unbeliever Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 Bail is not based on monetary consideration in the U.K. You do not pay for bail it is based on several factors including severity of offence, chance of commiting further offences whilst on bail, interfering with witnesses etc. I stand corrected. I've been watching too much American TV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 Bail is not based on monetary consideration in the U.K. You do not pay for bail it is based on several factors including severity of offence, chance of commiting further offences whilst on bail, interfering with witnesses etc. You can be asked to put up a surety to a certain amount - be that a sum of money, property etc to ensure you turn up. But it doesn't cost you anything per se - assuming you attend. Assange's guarantors lost a lot of cash when he bunked to the Ecuadorian embassy. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/sep/04/julian-assange-backers-lose-bail https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/oct/08/julian-assange-supporters-ordered-forfeit-bail Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alcoblog Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 Wasn't Cliff Richard pretty much found guilty of crimes he didn't commit until his innocence was proved? I don't even like the guy, but at the time I was shocked at the way he was being treated. Look at the poor guy now, innocent, but heavy on his health and now having the stigma of being a pervert for the rest of his life by those too ignorant to choose to know better. To be honest, I think he handled the whole thing with grace and dignity, as such gaining respect from myself, and I dare say a lot of others. Very unfair all the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 Anonymity for the accused until convicted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Margarita Ma Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 Crazy Idea. People already get fitted up for things they had no connection to, get sent down and spend years trying to find some way of proving it could not possibly have been them. Imagine what that must be like. In some countries where they run a guilty until proven innocent system the burden on the state is very light and the state does not even feed prisoners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Futures Red Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 Wasn't Cliff Richard pretty much found guilty of crimes he didn't commit until his innocence was proved? I don't even like the guy, but at the time I was shocked at the way he was being treated. Look at the poor guy now, innocent, but heavy on his health and now having the stigma of being a pervert for the rest of his life by those too ignorant to choose to know better. To be honest, I think he handled the whole thing with grace and dignity, as such gaining respect from myself, and I dare say a lot of others. Very unfair all the same. The most sensible post so far. Quite right. Can you imagine in reality being guilt until proven innocent. Can you imagine the people in this particular thread being looked at being guilty until proven innocent? What would their reaction be? Can you imagine what it would do to society overall? Everyone would be accusing people of being guilty until the person could prove their innocence. Imagine the impact it would have society! What would we be teaching our kids? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macmellus Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 I daresay that there would have been some pretty compelling evidence for him to have been remanded. He was innocent. He was imprisoned for nine months. ''Innocent until proven guilty' made no difference in his case, no matter how compelling the evidence was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamston Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 Wasn't Cliff Richard pretty much found guilty of crimes he didn't commit until his innocence was proved? I don't even like the guy, but at the time I was shocked at the way he was being treated. Look at the poor guy now, innocent, but heavy on his health and now having the stigma of being a pervert for the rest of his life by those too ignorant to choose to know better. To be honest, I think he handled the whole thing with grace and dignity, as such gaining respect from myself, and I dare say a lot of others. Very unfair all the same. Cliff Richard was never charged with any crimes, because there was no evidence to do so. It would still be up to a jury to deliver a verdict, if the OP's suggestion was implemented. I don't understand why people are assuming, that people could just make things up about others and the Police would just believe them. Cliff Richard was treated disgracefully, but that is really irrelevant to the discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Futures Red Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 Cliff Richard was never charged with any crimes, because there was no evidence to do so. It would still be up to a jury to deliver a verdict, if the OP's suggestion was implemented. I don't understand why people are assuming, that people could just make things up about others and the Police would just believe them. Cliff Richard was treated disgracefully, but that is really irrelevant to the discussion. True, however in reality, if we did have a system like this, this would create a very sinister society. Imagine the kids growing up and being programmed to treat people guilty until proven innocent. Your right regarding Cliff Richard, but if we did a poll before he was proven not guilty, I'll bet you more than half would say he was guilty... purely out of over generalising - with what's happened recently over the years. (yew tree etc) The media were trying to be clever in such a way they covertly tried to publically hang him. Lots of society are programmed enough to point the finger at someone before being proven innocent, without having this "guilty until proven innocent" theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamston Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 True, however in reality, if we did have a system like this, this would create a very sinister society. Imagine the kids growing up and being programmed to treat people guilty until proven innocent. Your right regarding Cliff Richard, but if we did a poll before he was proven not guilty, I'll bet you more than half would say he was guilty... purely out of over generalising - with what's happened recently over the years. (yew tree etc) The media were trying to be clever in such a way they covertly tried to publically hang him. Lots of society are programmed enough to point the finger at someone before being proven innocent, without having this "guilty until proven innocent" theory. People would still be 'innocent until proven guilty' unless they get charged with a crime, then it would be up to a jury to decide if there is reasonable doubt they are not guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now