No one thought to ask the obvious ?  What's his nic ? 

18 minutes ago, Emerald said:

I hope he doesn't wear that cap when he goes to jail, the Filth and Tiges supporters there will make his life hell.

There’s a seperate prison for white collar criminals. 

My favorite defence for urinating in a public place.

Pointing aggressively toward the police officers in court - "I'd finished pissen when youse blokes turned up so youse didn't see me doin nuthin" - Innocent until he opened his mouth.

On 10/19/2018 at 10:10 PM, david_neitz_is_my_dad said:

Why would you wear that cap to court? His lawyer should have told him to take it off.

It produces sympathy...

 

Things changing, but not that quick

23 hours ago, daisycutter said:

i don't think he was talking about guilty court verdicts, just the principle of presumptive innocent before a fair trial even if it just plays out in the court of social media

When it comes to moral/ ethical/ behavioural issues, why should there be a presumption of innocence in the court of social media?

Did we collectively afford the same presumption of innocence to Scully, Clarke, Hogan etc. with respect to their behavior?

What about the comments people make about Schwab, or Caroline Wilson?

What about the east that GNF has been continually described as a troll? Where is the proof that he didn't have information, but that he just didn't have the whole story? Should we be treating him as innocent in this court of social media?

Or does it only apply to some accusations?

 

37 minutes ago, deanox said:

When it comes to moral/ ethical/ behavioural issues, why should there be a presumption of innocence in the court of social media?

 

because it is preferable to a presumption of guilt especially on such very public platforms like twitter and the accusations are more of a criminal nature and can not be dismissed as banter, tasteful or otherwise, and especially when attached to a serious movement like #metoo where the press are only too happy to further publicize

but i think you knew that anyway

41 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

because it is preferable to a presumption of guilt especially on such very public platforms like twitter and the accusations are more of a criminal nature and can not be dismissed as banter, tasteful or otherwise, and especially when attached to a serious movement like #metoo where the press are only too happy to further publicize

but i think you knew that anyway

I did.  And my comment was very clear in stating that a court of law requires sufficient evidence to find someone guilty, however in terms of doing business with that person in the future other people are free to make character judgements based on any available information, just as they do for information that doesn't relate to sexual assault (such as shoddy business practices).

I was quite clear on that. 

Some aspects of the law are stupid

something carved into stone 700 years ago - protecting double jeopardy and other times - folk not having to answer questions cos they might incriminate themselves. 

Magna Carta and all that could never have foreseen DNA testing, drone surveillance, cyber crime etc etc 

Bit of an overhaul needed. 

11 minutes ago, radar said:

Some aspects of the law are stupid

something carved into stone 700 years ago - protecting double jeopardy and other times - folk not having to answer questions cos they might incriminate themselves. 

Magna Carta and all that could never have foreseen DNA testing, drone surveillance, cyber crime etc etc 

Bit of an overhaul needed. 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-07/why-australia-watered-down-double-jeopardy-laws/7392372

 

Yeah, their still arguing against it - cos of the rights of the child/abuser/murderer.