilty but this does not confer innocence.


It is, but as I say, not being guilty is not the same as being innocent.

I was under the impression that you are innocent until proven guilty as per: https://ministryofinjustice.co.uk/innocent-until-proven-guilty/

 

[monkers]

That's not true at all. You cannot be found to be innocent. You can be found not guilty but this does not confer innocence.

There is a right to presumption of innocence up until one either admits guilt, or one is otherwise found guilty by trial. That point had been made most plainly.

Scotland has a three verdict system, guilty, not guilty, and not proven.

 

[mudsticks]

I thought you seemed to be advocating for judgment based on morality ( your version) rather than the law. Which I think is dangerous hence my comment.

Other people are the victims of people morality judgements, you only have to look at the religious shoot show in the US re abortion rights if you want an example,

So to repeat a cliche… morality police, what could possibly go wrong.

Depends what you call 'morality'

Basic respect for other people and their bodies, consent, and their bodily autonomy.

Not behaving in a manipulative, coercive, or exploitative manner.

Not using force, or threat of violence.


Some people would say expecting this behaviour from each other is being overly 'moralistic'. I'd say it was basic humanity.

Whether or not 'the law' is on the side of all that, or not.

Laws develop over time, and do not always favour the 'weaker' party in a situation.

It's only recently that marital rape became a crime.
Hell I'm even old enough to remember a time when someone on here suggested that rape could be 'non violent'.

Far from worrying about 'morality police'
I'd be worrying about the pathetically low conviction rate for sex crimes that do get reported - let alone the amount that never do.

 

[icowden]

There is a right to presumption of innocence up until one either admits guilt, or one is otherwise found guilty by trial. That point had been made most plainly.

There is no right. It is a legal principle which sets out that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove guilt and not the defence to prove innocence. It has nothing to do with whether the defendant is guilty or innocent.

Scotland has a three verdict system, guilty, not guilty, and not proven.

It does indeed. But there is no definition of what "not proven" means or why it is any different to "not guilty". Further "not proven" makes the defendant sound a little bit like they did do it but got away with it, and Jurors often think that's pretty much what it means. There are proposals to remove it.

 

[monkers]

Far from worrying about 'morality police'

Your concerns are genuine and well-stated, but LGBT people worry about the morality police for very good reasons, and there's a lot of us so please do not think to exclude us.

 

[Pale Rider]

Among us court watchers, not guilty doesn't mean innocent, it merely means the punter was not convicted of the charges he faced.

Quite reasonably, members of the public see not guilty as innocent.

A defendant found not guilty will also trumpet his innocence - as I would in that position.

 

[mudsticks]

Your concerns are genuine and well-stated, but LGBT people worry about the morality police for very good reasons, and there's a lot of us so please do not think to exclude us.

I didn't think to exclude you.

As I've stated many a time I'm not just philosophically, but also actively inclusive, of marginalised groups, and act to resist oppression.

All these same things I said.

"Basic respect for other people and their bodies, consent, and their bodily autonomy.

Not behaving in a manipulative, coercive, or exploitative manner.

Not using force, or threat of violence"

All those things should apply to all humans, whatever their identity group, ethnicity etc

As it stands those ideals don't apply yet, and moreover the law is not always the friend of the oppressed, not by a long way.

 

[monkers]

There is no right. It is a legal principle which sets out that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove guilt and not the defence to prove innocence. It has nothing to do with whether the defendant is guilty or innocent.

Tell it to the judge.

What rights do you have at a criminal trial?​

You have the right to:

• be presumed innocent until you are proven guilty
• be told as early as possible what you are accused of
• remain silent
• have enough time to prepare your case
• legal aid (funding) for a lawyer if you cannot afford one and this is needed for justice to be served
• attend your trial
• access all the relevant information
• put forward your side of the case at trial
• question the main witness against you and call other witnesses, and
• have an interpreter, if you need one.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/human-rights-act/article-6-right-fair-trial

 

[Deleted member 49]

Shocked....The Sun and the truth 🙄

View: https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1678452840480612370?t=P4jhMiU84Sdd9ETQ0UvWwA&s=19

 

[Deleted member 121]

A Volcano has erupted in Iceland.

A 200 metre fissure has opened up in Reykjanes, Iceland. Extremely interesting.

Allow Google to translate.

https://www.visir.is/g/20232438284d/liklega-gos-hafid-a-reykjanesi

 

[C R]

Shocked....The Sun and the truth 🙄

View: https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1678452840480612370?t=P4jhMiU84Sdd9ETQ0UvWwA&s=19

If I was given to conspiracies I would say that it suits a certain Mr Murdoch to keep flinging this kind of manure at the BBC, whether it has any base in reality or not.

 

[Deleted member 49]

If I was given to conspiracies I would say that it suits a certain Mr Murdoch to keep flinging this kind of manure at the BBC, whether it has any base in reality or not.

I wonder if anybody from the Tories or Labour will call for the end of this rag....didn't think so.Should of been put out of its misery years ago.

 

[Beebo]

It isn’t like Kelvin Mackenzie to be on completely the wrong side of a story.
His reference to the “Good Old Days” is particularly crass.

“Former editor of the Sun Kelvin MacKenzie has been speaking to our radio colleagues over at Radio 4 this afternoon. He says the identity of the BBC presenter would've been revealed by the newspaper in years gone by.

"In the good old days there would have been absolutely no doubt that the name would have been there, and any pictures associated with the story would have been published," MacKenzie tells the World at One programme.”