TV Home Forum

Coronation Street

(May 2010)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
BA
bilky asko
TVN posted:
bilky asko posted:
TVN posted:
He is innocent until proven guilty. As the prosecution could not prove his guilt, he is innocent.
Incorrect. As the prosecution could not prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, he is not guilty.


And as he is not guilty, he is therefore presumed innocent.

No, you're misunderstanding how the system works. The presumption of innocence is the legal principle that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, not with the defence. The verdict is not "innocent", it is "not guilty" - which ranges from just not reaching beyond reasonable doubt to completely sure that the defendant has not committed the crime. The system is different in Scots law, but this is the system used in England and Wales.

So a not guilty verdict could easily range from 0% sure to 95% sure.
IS
Inspector Sands
Jon posted:
Inspector Sands posted:
Jon posted:

I didn't state otherwise, but you can point to several very clear examples where stars have not recovered from similar allegations.

But then there are examples where they have

I never said there wasn't.

Well no but the fact there are both somewhat renders your argument pointless.... there are some and there aren't some therefore it demonstrates nothing
ST
stevek2
Craig Charles carried on after rape allegations from an ex back in his red dwarf days
JO
Jon
Inspector Sands posted:
Jon posted:
Inspector Sands posted:
Jon posted:

I didn't state otherwise, but you can point to several very clear examples where stars have not recovered from similar allegations.

But then there are examples where they have

I never said there wasn't.

Well no but the fact there are both somewhat renders your argument pointless.... there are some and there aren't some therefore it demonstrates nothing

What was my argument though? All I stated was you can't be sure he'll return. Given what has happened to people before. We of course have more or less had it confirmed he will return now though.
RM
Roger Mellie
Quote:
innocent until proven guilty.


I thought the phrase was: "Innocent unless proven guilty"?

Either way a report from the Daily Mirror, speculating on his Michael Le Vell's comeback:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/michael-le-vell-verdict-actor-2265627
BA
bilky asko
Roger Mellie posted:
Quote:
innocent until proven guilty.


I thought the phrase was: "Innocent unless proven guilty"?

Nope, it is definitely innocent until proven guilty, which is just another way of expressing the legal principle of the presumption of innocence which I explained above.
IT
itsrobert Founding member
bilky asko posted:
TVN posted:
bilky asko posted:
TVN posted:
He is innocent until proven guilty. As the prosecution could not prove his guilt, he is innocent.
Incorrect. As the prosecution could not prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, he is not guilty.


And as he is not guilty, he is therefore presumed innocent.

No, you're misunderstanding how the system works. The presumption of innocence is the legal principle that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, not with the defence. The verdict is not "innocent", it is "not guilty" - which ranges from just not reaching beyond reasonable doubt to completely sure that the defendant has not committed the crime. The system is different in Scots law, but this is the system used in England and Wales.

So a not guilty verdict could easily range from 0% sure to 95% sure.


I don't pretend to know anything about the law, but surely it is the verdict of the jury that the defendant is not guilty. Therefore, as they were innocent before - and have not been proven guilty - they remain innocent? Otherwise, anyone who ever goes to court would never be considered innocent ever again.
BA
bilky asko
itsrobert posted:
bilky asko posted:
TVN posted:
bilky asko posted:
TVN posted:
He is innocent until proven guilty. As the prosecution could not prove his guilt, he is innocent.
Incorrect. As the prosecution could not prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, he is not guilty.


And as he is not guilty, he is therefore presumed innocent.

No, you're misunderstanding how the system works. The presumption of innocence is the legal principle that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, not with the defence. The verdict is not "innocent", it is "not guilty" - which ranges from just not reaching beyond reasonable doubt to completely sure that the defendant has not committed the crime. The system is different in Scots law, but this is the system used in England and Wales.

So a not guilty verdict could easily range from 0% sure to 95% sure.


I don't pretend to know anything about the law, but surely it is the verdict of the jury that the defendant is not guilty. Therefore, as they were innocent before - and have not been proven guilty - they remain innocent? Otherwise, anyone who ever goes to court would never be considered innocent ever again.

In the eyes of the law, there are only two outcomes - guilty, and not guilty. Innocence doesn't come into play with the verdict. As only a not guilty verdict, and not innocence, is required for an acquittal, then the fact there is no innocent verdict doesn't matter.

The presumption of innocence is merely the principle that the burden of proof is on the prosecution - nothing more.
NG
noggin Founding member
itsrobert posted:

I don't pretend to know anything about the law, but surely it is the verdict of the jury that the defendant is not guilty. Therefore, as they were innocent before - and have not been proven guilty - they remain innocent? Otherwise, anyone who ever goes to court would never be considered innocent ever again.


Apples and Oranges.

The presumption of innocence is a principle of our judicial system. It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove guilt, not on the defence to prove innocence. You are therefore assumed innocent until proven guilty.

This does not mean that because you were not found guilty you have been proved innocent, you have just not been found guilty.
DA
David
JAS84 posted:
bilky asko posted:
It appears there is now some content on the site:
http://weatherfieldgazette.co.uk/
Ugh, looks like someone's trolling us. ITV were pretty stupid not to register that domain before that episode aired.


I know who it is. Has the URL appeared in Coronation Street again since the sighting the other night? How many hits has that website had? How many not with TV Forum as the referrer?

Anyway, back on topic. The policeman touched Carl's head a little too much for my liking at the end of the second episode tonight. I can't believe they didn't reshoot that bit.
CH
Chewy
A number of scenes described in the episode previews didn't appear in tonights episodes, strangely
http://coronationstreetupdates.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/preview-of-tonights-double-coronation_13.html
DA
David
Maybe those scenes all featured Ken Barlow, Kevin Webster and Tommy Duckworth standing in front of the http://weatherfieldgazette.co.uk/ sign discussing Syria in a light heated manner so had to be removed.

There was a mention of Tommy Duckworth last night. Jason Grimshaw said that he had photographs of Carl Munroe not being in The Bistro on the night of the fire. I thought that there was probably a scene where he told Jason about the photographs that has been removed.

Newer posts