Freedom of speech

Lol! You have way too much trust in our legal system. in your rosetinted world there are no injustices. There are no undocumented 'backroom' discussions. There are no policemen taking bungs. There is no corruption or bribery, and I don't just mean at the Munir Patel level.

You say in capital letters EVERY SINGLE COURT CASE IN THE LAND. Really? Are you saying that all the family court hearings have full transcripts available. And what about 'counsel only' discussions with a judge. Do those appear in the transcripts?

 

Give me a break. Of course there are injustices in any walk of life.

Where minors are involved we expect confidentiality of course.

Oh on closing, injustices work both ways does it not?

Would you rather have it that way or kangaroo courts

Walking around thinking that everyone is corrupt gives one a completely slanted view on life.

I seriously wonder why you may think that?

 

Exactly so those people saying he shouldn’t be named until he is charged are forgetting he hasn’t been named. It is rumour

 

Happy to give you a break mate. Just don't say stuff in capital letters like they're facts, when clearly not every single court case in the land has transcripts, which is what you said. Just cos you say stuff in capitals doesn't make it a fact.

I might sound like some long haired, anti-fascist, anti government and anti big corporate, but I'm not. I'm just a normal bloke who has seen injustice first hand, and also how money-grabbing, uncaring and unethical some of the legal profession can be. Oh, and it kinda makes me feel sick seeing that the lawyers in the Hillsborough trial have so far billed over EIGHTY MILLION POUNDS, which means hundreds of lawyers have become VERY VERY wealthy off the back of all that misery and heartache.

But hey, this forum is about City and City related things so enough about lawyers already

 

Im sorry but youre wrong. The whole basis of the English justice system is that you are INNOCENT until proven guilty therefore a not guilty verdict is saying you are in fact innocent.

 

Except it isn’t. You might think that but unfortunately you are wrong

 

Believe me Im not.

 

You are. The jury do not have to decide if you are innocent or not. Innocent means you didn’t do it, with not guilty you can have done it but the prosecution just haven’t been able to prove your guilt.

 

Not guilty means you haven't been found culpable of a specific charge eg a specific theft or specific murder - this is why you have separate charges for differing things that may have occurred at the same time. Innocent means you are totally without any guilt. The former is specific to an event the latter is general state of being and the presumed default for people facing any charge for a specific event.

 

Completely agree with this. A jury through a court of law decides upon the evidence provided whether you are guilty or not guilty. If you walk away from that court case with a not guilty verdict then a jury has found you innocent of the charges made against you. You can say not guilty/innocent, in this case they mean the same thing regardless of what others might think.

 

So in other words everyone has turned into a professional lawyer then

 

That would be the Scots, with their verdict of "Not Proven." Someone's quip about that was along the lines of "We know you did it, but can't prove it!"

RCB

 

If you are innocent until proven guilty, and you are found not guilty, you must be presumed innocent - until you are proven guilty.

That would explain why a jury doesn't have to prove someone "innocent", but rather "not guilty" - because unless it can be proven otherwise, they already are and always were, innocent.

 

The difference is presumed innocent and actually being innocent.

 

1. There is a difference between cri*minal law and civil law matters such as the family division

2. Confidentiality in such matters would be through not naming person rather tgsn by nit recording judgements