Search results

Yes you are correct I hold innocent until proven guilty as fundamentally important. I feel that it is far better that some people "get away with it" than anyone gets locked up for something they did not do. I understand the victim has had their life screwed, however the answer to a bad system...

What so you have an issue with innocent until proven guilty? Guilt does not necessarily mean guilty of an illegal act, it just means guilty of the accused behaviour. Are you really saying we go with hearsay over guilty via thorough investigation? Sure we have issues with the ability to report...

I was at a festival once, Ice T was on the stage talking about how we should all be "original gangsters" he got the crowd to chant this. When the noise had subsided I boomed out "yes, lord we are all individuals". I suspect there is a Python line for just about every event in life.

I agree with most of this, the main issue for me is that the demand for proof has turned 180 degrees. An allegation or a series of allegations is now all it takes for a persons career to be cancelled. There is an attitude that unless you accept the allegations at face value you are somehow part...

Not in so many words, however, there have been several posts that lead to this conclusion. The whole MeToo movement is framed around guilty until proven innocent. I am not defending Brand (he has always come across as a complete twat to me) but I am defending the idea of innocent until proven...

So there is no need for an actual proper investigation or to have the accusations actually challenged and tested in court. He must be guilty how else could there possibly be these allegations if he was innocent. What next, we change the basis of our legal system to guilty until proven innocent...

How is this anything other than trial by Media? What you have essentially done is what is wrong with the whole MeToo movement. An allegation has been made, by what I believe to be reputable sources, therefore the allegations are proven.