National Action Charges: Man Accused Of Mp Murder Threat

[mikey4444]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41768017

I am not aware that this has been posted or discussed here on AB, but I may be wrong.

[Peter Pedant]

// I am curious as to why the names of accused members are published before proof and a trial have been organised //

oh

because before charges are laid - any old gossip can be published altho the police may not give details - "a 40 y o man is helping with their inquiries"

and after they have been charged - as it is now sub judice - the info is limited to - Name address and charges. Not for juveniles
and I note one 22 y o man whose name cannot be given for legal reasons

You're one of the few people on AB who has been published so Andie you really know all this - I called them judges rules but one of the ex policemen on AB had a real prolonged spazzie over that one (PACE 1984 replaced the ld judges' ru7les) and I think they come under 'advice to editors'

There has been creep to voluntary silence BEFORE charges are laid
but what would the News of the Screws print if that were the case ?

The address is because the public have a right to know which John Smith it is - not so that they can go around and burn down the house

[anotheoldgit]

mikey4444

/// This thread has nothing to do with "al Muhajiroun network" ///

Then you had better blame Dominic Casciani, the BBC home affairs correspondent, since it was him who mentioned them.

I think that it is you...as usual, that needs to re-read the link.

[Zacs-Master]

The reporter merely made a comparison between the two groups:
‘Since it was banned, detectives have been carrying out more and more investigations into the group which, to all intents and purposes, has organised itself in a similar way to the banned al Muhajiroun network’
al Muhajiroun have NO connection to the situation being discussed.

[anotheoldgit]

mikey4444

/// Thank you Webbo...its nice to have a proper debate, isn't it ! ///

If of course it is on ones own selected subject matter, notice however that at the moment you are keeping well away from a link that is only above yours.

[mikey4444]

Thanks Zacs...common sense.

But AOG is using this thread to try to make it into a anti-Muslim one, as usual.

[Zacs-Master]

Careful Mikey, we’ll be accused of being a crew or a baying mob! ;-)

[andy-hughes]

PP - //You're one of the few people on AB who has been published so Andie you really know all this - ...//

I interview musicians and talk about guitars and drums - legal niceties don't often crop up when you are talking about the finer points of the upper reaches of a Stratocaster fret board, or the latest DW kit stats!

Oh, and persevere with trying to spell my name correctly, I am sure you will get there in the end.

Apart from anything else, think of the energy you'll save typing it properly - losing that extra letter you have found from lord-knows-where!!

[Deskdiary]

"Just because somebody is found not guilty it doesn't mean they are innocent"

Wrong.

[pixie374]

No, it's right.

[Deskdiary]

No it is not. It is entirely incorrect.

Now if what was said was 'just because somebody has been found not guilty it doesn't mean they didn't do it' then I completely agree.

But in the eyes of the law if you are found not guilty then you are innocent.

[sp1814]

I saw this story the other day mikey4444 and it left me curious as to why the 22 year old cannot be named. I understand restrictions are normally put on children, but with someone who's an adult...I can't work it out.

[pixie374]

You aren't. You are "not guilty".

[mikey4444]

DD....it might mean that the prosecution wasn't able to get a conviction. But I will agree with you....in the eyes of the Law, that person would be innocent.

However, the old rule of Double Jeopordy was ended a few years ago. A second trial can be brought about, if "new and compelling" evidence is produced.

If you remember, it allowed Gary Dobson to be successfully prosecuted a second time, in the Stephen Lawrence case

[pixie374]

People aren't found "innocent " in law, Mikey. It is not the same thing.

[mikey4444]

SP....As I said earlier, some of these men are serving in the Army, and one of them could be required not to be identified, as other cases are still pending.

I am sure it will all come out in the wash.

[mikey4444]

Pixie...yes, I am aware of that.

But we are in danger here of debating points of English grammar here, as much as we are discussing legal issues.

Perhaps New Judge will arrive later, to lead us through the legal jungle

[jackthehat]

'Not Guilty beyond all reasonable doubt' is NOT the same as Innocent.....New Judge not required.

[Zacs-Master]

Sometimes logic on here is a rare commodity.

[Togo]

Why not :))

https://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/News/Question1577196.html#answer-11198558

[jno]

trying to drum up comments on another thread, on which nobody seems to have threatened to kill an MP? Obvious parallel there.