Crosswords1 min ago
Oh No Here We Go Again.
82 Answers
http://
I wonder how long it will be before Coronation Street is taken from our screens, due to the lack of actors?
I wonder how long it will be before Coronation Street is taken from our screens, due to the lack of actors?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Enough evidence is to prove the case "beyond reasonable doubt". There may be some suspicion/uncertainty, but not enough to know someone is guilty. I am not suggesting he did anything wrong, I really wouldn't know. Just that the court has to be reasonably certain to convict and all that's been "proven", in the truest sense, is that they weren't sure enough.
Mr Le Vell has been found not guilty of these charges in a court of law.
Full stop.
End of story.
None of us was in court, so none of us can second guess the jury.
There is only one guilty party in this story, and it's the press.
Look how the now cravenly say, "Oh, his reputation was besmirched", when they were doing the besmirching.
With the judicious placement of a couple of inverted commas, they ran front page stories like this (see second story down):
http://
Their subsequent hypocrisy is sickening.
As too is my spelling of 'hypocrisy' (literally have no idea how it's spelled).
Full stop.
End of story.
None of us was in court, so none of us can second guess the jury.
There is only one guilty party in this story, and it's the press.
Look how the now cravenly say, "Oh, his reputation was besmirched", when they were doing the besmirching.
With the judicious placement of a couple of inverted commas, they ran front page stories like this (see second story down):
http://
Their subsequent hypocrisy is sickening.
As too is my spelling of 'hypocrisy' (literally have no idea how it's spelled).
/The guy has been told he is not guilty, therefore accordingly proven by law he did not do anything wrong. i.e. he is innocent of any crime./
No.
British courts do not 'prove' innocence or 'not doing anything wrong'
That's why the legal verdict is 'Not Guilty' not 'Innocent'
Without a Guity verdict, innocence might be 'assumed' but that's all; it is not proven.
If evidence of 'innocence' is revealed e.g. irrefutable forensics that show an accused couldn't possibly have done it then the case is dismissed - not taken to a 'Not Guilty'
Clearly in LeVell's case there was little or no evidence to substantiate Guilty or 'Innocent' hence a Not Guilty verdict
No.
British courts do not 'prove' innocence or 'not doing anything wrong'
That's why the legal verdict is 'Not Guilty' not 'Innocent'
Without a Guity verdict, innocence might be 'assumed' but that's all; it is not proven.
If evidence of 'innocence' is revealed e.g. irrefutable forensics that show an accused couldn't possibly have done it then the case is dismissed - not taken to a 'Not Guilty'
Clearly in LeVell's case there was little or no evidence to substantiate Guilty or 'Innocent' hence a Not Guilty verdict
