Quote:
Originally Posted by General Maximus
being convicted of a criminal offence isn't evidence of wrong doing, it is judicial process of holding somebody to account for breaking the law and "evidence" such as that of what journalists collate to report the news is used to prove the prosecutions argument. Just because somebody hasn't been caught and prosecuted for a crime doesn't mean that they are not guilty of it or did not commit the crime. In contrast, we are all too well aware that in countries like North Korea, Russia and Iran people are convicted of crimes without any evidence at all so does the fact that they have been convicted because a judge said "you did it" mean that is sufficient "evidence" for you of a crime?
|
You need to study law and as the law applies to this country, the UK, I couldn't give a toss about North Korea or how Russia applies theirs, this is not the topic.
Have we forgot around here that in this country, you are innocent
until proven guilty?
My point stands, you cannot label someone or an entity criminals, unless those parties have been convicted and sentenced appropriately. You infer that someone is a criminal when they have not faced a judicial judgement, then you and others open yourselves up to libel claims.