sofatester
Winger
He was cleared of the offences so he's innocent of the charges
Jack Diamond on Piers Morgan tonight
- Thread starter jarrowdiamond
- Start date
Kid Galahad
Striker
I get that totally, he's abhorrent but he did a solid interview and didn't make it about him, which I what you implied would happen
tunstallhill
Striker
I get that totally, he's abhorrent but he did a solid interview and didn't make it about him, which I what you implied would happen
Fair do's my prediction was wrong by the sounds of it. And I'm glad. It's better for Jack and better for the country in general if people can have fair, calm debates on TV without it being sensationalised to manufacture click bait.
I just distrust Morgan fiercely. I don't believe he will ever do anything out of the goodness of his heart, for the greater good. He will always have an ulterior motive
In that case every rape trial that ends in a not guilty verdict should automatically put the woman who brought the case to court on trial. Clearly if the court proves the defendants innocence then by definition she should be tried for contempt of court.
Ilios
Winger
No, the jury found him not guilty. That has absolutely nothing to do with innocence. Innocence is not assessed in a court of law. Its an assessment of the evidence towards the assertion of guilt. If the evidence is shit, someone should be found not guilty. But the fact the evidence is shit, doesn't mean that someone didn't commit the crime. It obviously doesn't mean they did, either.
It's absolutely bewildering how many people just fail to understand this. If I toss a fair coin, and cover it up, do you automatically believe that it is heads? Of course not. But if you don't believe it's heads, that doesn't say anything about whether or not it's tails, does it?
Last edited:
Absolutely can’t work like that
In a case where it’s one persons word against another, there will be miscarriages of justice. Both wrongful convictions and wrongful acquittals
Women won’t attempt to prosecute out of fear of being convicted, even if they’re telling the truth
Which given prejudices in the system are still biased against female victims so many rapists go free, acquittal is pretty meaningless in that sense.
I tend to think guys who do interviews like this have a bitterness towards women and are trying to start a pile on to intimidate and punish the accuser and silence other victims. Which to me is a red flag they are more likely to be a rapist or abuser.
Last edited:
Herberthall
Winger
Come across very well did "Innocent Jack"...well done youngen.
I know. I'm illustrating the idiocy of thinking that innocent = not guilty.
I'm not sure there is a bias. It's an impossible situation. By it's very nature rape is an extremely difficult offence to prove beyond reasonable doubt. Inevitably the conviction rates will be low because proof beyond reasonable doubt is nigh on impossible in many cases.
Last edited:
Ah apologies.
Unfortunately it seems that there are a few on this thread who would support that proposal.
sofatester
Winger
He was found not guilty that's good enough for me
Birtley Lad
Full Back
Here we go - proof of a weak individual who has been totally brainwashed by far left ideology to the point where their prejudice infiltrates every area of their thinking and thereby stops them being able to think for themselves!
Spot on,7 mins man dear me
E Tenebris Lux
Central Defender
The law is innocent until proven guilty. Anonymity is vital. To blast his name and address all over the press and media before the court case is disgraceful. The other party is kept anonymous, in this case still even though he is innocent. The jury took 7 minutes to reach a decision. !! He has suffered mentally and financially also subjected to public verbal abuse. The police and CPS need to look at themselves . They should be investigated by their watchdogs to help prevent this happening again. No doubt stats of convictions put pressure on the police but CPS don’t seem fit for purpose.
Why ? He was innocent.Career possibly ruined .
Last edited:
Ilios
Winger
That's fine. But you should never be anywhere near a jury. If someone killed your partner in front of you, but ended up getting a not-guilty verdict, would you then decide that you were wrong and he's innocent?
sofatester
Winger
I think a 7 minute duration by the jury tells you everything you need to know about the case tbh
eejit
Central Defender
In any trial, if that was the only information available, the total you can conclude is that the evidence presented clearly wasn’t enough to make the jury believe beyond reasonable doubt that an offence had been committed.
There was 5 whole days of evidence,7 mins for the jury to decide tells its own story.
cronnyberg
Winger
Because “these kinds” is messy language that may or may not imply this is a “type” of woman - ie: a significant women are like this.
Intentionally or otherwise, it contributes to a narrative that is being actively battled against in society, because the stats show it’s much more likely a legitimate case gets thrown out than an illegitimate case gets prosecuted.
Cases like Diamonds are the exception, but get treated like the rule by some.
I’m not saying you personally are doing this btw, but this is why we should be measured with what we say.
