Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
It was only a matter of time.
he's a lizard?
and, if appropriate, criminal proceedings.
Guilty until proven innocent? Who knows...I do think however, there should be tighter rules when dragging people's names through the press before there's any evidence. Hmm.
but releasing the name can help an investigation. Without publicity, how many people would have come forward for people like Max Clifford or Rolf Harris?
eg the guy who is regarded as being possibly one of the most prolific sex attackers in Britain. when one woman came forward the police dismissed it cause she'd been drinking. When his name and description were released, almost 100 others can forward.
Can't believe how much otherwise alright people have been taken in by all the It's a Witch Hunt crap.
My initial thought was "surely they should wait until he's charged before releasing his name?" But then, would the police / CPS take into account other people coming forward (in terms of deciding whether to press charges)?
In principle I don't personally care whether they release the name of someone this early in the process. But when there's been that much going about already it's probably more sensible to just be open about what's going on.
Maybe it's best just to be open to avoid unhelpful gossip and to encourage others to come forward.
doesn't mean we have to presume someone is innocent until they've been found guilty by a jury. Also lol at "before there's any evidence". There is evidence.
I thought that's exactly what it meant.
but no it doesn't mean that
You said "The term "innocent till proven guilty"
doesn't mean we have to presume someone is innocent until they've been found guilty by a jury"
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11, states: "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.".
Otherwise you'd say 'I', surely. Which is fair enough, but god forbid you'd ever be in any position of power over others if you truly believed that.
(so I don't have to have this argument every other week). http://caffeinatedperspectives.wordpress.com/category/law/
If someone could clarify.
I don't see anything in there that shows "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't mean someone should be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Am I being thick?
And the blog DarwinDude has linked to.
applying to those involved in the judicial process. You may want to apply that principal to your own judgement of a legal case from a moral perspective but DD argues you shouldn't have to.
you managed to go away and search for a legal definition but you didn't have time to skim a short article hmmm
I came back into the thread to find you'd linked an article with a bracketed moan about having to argue about this every other week, confrontedbybears had just told me to "read the article again!" but JohnM had summarised it in a short post.
I read the short post.
and ignored my post
"Define 'we'" refers to the scope of the presumption.
"'The presumption of innocence in modern practice' section and the blog" cover further aspects beyond that.
sadpunk asked a question. Someone who understood what you were going on about answered him. He accepted that answer. It seems we're all better off and yet you have to reply like that.
Because the alternative manifests itself in some of the worst aspects of Western society. A 'paedo' beaten to death for taking pictures of kids who are vandalising his property. Public kangaroo courts steered by tabloid newspapers. Guantanamo Bay. Just because something is open to abuse, doesn't make it wrong in principle or something we shouldn't all strive for.
But we can't *treat* people as criminals unless they've been proved of committing a crime. That should be a cornerstone of a civilised society. There's been plenty of cases where someone has been acquitted for a crime but the criminal label has stuck, because we've treated them as guilty during the trial.
Cliff Richard has not been treated as if he is a criminal.
Can someone else take over this one, Im trying to appreciate some Matisse
I don't think he's covering any new ground since last time he got spanked on this.
You are so clearly wrong
Your definition implies we shouldn't feel compelled to, though.
Whose definition are you using? The UN is pretty clear on this
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11, states: "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence."
Note use of word 'presumed'.
I bought our recently engaged friends one of those little music box mechanisms that plays 'Congratulations', that'll probably get chucked
I'll get me coat.
'She's going to get you from behind'....
i've a tendency to sing it when wasted
he's always been shit.
We Don't Talk Anymore
Wired for Sound
Miss You Nights
All good songs.
I like small speakers
If there's music, they're wired for sound."
So fucking obvious when you think about it.
From the man who brought you this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJJuYpx0w2Q
they can't catch him
in my first act as mod I will be making sure this thread is watertight from a legal perspective and that any offenders are dealt with in a swift and brutal manner
you can count on me boss
and we all know cliff's as straight as an arrow.
would think this will be the last arrest in these investigations. You'd be a right plonker to think there wouldn't be more
doesn't quite have the same ring
The Kitty is out of the bag.
See what i did there!
Is that just in there for SEO?
also the bit where it just goes MELVYN BRAGG and has a picture of Cliff and Cherie and Melvyn together, then just moves on to the next point.
Ho is Cliff Richard?
Verbal and Jordan can testify
I'm not even sure there's anyone left who hasn't been arrested at some point. The Chuckle Brothers?
fucking hell :D
i also suggested that Jeremy Beadle had a small hand in it.
Few people upthread owe him an apology, it seems.
bloke says he didn't do it, so he didn't do it.
he's the first in all this mess where I've been "nahh" #voiceofauthority
that despite this stuff being seemingly so previlent amongst people in power that no MPs have been arrested/questioned yet loads of aging entertainers at the ends of their career have been? Esp with all the rumoured connections between saville and No.10 etc. Throwing a few people to the wolves to save the rest?
#mokerlives #canyouseeit #lizardsfrommars
There have been rumours about some MP's, but the problem is that many of them are dead.
Whether it be the milk snatcher, the LibDem student gangbang or the abolishing of the EMA.
then so can Cliff.
Has anyone noticed that there is a 'child' in Cliff Richard?
Child Car Riff?
Maybe they're searching his car?
Yes he is here. but please do not bother him now 'cause he is in the grape harvest.
(he's the largest producer of wine in algarve ffs!)
and try and collect evidence for law suits? surely he'd have to wait until he is found not guilty though, right?
they will be collecting social media/media comment so that they can present it to the judge and ask for it to be considered as prejudicial to a fair trial.
That tactic didn't work in the hacking trial, but one of these days a case will be thrown out because a judge deems that a defendant will not be able to receive a fair trial because of public comment on things like twitter/forums etc.
We're are depending on your beady eye.
Maybe he was a bit shocked to find that the Young Ones weren't actually young ones...
and there is something very wrong with the fact that the media have been tipped off so they can be there when the police arrive, and that this is (apparently) the first that Cliff hears of it.
This needs to follow the standard due process before people start going on about it. And even after that process has finished, it would be nice if people could be adults for once, whatever the outcome.
This is a very boring post on my part but sometimes I feel like stating the obvious.
If he goes down we can feel all smug that we knew, and if he's innocent, we can feel all smug that we knew he'd get off because he's a wealthy white man. Win-win!
The current news story has just said CR is suspected.
Not sure who, if anyone, is vindicated by this 'I KNEW IT haha' attitude everyone has about these things. It's just a disgusting witchunt in an early case.
I've seen Rolf's 'evidence' pasted a few times. One if the occasions (9 months for touching a 15 year old's bum or some approximation of that, quite a few were mere gropes, and by all accounts the main one was a ten year affair which continued til she was 26-ie an adult, consensually) wasn't in the country for at the time. One woman who gave evidence after previously being paid for the story by an Aussie rag, stated she was surprised he got charged. (interesting choice of words right. Not 'delighted' surprised.)
stop victim blaming
My understanding is (not guilty =/= innocent) but also ((not guilty=/= innocent)=/=guilty) basically no one can know anything, but people should be aware that the first scenario is far more likely and how it affects all those people who have not had justice when they discuss things in terms of (not guilty = innocent), sure it is unfair on the small proportion of accused who genuinely are innocent that they may never shake it, but it is more unfair that those who have been victims to not be treated as such just because they can't prove something that is incredibly hard to prove. Think people should just acknowledge the ambiguity rather than feel the need to pick a side.
Why don't you read these and fuck off, eh?
because some of the rolf evidence *taken in isolation* sounded a bit flimsy/ a bit borderline. Let's face it,while a line has to be drawn, tath line is artibrary- a girl of 15 years and 364 days isn't going to be traunatised any more than a girl on her 16th birthday who gets a pat on a bum from her mate's dad. yet one has catasrophic legal consequences, the other is unlikely to be even prosecuted.
however, thes einstances of a 15 year old getting a pat on the bum CANNNOT AND MUST NOT be taken in isolation. The whole point, that anybody with even a quarter of a brain can grasp, of the rolf case is that it involved a distinct and terrifying pattern of behaviour. of grooming from an early age, which continued into girls teens/ early 20s. the fact that they led evidence in court about the sexual activity which occcurred in this girl's adult life was to demonstrate the GRIP that this PAEDO had on this poor woman's life, right into adulthood because he had ABUSED and GROOMED her when she was a CHILD to the extent that she was crippled by his hold on her. mere gropes. hahahah. NO.
I also happen to know a fair bit about this investigatoin and the trial and the CPS didn't even bother leading about 90% of the evidence because there was so much. They led just eonugh to get him sent down without drawing out the trial to 5 times its length and causing extra distress to his victims.
that his sentence was light (and I mean this from a strict legal analysis of the patterns of applicatoni of the doctrine of totailty in similr cases- stuart hall being one) that the judge passed a sentence which was borderline excessive.
While legally he has the right to challenge it, and legally he might win and achieve a reductoin in sentence, I cannot believe that he has the motherfucking teremity to challenge. I wish there was a hell that he could burn in for doing this to his victims.
I hope so much his appeal is thrown out and the courageous judge's decision is upheld, even if it goes against the strict rule of law.
most of those typose but teremity = temerity.
SEAN, GET US A FUCKING SPELLCHECK MATE.
(for the insight you bring to discussions like this amongst other reasons)
and it frustrates me.
also, thanks. I think the same about you- you have brought so much informatoin and ways of looking at things into my life that I may not otherwise have experienced. you've changed my world view more than you'll ever know. And you're lovely x
Innocent Until Proven Guilty
The Old Blue Last,15th August
£5 on the door
And Barbados doesn't have any extradition agreement with us? Is that actually true or just hearsay nonsense?
Requests from these states [category 2 territories, of which barbados is one] need decisions by both the Secretary of State and the courts. The Secretary of State has no influence over the time it takes for a case to clear the judicial stages, and time a case takes to complete can vary depending on how complex the case is.
The extradition process to these territories follows these steps:
an extradition request is made to the Secretary of State
the Secretary of State issues a certificate and sends request to court (if request is valid)
Secretary of State decides on extradition
After the extradition hearing and the Secretary of State’s decision a requested person may be able to appeal to the High Court, and if that is unsuccessful, to the Supreme Court.
is there a good tax incentive for doing this or does it basically scream 'utterly shady'? For a man who's always come across (to me, at any rate) as pretty strongly 'Queen and country' renouncing his UK citizenship does seem fairly weird.
He's been a citizen of Barbados for over four years.
he's currently in Portugal, so if the police wanted to arrest him they'd need to take it up with the Portuguese.
and portugal is a category 1 territory for UK extraditoin purposes, so it would be a piece of piss to get him back here is he decides to do a flit.
a European arrest warrant).
It is odious that this is being done through the media. There may be a conscious police tactic of trying to drum up any other 'victims', but in the current climate the way this has been handled, he is going to be presumed to be guilty (which he may well be).
The Paedofinder General stalks the land, and will hunt them all down with the help of the tabloids. The police should be quietly doing their business, and if the man is charged, well then the press should be getting invovled.
literally haven't seen a single person saying yeeeeah he definitely did it. seen hundreds of people saying what you've just said though...
I took the thread title to be jokey rather than a serious assertion that we now know "the truth" about cliff richard (whatever that may be).
I'm aware of the legal perspective.
the police have done this without having a very definite plan in mind. They have been talking to CR about this for many months and he has allegdly been 'cooperating'. Obviously not cooperating enough because the police have felt fit to do a dawen raid on his house while he's abroad, and to make sure Sky news were there to witness it. They are trying to flush somethng out here, very clearly, It's no accident.
As for his guilt, i am confused. I thought he was a enuch who lived in a platonic partnership with an asexual priest, but that might have just been a bad ketamine dream.
'CR has been talking to the police for many months' - have you got a link?
having no genitalia are surely the actions of a massive pervert
This must be planned.
or to put pressure on any other victims to come forward.
The BBC website has a good bit about this about halfway down:
From the BBC
"The media presence at Sir Cliff Richard's home, therefore, was highly unusual - it appears to be a deliberate attempt by police to ensure maximum coverage.
That's not illegal - but there are strict guidelines - and the force may have to justify its approach in the months to come."
he's got the right to be presumed innocent etc etc.
Even people on here quoting the universal declaration of human rights (which by the way isn't even legally significant) don't seem to realise that it specifically states "everyone charged" and not "everyone". I mean its in the blog i posted but nobody can be bothered reading it.
let's not get too carried away?
There's such obvious glee, from some quarters, whenever a new name is thrown into the arena with a salacious accusation attached to it. I can empathise with the sentiment, shared by many people, that it's important to recognise that there may be no fire behind the smoke.
not just being pure boastful but I've not seen any other articles about why it's quite dangerous to smuggle certain legal concepts into regular political discussions, particuarly the idea that we ought to afford someone like cliff richard the same safeguards he would get in formal legal proceedings. people arent just saying "lets not get carried away"; many are making fairly strong normative claims about justice. might not be the best written thing ever but imo it is an important point.
Cliff is such an unusual character. I'm no fan of his really but I kind of hope he's just a frustrated closeted gay Christian rather than a nasty old perv.
You talk like it's a meaningless piece of legal jargon when it's actually the cornerstone of a fair and just legal system.
I'm sure you would re-evaluate what you think about it should someone that you care about become the subject of an unfounded and vicious rumour or be kept indefinitely in custody.
there's no way the article talks like it's a meaningless piece of legal jargon. I read it as, when you pass your own discernment in non legal situations over to the legal system you might actually be picking a side, even though you don't think you are.
1. The doctrine extends to non-legal scenarios such as public deliberation
2. It is also a moral and non-legal epistemological question
And what I'm saying is that 1. It should be and 2. It is.
not in a criminal investigation, which is where we're at now dummkopf.
As someone else explained when we did this thread for the 1000th time
Again DiS is trying to tell me something is irrefutable fact then linking me to an opinion piece as proof.
'well actually no he didn't until he is proven to have done so and only then he did'. It doesn't make sense. He either did do something wrong or he didn't and if in a non legal situation (in real life normal chat for e.g) you're saying he's innocent till the verdict comes out, in that period you're saying 'he didn't'.
The burden of proof is on the accuser. You wouldn't say to someone 'Someone says you assaulted them, so you're going to jail unless you can prove you didn't.' The current system might be open to abuse, but the alternative is straight up oppression.
We're not talking about what the few people who actually know the truth (the accuser and accused, and any accessories to the crime) know. We're talking about the public's perception of the accused before any proof has been presented. And I'm sorry, but the notion of innocent until proved guilty trumps DON'T TELL ME WHAT TO THINK tantrum-throwing every time.
In my conversation with you, what we do and don't take in account in deciding what to think and say about what's happened should and will be based on other things.
is telling us something is irrefutable fact, *without even* linking to an opinion piece as proof?
that's literally the whole point of DD's article. it's entirely possible to believe that someone is guilty of a crime, while *also* believing that there may not be enough evidence for a jury to conclude that they are guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and as such they should not be thrown in jail, *even though* you still believe that they are guilty. the only point being made is that people should be able to state and discuss that belief without 'innocent until proven guilty' being thrown around as an absolute epistemological principle. this is so painfully obvious.
to assume the accused is 'innocent until proven guilty' means you have to assume the accuser is guilty of lying, without any evidence for that assumption. in a legal setting this makes sense, because it's the accused who could end up in prison, so the burden of proof has to be on the accuser for obvious reasons. but your opinion doesn't have the authority to put anyone in prison. there's no good reason for you to assume the accused, but not the accuser, is innocent. you can say that the best thing to do is to be utterly neutral and have no opinion either way, if you like, but that is an entirely different thing from the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty', which does not assume neutrality by any means.
I don't see why it has to be an either/or. What you're doing here, is advocating judging an individual before you know all, or any, of the facts. Sure, that's your right, knock yourself out, but it hardly makes you a good person, and is in the realms of the worst excesses of the tabloid press that are so often bemoaned by the same people that are arguing with me here. As I've said upthread, the guy that was killed for taking pictures of vandal kids in his garden might have preferred it if people didn't jump to conclusions in the absence of evidence. People rotting in Guantanamo without being charged of anything might have a different opinion. As might you if you knew someone who had been affected by serious allegations you knew to be untrue. I don't mind a joke made in bad taste here and there, but I've no reason to dislike someone like Cliff Richard or anyone else who hasn't personally slighted me until I have evidence to say otherwise, and neither do you, or anyone else here. Innocent until proven guilty should be a doctrine close to anyone's heart who truly values liberty.
"I don't see why it has to be an either/or"
It doesn't - saying that you do not have to presume the accused is innocent is not the same as saying you presume they are guilty. You can presume not to know one way or the other.
"the guy that was killed for taking pictures of vandal kids in his garden might have preferred it if people didn't jump to conclusions in the absence of evidence."
That has nothing to do with some members of society presuming that someone is guilty without evidence. Vigilante justice is wrong even if you do have evidence.
"People rotting in Guantanamo without being charged of anything might have a different opinion"
That has nothing to do with some members of society presuming that someone is guilty without evidence. That is about the questionable actions of elected officials.
"Innocent until proven guilty should be a doctrine close to anyone's heart who truly values liberty."
It is - everyone on here would agree that no one should be judged without having the opportunity to defend themselves in court. No one on here is doing anything to Cliff Richard. No one is attacking his liberty. No one is violating his legal presumption of innocent until proven guilty.
a) That's not what the post I was replying to was saying.
b) It is though.
c) See b).
d) See a).
gonna take the liberty of quoting myself: 'you can say that the best thing to do is to be utterly neutral and have no opinion either way, if you like, but that is an entirely different thing from the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty', which does not assume neutrality by any means'. that is literally precisely what the post you were replying to was saying. to use the term 'innocent', in the context of a discussion that is not part of an actual judicial trial, is not withholding judgement. it is taking a side. that's why it's called the PRESUMPTION of INNOCENCE. somebody should be presumed innocent *in a legal context* so that they are not at risk of unjustly going to prison. that doesn't mean that *you* have a moral obligation to PRESUME that they are INNOCENT, because that would involve the symmetrical presumption that the accuser is GUILTY OF LYING. you may *believe* that the accuser is guilty of lying, but you have the same obligation to justify that belief as the people who believe the accused is guilty.
not gonna bother trying to reply to the rest of your letters, because you are in_limbo and i am going to bed.
that hes always been a smug prick?