Philosophy Now Forum

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

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?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Thu May 17, 2018 9:51 pm

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

You mixed the two terms up, WTF. "The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty." And guilt is established by evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty.

Actually, it's a litmus test if someone in countries of Brit Common Law does not know this basic principle of his or her life of no criminal record.

If you are unaware of this principle, then you were never forced to learn it. An everyman learns this either by watching tv crime drama, or being accused herself/himself. So if someone does not know this, he or she has never faced a judge in court, for sure.

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

So, how does your question relate to Tommy Robinson?

It doesn't, as he was innocent until proven guilty and he was proven guilty.

Such swift and efficient legal action.

Is it now legal to talk about him?

If a journalist writes about him now, is the journalist no longer guilty?

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?

Napoleonic law. Same in Mexico.

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Jun 03, 2018 10:29 am Such swift and efficient legal action.

Well given Yaxley-Lennon pleaded guilty for contempt of court and for breaching his suspended sentence it was a pretty open and shut case.

Is it now legal to talk about him?

If a journalist writes about him now, is the journalist no longer guilty?

We'll ignoring that any journalist wouldnt be guilty until tried and found so. Sure I guess as it won't be prejudicing the case.

If a journalist is under a gag order because he doesn’t enjoy protected freedom of speech, and there is subsequent evidence constituting proof that he defied the the gag order, and he admits to defying the gag order, then his guilt is obvious and a plea bargain is likely to result, if plea bargains in fact do exist where protected freedom of speech does not. However, the formal proceedings to make the guilt official, should the journalist wish to contest the law itself, may reveal extenuating circumstances which could lighten the penalty but not the guilt, such as ignorance of the gag order.

We don't have plea bargining here.

We prefer to try and protect the innocent's rights rather than allow the lynch mob to rule here.

Are you trying to claim that Yaxley-Lennon is a journalist?

Wastebook won't like that as that makes them publicists and subject to laws they wish to avoid.

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.

wtf wrote: ↑Sat Jun 09, 2018 6:40 pm

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 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.