|
Post by The Lach is very tired on Apr 20, 2013 8:08:31 GMT -5
I really think there should be some law against naming these people before they've been given a trial. They could be completely innocent, yet there will always be that accusation. If they're guilty, then they deserve what they get but if innocent, it's really unfair. I loathe Jim Davidson, I think he's a racist, bigoted, homophobic arsehole. But should he be declared not guilty, the stigma of being accused will never disappear and that is grossly unfair. I don't think that super-injunctions are a good thing and I'm aware it is contradictory to say they shouldn't be named in certain situations but there has to be some sort of balance. To be fair it was one of the newspapers that has named him (The Sun I think). And as we all know UK tabloid papers have a high regard for obeying the law.
|
|
Bo Rida
Fry's dog Seymour
Pulled one over on everyone. Got away with it, this time.
Posts: 23,589
|
Post by Bo Rida on Apr 20, 2013 8:24:02 GMT -5
I really think there should be some law against naming these people before they've been given a trial. They could be completely innocent, yet there will always be that accusation. If they're guilty, then they deserve what they get but if innocent, it's really unfair. I loathe Jim Davidson, I think he's a racist, bigoted, homophobic arsehole. But should he be declared not guilty, the stigma of being accused will never disappear and that is grossly unfair. I don't think that super-injunctions are a good thing and I'm aware it is contradictory to say they shouldn't be named in certain situations but there has to be some sort of balance. Yeah it's tough, it ruins innocent people's lives but on the other hand you don't want a system that arrests or even puts people on trial in secret. I did jury duty on a case where a teacher was accused of French kissing a child, it took two years to come to court and the prosecution's case was really weak (one charge was meant to have taken place in a room full of people and even the prosecution witness thought he was innocent when asked), I felt really sorry the guy having his career and two years of his life ruined on such a flimsy case. Despite that there's still some doubt in my mind if the guy was innocent so who knows what people who never saw the trial thought, no wonder he moved. The main reason I mention this is because the judge said you can find the defendant in such cases guilty without there being any witnesses and a lot of people don't seem to realise that.
|
|