Innocent until proven guilty......

a reply to: boymonkey74

I was thinling about that Royal thread as well. The way it was presented from the get-go was he's guilty and we all knew it was happening all along. Thats quite an assumption. It may even prove to be true. But since when do we start out as judge and jury?

From said thread it was stated para-phrasing here...that "the British Royal Family are finally" (As in we always knew-at least the op did)...being exposed for "what they are" (making a determination as a finality-as though this is what they are and we all knew it).

So whats the purpose of the thread? We are told the truth (may not be)we all knew (didnt) is out in the open, and the Royals finally at last exposed for what we all know to be true-(we don't).

I think that gives a new term to ATS: MST-Main Stream Threader (as in MSM-Main Stream Media).

We need to put no credence in either one...

I agree very much that a person should not be treated as guilty unless and until they have been found guilty in a court of law.

However, I've seen a few remarks (not just here and not just about one particular case) suggesting that accuser's are 'making it up' or trying to 'make money out of' the person they are accusing. I'd like to see the alleged victim presumed innocent too, unless or until they are proved to be guilty of lies and deception.

Another thing that I find really aggravating is the 'defense' that 'this is an old story' as if that somehow makes the accusations untrue. I don't care how long ago something happened or how many times a person has told a story - it still needs to be investigated impartially.

I don't much like the idea of guilt by association but, unfortunately, the long-reported upon behaviour of some people taken together with the known behaviour of the company they keep can go a long way to mould public perception of them. So when accusations start to be made against them they might find it more difficult than most to convince the general public that they are completely innocent, or guilty of no more than carelessness.

a reply to: boymonkey74

Identifying an accused person is becoming more and more common despite how wrong it is. its a reflection of the goverment and the media owners work hand in glove (not sure which is which) to secure a common outcome being that all accused nobodies are guiliy.

Its also very unjust and unethical as it does to some degree poison the well so-to-speck from which potential jours are drawn from.

some years ago in my country it became quite fashionable for jurors to speakc out about the cases they tried. A bloke who was the jury forman called in to talk back radio and said that one woman out of the entire jury believed the defendent to be guility. When asked to explain why she thought the defendent was guility her reply was:

"well, if he wasn't guility the police would not have arrested him would they"?

By publishing the defendents identify and picture the media poisions the well for the prosecution becase of the little ols ladies of both genders who say "I reckon he's guity." Why? "Cos I dont like that smirk on his face."

Gulity verdict coming up. Goverment and media high five