Arising_uk wrote: ↑Mon Jun 04, 2018 6:55 am
We prefer to try and protect the innocent's rights rather than allow the lynch mob to rule here.
Ahhhh hahahahahaha LOLOLOLOL. Tommy Robinson. Case closed.
[/quote]
ps -- sorry I read back a couple of posts and I see you are already mentioning this case. So you think someone should be thrown in jail for simply reporting on a trial. And that if you report on his imprisonment, YOU'RE committing a crime. I think you've lost perspective here.
[/quote]
Arising_uk wrote: ↑Mon Jun 04, 2018 6:55 am
Are you trying to claim that Yaxley-Lennon is a journalist?
There's a danger in letting the government decide who is a journalist. Courts in the US (aka "the colonies") have ruled that the first amendment applies to citizen journalists as well as staffers at the New York Times (who sleep with their sources to get scoops, as it turns out). A passerby with a smartphone who sees a cop misbehaving is every bit as entitled to first amendment protection as a credentialed reporter for some lying corrupt MSM outfit. This is as it should be. You don't want the government to license or approve of certain people as official journalists. That's the opposite of a free press.
The UK doesn't have a first amendment equivalent, and in arising_uk's posts you can see how this makes free speech a lost cause in Britain.
[/quote]
Arising_uk wrote: ↑Mon Jun 04, 2018 6:55 am
We prefer to try and protect the innocent's rights rather than allow the lynch mob to rule here.
Ahhhh hahahahahaha LOLOLOLOL. Tommy Robinson. Case closed.
ps -- sorry I read back a couple of posts and I see you are already mentioning this case. So you think someone should be thrown in jail for simply reporting on a trial. And that if you report on his imprisonment, YOU'RE committing a crime. I think you've lost perspective here.
Arising_uk wrote: ↑Mon Jun 04, 2018 6:55 am
Are you trying to claim that Yaxley-Lennon is a journalist?
There's a danger in letting the government decide who is a journalist. Courts in the US (aka "the colonies") have ruled that the first amendment applies to citizen journalists as well as staffers at the New York Times (who sleep with their sources to get scoops, as it turns out). A passerby with a smartphone who sees a cop misbehaving is every bit as entitled to first amendment protection as a credentialed reporter for some lying corrupt MSM outfit. This is as it should be. You don't want the government to license or approve of certain people as official journalists. That's the opposite of a free press.
The UK doesn't have a first amendment equivalent, and in arising_uk's posts you can see how this makes free speech a lost cause in Britain.
Arising_uk wrote: ↑Mon Jun 04, 2018 6:55 am
We prefer to try and protect the innocent's rights rather than allow the lynch mob to rule here.
Ahhhh hahahahahaha LOLOLOLOL. Tommy Robinson. Case closed.
ps -- sorry I read back a couple of posts and I see you are already mentioning this case. So you think someone should be thrown in jail for simply reporting on a trial. And that if you report on his imprisonment, YOU'RE committing a crime. I think you've lost perspective here.
Arising_uk wrote: ↑Mon Jun 04, 2018 6:55 am
Are you trying to claim that Yaxley-Lennon is a journalist?
There's a danger in letting the government decide who is a journalist. Courts in the US (aka "the colonies") have ruled that the first amendment applies to citizen journalists as well as staffers at the New York Times (who sleep with their sources to get scoops, as it turns out). A passerby with a smartphone who sees a cop misbehaving is every bit as entitled to first amendment protection as a credentialed reporter for some lying corrupt MSM outfit. This is as it should be. You don't want the government to license or approve of certain people as official journalists. That's the opposite of a free press.
The UK doesn't have a first amendment equivalent, and in Arising_uk's posts you can see how this makes free speech a lost cause in Britain.
Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Thu May 17, 2018 8:53 pm
I heard under British law, you're presumed guilty until you're proven innocent. Is this true? What would be the basis for this?
PhilX
WTF?
Indeed. As any fule kno, his own country operates under Anglo Saxon law, and therefore has the exact same basic principle of natural justice. Must he continue to learn the basic facts of his own nation's constitutional arrangements from foreigners?
The answer to his question is in this quote from the US Supreme court though.
The US Supreme Court in 1895 (Coffin v. United States) wrote:
The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law ...
...The evolution of the principle of the presumption of innocence, and its resultant, the doctrine of reasonable doubt, make more apparent the correctness of these views, and indicate the necessity of enforcing the one in order that the other may continue to exist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffin_v._United_States
yep. per Common Law Brit crimal law the presumption of guilt was (is still - i.e. do the Brits/Aussies/NZ/Canadians still operate on this initial presumption? - asking here for anyone from those nations to chimp in an educate me here).
BTW we can thank the Norse for the Jury - and me being a FIJA supporter thankful for the existence if the Jury in our current Western System of our courts.
fully support Jury Pardon - even when it is against my personal views on a particular case.
Arising_uk wrote: ↑Mon Jun 04, 2018 6:55 am
We prefer to try and protect the innocent's rights rather than allow the lynch mob to rule here.
Ahhhh hahahahahaha LOLOLOLOL. Tommy Robinson. Case closed.
ps -- sorry I read back a couple of posts and I see you are already mentioning this case. So you think someone should be thrown in jail for simply reporting on a trial. And that if you report on his imprisonment, YOU'RE committing a crime. I think you've lost perspective here.
QuantumT wrote: ↑Sun Jun 10, 2018 10:24 pm
There is one crime that - even if the defendant has been proven innocent - he will always be presumed guilty by his peers.
thats quite a charge, would welcome evidence to support it.
It's a matter of objective fact.
The Bill of Rights 1689 grants the parliamentary privilege for freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament and is still in effect. United Kingdom citizens have a negative right to freedom of expression under the common law.[149] In 1998, the United Kingdom incorporated the European Convention, and the guarantee of freedom of expression it contains in Article 10, into its domestic law under the Human Rights Act. However, there is a broad sweep of exceptions including threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior intending or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress or cause a breach of the peace ...
PhilX 