boyfriday Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Yes it is. The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of the Council of Europe: "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law". ---------- Post added 07-02-2014 at 09:41 ---------- It is true as its what the Human Rights act states of which the UK is a signatory. Its British law. Never had you down as a champion of human rights legislation Wex ---------- Post added 07-02-2014 at 10:27 ---------- I agree. For this reason I think it's time to draw a line under the post-Saville celebrity witchhunt and questions need to be asked about why the CPS ever brought these historical cases to court when without any reliable evidence there was little chance of a conviction even if the accused had been guilty. May be also, given the gravity of some of the accusations, it should be made harder for women to make spurious and unproveable claims of sexual assault in future? At present it seems like anyone with a grudge or desire for fame and compensation can make up a sexual assault against a celebrity they don't like and it gets taken seriously. I suspect after the current series of trials of this nature it will be difficult for the police to convince the CPS to go to court without forensic evidence or a guilty plea! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Cid Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 A person can be factually innocent (in actual fact, they did not do the deed they are accused of), yet be found guilty by the court. Any minor crime should carry a statute of limitations. I cannot remember what I did last week, never mind ten years ago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 yes they are in British law, you are innocent until PROVEN guilty. As this man has been found NOT guilty of ALL charges he is innocent. However as I said, that status does not mean the witnesses weren't telling the truth for the reasons I outlined previously. Look at it another way, if these witnesses were charged for perjury and found not guilty that would mean both Roache and his accusers were innocent! ---------- Post added 07-02-2014 at 10:37 ---------- When people make accusations that are so obviously false,, then thats a big fat yes, they should. When they're 'so obviously false' then I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 However as I said, that status does not mean the witnesses weren't telling the truth for the reasons I outlined previously. Look at it another way, if these witnesses were charged for perjury and found not guilty that would mean both Roache and his accusers were innocent! ---------- Post added 07-02-2014 at 10:37 ---------- When they're 'so obviously false' then I agree. This doesn't change anything though. Under UK law you are innocent until proven guilty. This is what I said in response to your comments that "Not guilty doesn't mean innocent". It does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 This doesn't change anything though. Under UK law you are innocent until proven guilty. This is what I said in response to your comments that "Not guilty doesn't mean innocent". It does.Sorry, I got your point but as I said 'not guilty' and 'innocent' are not the same thing, the presumption from outset is that a defendant is innocent, the jury don't make that determination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rickiethecat Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Never let it be said that I don't give credit where it's due - that was a very good post. And never let it be said that you're not a hypocrite either. look at what you said at the start of this thread. Rolf Harris, that bloke off Coronation Street and the revolting Dave Lee Travis were all in the dock today for various rapes and sexual assaults. I agree with how puisseguin responded. If halibut says they are guilty no need for a trial. I think halibut is guilty of libel if any of them get off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Sorry, I got your point but as I said 'not guilty' and 'innocent' are not the same thing, the presumption from outset is that a defendant is innocent, the jury don't make that determination. True, but they are not required to make that determination, the defendant is already considered innocent by the law as they have not been found guilty of a charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 True, but they are not required to make that determination, the defendant is already considered innocent by the law as they have not been found guilty of a charge. My point was a not guilty verdict following a trial does not necessarily mean someone was not telling truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puisseguin Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 This doesn't change anything though. Under UK law you are innocent until proven guilty. This is what I said in response to your comments that "Not guilty doesn't mean innocent". It does. Actually it has nothing to do with UK law. It is however part of the Human Rights Act. " Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat" ---------- Post added 07-02-2014 at 11:42 ---------- And never let it be said that you're not a hypocrite either. look at what you said at the start of this thread. I agree with how puisseguin responded. :thumbsup::thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Actually it has nothing to do with UK law. It is however part of the Human Rights Act. " Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat": And as I have already said it is part of The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of the Council of Europe now known as the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Which is part of UK Law Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.