View Full Version : premiership rapists
Atomic22
01-10-2003, 19:15
is it true what i have just read on the net that the "alleged" premiership hotel room rapists are gooners and tooners?
anyone else have any news or is it all bs?
will this thread get cut?
From what I have seen else where on the web a few sites have had a warning as people have named teams and players that were suppose to be involved in this.
Their have been a fair amount of lcues in the press to the teams adleast.
Lets put it this way, Villa have categorically denied that their players are involved. Liverpool wouldn't have travelled down to London until Saturday afternoon, which just leaves one team in London having a jolly good **** up.
And reports that Craig Jones was in London at the time have been wildly exaggerated! :dmonk:
Close this thread please mods, there should be no discussion on this at all. The matter is in police hands. All have a right to anonomity.
Close this thread please mods, there should be no discussion on this at all. The matter is in police hands. All have a right to anonomity.
Don't spoil our fun :( lol
Don't spoil our fun :( lol
Well, judging by the number of responses I'd say that
a) people aren't having fun
b) people don't consider it to be a laughing matter
c) most people are uncomfortable discussing it
All have a right to anonomity.
Actually only the victim has the right to anonomity. In fact it's in the public interest to know that there are several dangerous men on the loose, but until as such time as police or they confirm their identities speculation is pointless and harmful.
Close this thread please mods, there should be no discussion on this at all. The matter is in police hands. All have a right to anonomity.
I don't see the point in closing the thread at this point to be honest.
The matter is certainly newsworthy and will be talked about. The only time we'll be dealing with this thread is if any specific allegations are made against an identifiable person or team.
And cjll3 - I'm sure you meant it in jest but to implicate CJ in a matter of this nature is NOT going to be tolerated.
Yes there are some dangerous men out there but also some equally dangerous women who are only too happy to make false accusations of rape against men. For this reason there certainly should be annonymity for all, until of course false accusations are indeed PROVEN to be false, in which case the accusers' details should be made public.
Atomic22
02-10-2003, 20:05
yes i did use the words "alleged" as nothing is proven <Admin Edit>Please do not post names, unless they are proven> and the rest of them are innocent until proven guilty
Yes there are some dangerous men out there but also some equally dangerous women who are only too happy to make false accusations of rape against men. For this reason there certainly should be annonymity for all, until of course false accusations are indeed PROVEN to be false, in which case the accusers' details should be made public.
Well I was going to post a message pointing out the importance of things like the presumption of innocence and the fact that too many people will assume that accusation=guilt, but I see Russ has already saved me the trouble!
Well I was going to post a message pointing out the importance of things like the presumption of innocence and the fact that too many people will assume that accusation=guilt, but I see Russ has already saved me the trouble!
No people are not thinking that they are guilty. They are thinking what is the truth behind this?
Remember there was considerable doubt about Ulreka's unsubstantiated claims that she was raped by a person unknown, but presumed to be John Lesley.
Now if you're in John's shoes which would you prefer, the allegations to be out in the open where you can refute them and defend yourself, or just everyone pointing and whispering behind your back?
Given Villa players are now known not to be involved as the club issued an official statement to that effect, how do you think Michael Owen feels each morning knowing some moron might accuse him of being involved?
No people are not thinking that they are guilty. They are thinking what is the truth behind this?
Sorry, but I think that the examples of what has happened in past cases, such as the one you mention, rather back up my case.
Remember there was considerable doubt about Ulreka's unsubstantiated claims that she was raped by a person unknown, but presumed to be John Lesley.
Now if you're in John's shoes which would you prefer, the allegations to be out in the open where you can refute them and defend yourself, or just everyone pointing and whispering behind your back?
But John Leslie *didn't* do this!
He wanted to wait for the court case, but had to endure months of speculation, innuendo, gossip and people crawling out of the woodwork with "revelations" about his private life and past.
Meanwhile there was a lot of people saying "well there's no smoke without fire" and "if he wasn't guilty they wouldn't have charged him".
Given Villa players are now known not to be involved as the club issued an official statement to that effect, how do you think Michael Owen feels each morning knowing some moron might accuse him of being involved?
And if he is, what then? If he or anyone else is arrested and charged, their names will be released into the public forum and the tabloids will sieze on this, just as they did with John Leslie, as a way of boosting their circulation by printing allegations, speculations and anything else they can get their hands on.
Far better for the names to *not* be released at all and for the press to wait until the court case to report *facts* rather than possibly prejudicing the trial with their gutter gossip.
But John Leslie *didn't* do this!
He wanted to wait for the court case, but had to endure months of speculation, innuendo, gossip and people crawling out of the woodwork with "revelations" about his private life and past.
Yes he did do this. He was interviewed by police and had full oppotunity to defend himself. The fact that he was then exhonourated does not mean that he wasn't guilty, just that the police didn't have sufficient evidence to proceed with the case.
However, since he was the object of intense speculation, and he was being publically named before Matthew Wright blurted out it out on national TV, how does he deal with it in his public and private life if he is not allowed to defend himself?
You'll notice that various newsgroups are full of the suspect's names. Withholding their names at this point further damages people who are not involved.
Meanwhile there was a lot of people saying "well there's no smoke without fire" and "if he wasn't guilty they wouldn't have charged him".
Yes, but without clear information how are people to judge for themselves? John Leslie has now been cleared of involvement in sex offences, he can put his life back together now.
As for the 30 odd people who are all being tarred with the same brush, you think that they like that? They should suffer because of media interest? All they need to do is issue a statement that they are not involved, yet the FA demands that they keep silent.
And if he is, what then? If he or anyone else is arrested and charged, their names will be released into the public forum and the tabloids will sieze on this, just as they did with John Leslie, as a way of boosting their circulation by printing allegations, speculations and anything else they can get their hands on.
Far better for the names to *not* be released at all and for the press to wait until the court case to report *facts* rather than possibly prejudicing the trial with their gutter gossip.
Far better people are aware of the facts. To suggest that people belive what the press tells them is very derogatory.
Actually only the victim has the right to anonomity. In fact it's in the public interest to know that there are several dangerous men on the loose.
Even if they are eventually proved innocent?! ....and the 'victim' is perhaps proved to be a golddigger?
Even if they are eventually proved innocent?! ....and the 'victim' is perhaps proved to be a golddigger?
You don't prove people innocent, you assume they are until proven otherwise.
And there is no proof that the victim is a gold digger either. So far there is no indication that she has spoken to the press, or attempted to speak to the press.
You don't prove people innocent, you assume they are until proven otherwise.
.
Thats what I'm talking about. If they're innocent until proven guilty then they should have a right to anonimity untill they are proven guilty. I think it's terrible the way that innocent men have been branded rapists and had their lives disected by the papers and then it turns out that they are innocent.
Scarlett
03-10-2003, 15:27
Thats what I'm talking about. If they're innocent until proven guilty then they should have a right to anonimity untill they are proven guilty. I think it's terrible the way that innocent men have been branded rapists and had their lives disected by the papers and then it turns out that they are innocent.
~Cough~
Craig Charles
It's a real problem. the person making the allegations gets full anonymity but the alleged rapist get full publicity (For free as well, ain't the press nice). The danger is that people will take things into their own hands (given the strength of feeling about the crime). If you remember back when Rebecca Wade decision to start the campaign to do with pedophiles to get the so called 'sarah's law' enacted. It ended up with a pediatrician being chased from their house.
In this situation, it should be a criminal offence to reveal names etc. because of the danger that put the person in. Until something is sorted one way or another i.e. charged and locked up of released without charge nothing should be said.
Just my opinion.
Please dont mention any names before they have actually been trialled, and released in public knowledge. The players should remain annonymous until they are actually proven guility.
Any posts seen containing there names will be edited.
Thanks.
Please dont mention any names before they have actually been trialled, and released in public knowledge. The players should remain annonymous until they are actually proven guility.
Any posts seen containing there names will be edited.
Thanks.
I'm afraid that the names may be common knowledge tomorrow, according to one of todays papers (can't remember which) there are plans to chant their names at football matches. :eeek:
Thats what I'm talking about. If they're innocent until proven guilty then they should have a right to anonimity untill they are proven guilty. I think it's terrible the way that innocent men have been branded rapists and had their lives disected by the papers and then it turns out that they are innocent.
I have seen no newsreport that has ever claimed a person is a rapist. If you infer that person is a rapist by the fact a complaint has been made against him then thats your problem, not the newspapers.
The Home Secretary would love to be able try everyone behind closed doors, because that way he can guarentee that everyone he and the police victimise will be found guilty.
We have transpancy in our judical system for a very good reason, it protects the innocent.
<snip>
We have transpancy in our judical system for a very good reason, it protects the innocent.
I have no problem with a transparent judicial system; I do have a problem with trial by media. A person's reputation can suffer long-term damage as a result of accusations, even if those accusations are never substantiated. How often do we hear people sneer, 'no smoke without fire, eh?'
I have no problem with a transparent judicial system; I do have a problem with trial by media. A person's reputation can suffer long-term damage as a result of accusations, even if those accusations are never substantiated. How often do we hear people sneer, 'no smoke without fire, eh?'
I couldn't have put it better.
cjll3, I am amazed that you think it's fine to publish names of alleged rapists. If the person is innocent they go through an enormous amount of extra trauma by having their name associated with a crime like that in the papers.
Atomic22
03-10-2003, 18:58
Please dont mention any names before they have actually been trialled, and released in public knowledge. The players should remain annonymous until they are actually proven guility.
Any posts seen containing there names will be edited.
Thanks.
so you believe they will be proven guilty eh steve?
what do you know that we don't?:nono:
when their names are released in the papers over the weekend surely it becomes a valid talking point without you censoring every name we type?
so you believe they will be proven guilty eh steve?
what do you know that we don't?:nono:
when their names are released in the papers over the weekend surely it becomes a valid talking point without you censoring every name we type?
They are not on trial, no media outlet will dare publish the names until they are arrested and charged.
By making them stay silent you are victimising them as they cannot defend themselves. Fingers will point regardless of whether they are named or not, and they are not named then the authorities will be accused of a cover up.
They are not on trial, no media outlet will dare publish the names until they are arrested and charged.
.
But as soon as their names are published, irrespective of their 'innocent' status, the trial by media will begin. They should have full anonymity unless they are proved to be guilty. (imo)
But as soon as their names are published, irrespective of their 'innocent' status, the trial by media will begin. They should have full anonymity unless they are proved to be guilty. (imo)
No, they are not being tried by media. Undoubtably the media will have a field day recounting every step, but in situations where legal procedings are likely they are very restrained in what they report.
No, they are not being tried by media. Undoubtably the media will have a field day recounting every step, but in situations where legal procedings are likely they are very restrained in what they report.I still think that they should have the right to anonymity unless they are proven guilty.
I still think that they should have the right to anonymity unless they are proven guilty.
No because that removes the transparancy of our justice system.
I agree that their reputations shouldn't be harmed if they are innocent, but the only way you can achieve that is through transparancy
ADMIN EDIT: THIS POST HAS BEEN EDITED FOR LEGAL REASONS.
No because that removes the transparancy of our justice system.
I agree that their reputations shouldn't be harmed if they are innocent, but the only way you can achieve that is through transparancy
ADMIN EDIT: THIS POST HAS BEEN EDITED FOR LEGAL REASONS.
cjll3, you shouldn't ahve done that, Steve asked you not to. :nono: :mad:
No because that removes the transparancy of our justice system.
I agree that their reputations shouldn't be harmed if they are innocent, but the only way you can achieve that is through transparancy
ADMIN EDIT: THIS POST HAS BEEN EDITED FOR LEGAL REASONS.It does not remove the transparency, the judge, lawyers and jury are all there. They should just be forbidden to talk to the papers about names and the papers should not be allowed to print names if they know them. It's a nice rosy outlook to say that their reputations shouldn't be harmed, but they will be, possibly only temporarily but the added stress will be considerable especialy if they are innocent. If it happened to me my business would go down the drain and my livelihood (and family finances) with it, but at least I was proved innocent eh? :rolleyes:
Graham F
03-10-2003, 21:38
No, they are not being tried by media. Undoubtably the media will have a field day recounting every step, but in situations where legal procedings are likely they are very restrained in what they report.
Yeh like they were when a certain newspaper collapsed the trail of the leeds players first time round :rolleyes:
It does not remove the transparency, the judge, lawyers and jury are all there. They should just be forbidden to talk to the papers about names and the papers should not be allowed to print names if they know them. It's a nice rosy outlook to say that their reputations shouldn't be harmed, but they will be, possibly only temporarily but the added stress will be considerable especialy if they are innocent. If it happened to me my business would go down the drain and my livelihood (and family finances) with it, but at least I was proved innocent eh? :rolleyes:
Oh good, the supposing game :)
Supposing you had a teenage daughter, and that the three men were at the same nightclub as her and offered her a lift home. And she thought, these are nice respectable footballers they wouldn't harm me would they?
The supposing game isn't one anybody can win, so lets not go there eh?
Yeh like they were when a certain newspaper collapsed the trail of the leeds players first time round
Well, mistakes happen. I'm sure they've learned from that.
Even so, the players involved in that incident haven't had their footballing careers curtailed have they? Or their reputations ruined?
Graham F
03-10-2003, 22:07
Well, mistakes happen. I'm sure they've learned from that.
Even so, the players involved in that incident haven't had their footballing careers curtailed have they? Or their reputations ruined?
erm...yes they have both had there reputations destroyed and it did effect there football as well, thankfully they are now rebuilding.
erm...yes they have both had there reputations destroyed and it did effect there football as well, thankfully they are now rebuilding.
Unfortunately legal reasons prevent me from answering this. :(
so you believe they will be proven guilty eh steve?
what do you know that we don't?:nono:
when their names are released in the papers over the weekend surely it becomes a valid talking point without you censoring every name we type?
Maybe I should of phrased it better..
IF they are either proven guilty, or aquitted :)
Oh good, the supposing game :)
Supposing you had a teenage daughter, and that the three men were at the same nightclub as her and offered her a lift home. And she thought, these are nice respectable footballers they wouldn't harm me would they?
The supposing game isn't one anybody can win, so lets not go there eh?
But it is a realistic scenario that can be applied to almost anyone, so it's not really 'the supposing game' is it now?
Well, mistakes happen. I'm sure they've learned from that. Thats nice, I'm sure they have
:rolleyes:
[John Leslie]The fact that he was then exhonourated does not mean that he wasn't guilty
John Leslie has now been cleared of involvement in sex offences, he can put his life back together now.
I don't know about you, but I sense some slight contradiction in the above sentences!!
Far better people are aware of the facts. To suggest that people belive what the press tells them is very derogatory.
The fact that there are those who are willing to assume the guilt of the premiership footballers without knowing the full facts rather suggests otherwise!
I don't know about you, but I sense some slight contradiction in the above sentences!!
As you wish. Dispite what Russ thinks, the world is not black and white, and therefore two opposing/differing views can be true at the same time.
For example, you commit a crime, but due to the police bungaling the investigation you walk free from court. Does that mean you didn't commit the crime?
The fact that there are those who are willing to assume the guilt of the premiership footballers without knowing the full facts rather suggests otherwise!
Yes, but their opinions don't mean jack sh..! What matters is that people are allowed to examine the facts and decide for themselves what is right or wrong.
[John Leslie]The fact that he was then exhonourated does not mean that he wasn't guilty
John Leslie has now been cleared of involvement in sex offences, he can put his life back together now.
As you wish. Dispite what Russ thinks, the world is not black and white, and therefore two opposing/differing views can be true at the same time.
Well the first point I was trying to make is that they *both* appear to be *your* views!
Secondly he can *try* to "put his life back together", but do you really think he and his family should have had it *torn apart* in the first place, based on nothing more than gossip, hearsay and innuendo?
If you were in that position, what would *you* want?
For example, you commit a crime, but due to the police bungaling the investigation you walk free from court. Does that mean you didn't commit the crime?
No, it means you are *INNOCENT* under law. You may have heard the phrase "Innocent until *PROVEN* guilty"?
In a message just above here you decry people for "playing the supposing game" and saying it "isn't one anybody can win, so lets not go there eh?", yet this is exactly what you are doing!
In the above quote, substitute the words "Let's suppose" for "For example"...
The fact that there are those who are willing to assume the guilt of the premiership footballers without knowing the full facts rather suggests otherwise!
Yes, but their opinions don't mean jack sh..!
Unless they happen to be part of those "twelve good persons and true" who are selected to make up the jury if this case goes to court and who have already had their opinions tainted by the media presentation of this case.
What matters is that people are allowed to examine the facts and decide for themselves what is right or wrong.
I agree entirely. Unfortunately words "Tabloid Newspapers" and "Facts" don't usually appear in the same sentence unless other words like "shaky grasp" or "speculation based on" or "allegations of" appear between them.
For gods' sake, the most popular newspapers in this country are The Sun, The Mirror and The Daily Mail, with a combined readership of over 8 *million* people. Do you really think those people read them because they want to find out "the facts"?!
If you were in that position, what would *you* want?
To be able to answer the allegations. We live in a society where bull**** now travels at the speed of light, unfortunately the truth takes a lot longer.
No, it means you are *INNOCENT* under law. You may have heard the phrase "Innocent until *PROVEN* guilty"?
Right, but that still doesn't mean you didn't commit the crime does it? And the truth does still matter.
In a message just above here you decry people for "playing the supposing game" and saying it "isn't one anybody can win, so lets not go there eh?", yet this is exactly what you are doing!
Guilty as charged.
Unless they happen to be part of those "twelve good persons and true" who are selected to make up the jury if this case goes to court and who have already had their opinions tainted by the media presentation of this case.
Yes, but jury management is so tight they are not influenced by what is written in tabloids. In fact when you read what tabloids/papers print you'd be surprised that the person was found guilty, it's only because a jury really does hear more than is reported that justice is served.
For gods' sake, the most popular newspapers in this country are The Sun, The Mirror and The Daily Mail, with a combined readership of over 8 *million* people. Do you really think those people read them because they want to find out "the facts"?!
I think you underestimate people. Just because I read something in the newspaper it doesn't mean I think it's true.
To be able to answer the allegations. We live in a society where bull**** now travels at the speed of light, unfortunately the truth takes a lot longer.
Right, but that still doesn't mean you didn't commit the crime does it? And the truth does still matter.
Guilty as charged.
Yes, but jury management is so tight they are not influenced by what is written in tabloids. In fact when you read what tabloids/papers print you'd be surprised that the person was found guilty, it's only because a jury really does hear more than is reported that justice is served.
I think you underestimate people. Just because I read something in the newspaper it doesn't mean I think it's true.
Unfortunatly, rape is one of those crimes where the suspect has to be proven inocent. Qyite often the allegation it's self is enough to ruin someone. I knew of someone that was accused of rape. personally I don't think he did it but the dury didn't think so. I think that the court system is wrong anyway. Until an advanced system is brought into force inocent people will be convicted, guilty people will be let free.
Thats life.........
Unfortunatly, rape is one of those crimes where the suspect has to be proven inocent. Qyite often the allegation it's self is enough to ruin someone. I knew of someone that was accused of rape. personally I don't think he did it but the dury didn't think so. I think that the court system is wrong anyway. Until an advanced system is brought into force inocent people will be convicted, guilty people will be let free.
Thats life.........
Good old british legal system - You are guilty unless you can prove otherwise!
An interesting article in a local Irish paper about all this raised a quizzical smile - a female reporter commented on the annonymity situation in this and said that she believed the man should be named in this and all rape cases. She added she ackowledged it must be hard if the men are found not guilty but the needs and concerns of the female victims should always be paramount.
Rabid feminism anyone??
An interesting article in a local Irish paper about all this raised a quizzical smile - a female reporter commented on the annonymity situation in this and said that she believed the man should be named in this and all rape cases. She added she ackowledged it must be hard if the men are found not guilty but the needs and concerns of the female victims should always be paramount.
Rabid feminism anyone??
Rabid feminism of the 'all men are rapists' kind, by the look of it. I wonder how she would explain why she thinks anonymity for the accused man until he is proved to have done something wrong, somehow lessens concern for the female victim?
I think the angle she was coming from was of one trying to say the trauma a female rape victim goes through outweighs the stress suffered by a male falsely accused of rape.
Yeah, like she'd know....
Rabid feminism anyone??
You have a daughter yes? You'd reject information that may well protect her just because it takes 14 months for somebody to be brought before the courts?
Or maybe you'd be happy to suffer in silence for 14 months waiting for a trial not being able to explain your situation.
I think the angle she was coming from was of one trying to say the trauma a female rape victim goes through outweighs the stress suffered by a male falsely accused of rape.
Yeah, like she'd know....
Maybe you'd like to teach her a lesson?
You have a daughter yes? You'd reject information that may well protect her just because it takes 14 months for somebody to be brought before the courts?
The fact that the victim can't be named doesn't seem to hinder the police investigation. I see no reason why the accused needs to be named.
Or maybe you'd be happy to suffer in silence for 14 months waiting for a trial not being able to explain your situation.
you could very easily explain the 'situation' without naming the person alleged to be responsible. In fact, you could even name the person to anyone you speak to. The naming prohibition would only apply to publication - such as in newspapers or magazines or on TV.
Maybe you'd like to teach her a lesson?
You know fine well that's not what Russ meant, and that he would have no intention of doing any such thing. Why can't we just discuss issues without deliberately misrepresenting each other?
a female reporter commented on the annonymity situation in this and said that she believed the man should be named in this and all rape cases. She added she ackowledged it must be hard if the men are found not guilty but the needs and concerns of the female victims should always be paramount.
:2up:
Maybe you'd like to teach her a lesson?
If she is a lying gold digger or just plain lying for the mischief of it then yes, she does need to be taught a lesson.
Well the first point I was trying to make is that they *both* appear to be *your* views!
Secondly he can *try* to "put his life back together", but do you really think he and his family should have had it *torn apart* in the first place, based on nothing more than gossip, hearsay and innuendo?
If you were in that position, what would *you* want?
No, it means you are *INNOCENT* under law. You may have heard the phrase "Innocent until *PROVEN* guilty"?
In a message just above here you decry people for "playing the supposing game" and saying it "isn't one anybody can win, so lets not go there eh?", yet this is exactly what you are doing!
In the above quote, substitute the words "Let's suppose" for "For example"...
Unless they happen to be part of those "twelve good persons and true" who are selected to make up the jury if this case goes to court and who have already had their opinions tainted by the media presentation of this case.
I agree entirely. Unfortunately words "Tabloid Newspapers" and "Facts" don't usually appear in the same sentence unless other words like "shaky grasp" or "speculation based on" or "allegations of" appear between them.
For gods' sake, the most popular newspapers in this country are The Sun, The Mirror and The Daily Mail, with a combined readership of over 8 *million* people. Do you really think those people read them because they want to find out "the facts"?!
It's really scary but I agree with everything you said Graham....... :D
You have a daughter yes? You'd reject information that may well protect her just because it takes 14 months for somebody to be brought before the courts?
Yes I have a daughter and keeping rape suspects' names annonymous has NOTHING to do with it.
I can tell you this, if I was wrongly accused of rape there is no way on EARTH I'd want my name to be given out.
If you were in that position, what would *you* want?
To be able to answer the allegations.
So would I. So did John Leslie.
He (like I would) wanted to answer the allegations in the right place and at the right time and that is *ONLY* ever in a Court of Law!
Tabloid newspapers are *not* a court of law, despite the fact that they seem to act like a law unto themselves.
They can produce all sorts of speculation, innuendo, gossip and tittle-tattle and there is nothing anyone can do about it.
However in a court the Judge can force the prosecution to stick to the *facts* of the case. Nobody can do this with a newspaper.
Right, but that still doesn't mean you didn't commit the crime does it? And the truth does still matter.
If you are not found guilty you are *INNOCENT*. There are no two ways about it.
jury management is so tight they are not influenced by what is written in tabloids. [...] I think you underestimate people. Just because I read something in the newspaper it doesn't mean I think it's true.
Whilst I haven't ever been on Jury duty, the fact is that jurors are people and people *are* influenced by what they read and hear and see in the media.
It's really scary but I agree with everything you said Graham....... :D
Ok, who are you, and what have you done with the real Ramrod?! :D:D:D
Whilst I haven't ever been on Jury duty, the fact is that jurors are people and people *are* influenced by what they read and hear and see in the media.
How do you know this to be a 'fact'? As you've never been on jury duty how would you know? What's your source for this?
http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/story_pages/news/news1.shtml
Well this will probably be deleted, but what the heck!
I think it's important that people make their own minds up, which they can't do if you deny them the information.
No need for it to be deleted, the footballer who booked the rooms is also mentioned in a similar story here (http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/news/content_objectid=13481724_method=full_siteid=10669 4_headline=-SOCCER%2DPARTY%2DFIXER%2D%2D%2DRAPE%2DVICTIM%2D%2D SAID%2DYES%2DTO%2DSEX-name_page.html).
etccarmageddon
05-10-2003, 10:27
I think it's important that people make their own minds up, which they can't do if you deny them the information.
no, it's important that, if a jury is presented with this case, they haven't already made their minds up by reading a newspaper's version of events.
So would I. So did John Leslie.
He (like I would) wanted to answer the allegations in the right place and at the right time and that is *ONLY* ever in a Court of Law!
Tabloid newspapers are *not* a court of law, despite the fact that they seem to act like a law unto themselves.
They can produce all sorts of speculation, innuendo, gossip and tittle-tattle and there is nothing anyone can do about it.
However in a court the Judge can force the prosecution to stick to the *facts* of the case. Nobody can do this with a newspaper.
If you are not found guilty you are *INNOCENT*. There are no two ways about it.
Whilst I haven't ever been on Jury duty, the fact is that jurors are people and people *are* influenced by what they read and hear and see in the media.
I agree completely ... and as I have done jury duty, I can confirm that the legal system does not credit jurors with the same ability to put external influences out of their minds as it does judges. Jurors are frequently asked in high-profile cases whether they remember any of the media reports from the time the crime was committed; in cases of extreme notoriety, for example the James Bulger murder, a case can be moved to a completely different town to avoid having a jury of people that might be 'too close' the the case.
Cases have collapsed thanks to newpaper reports - this happened recently over the alleged Victoria Beckham kidnap plot, if I remember correctly, which the News of the Screws both uncovered and then nobbled in court thanks to some ... well, injudicious reporting of details that prejudiced the defeendants' right to a fair trial.
Anyone who causes a trial to collapse in this way can be held in contempt of court. The legal test is, did the article printed cause 'substantial risk of serious prejudice or impediment to particular proceedings,' so it is quite a high test, but that is because it is a serious offence. Editors have gone to jail for it.
Having said all this, anything that is printed now about this 'premiership rapists' allegation, while it may prejudice a future trial, may not be covered by the Contempt of Court rules as proceedings against the suspects may not yet be considered 'active' (another legal term, but I'm even beginning to bore myself so I'll stop here ;) ).
Whilst I haven't ever been on Jury duty, the fact is that jurors are people and people *are* influenced by what they read and hear and see in the media.
How do you know this to be a 'fact'? As you've never been on jury duty how would you know? What's your source for this?
Err, I think you've jumped a bit too quickly here! Read it again.
Are jurors people? Yes or no.
Are people influenced by what they read and hear and see in the media? Yes or no.
Now unless Jurors are somehow selected from people who *don't* read newspapers, watch TV or listen to the Radio, they *are* going to be influenced by it.
I know that I try my damndest to avoid being influenced by such things, especially in controversial arguments, but I also know that, despite my best efforts, I don't always succeed (after all, I've even been accused of being a Daily Mail reader!)
I also know, because I've seen the evidence in black and white, that there are people whose opinions are taken *directly* from whatever newspaper they like to read.
So unless Jurors are chosen from the ranks of the Saints, they are going to be influenced and this will affect their decisions.
QED.
ian@huth
08-10-2003, 00:21
It seems that there is another case of alleged rape by premiership footballers. A Leeds United footballer has been arrested in conjunction with this and another one is being questioned.
It seems odd that this has emerged at this time. Is it a gold digger trying to cash in after reading about the other case? It is easy for a woman to cry rape and ruin the future of her alleged rapist, particularly the future of people who are in the public eye. Why has Leeds United been named in this case whereas great efforts were made to hush up the club involved in the other case.
It seems odd that this has emerged at this time. Is it a gold digger trying to cash in after reading about the other case? It is easy for a woman to cry rape and ruin the future of her alleged rapist, particularly the future of people who are in the public eye. Why has Leeds United been named in this case whereas great efforts were made to hush up the club involved in the other case.
How can we answer that as it seems the great unwashed public can't be trusted with the information. :spin:
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.