Kevin Webster not a paedo

Zenduri · 10 Sep 2013 at 18:00

>.< This has invalidated my kevin webster joke now hes clear of all charges!

On the upside at least he's avoided 5-6 years... first time for everything

Joking aside if he is entirely innocent i can imagine this was hell for him and his life is ruined one way or another which is terrible

Burnsy2023 · 10 Sep 2013 at 18:03

arctine said:
Doesn't change the concept.

The accused should be regarded as innocent in the eyes of the court unless proven guilty.

He was found not guilty and therefore assumed innocent.

And in the eyes of the court that is correct, but that doesn't change the fact that he is assumed to be innocent, not proved.

No1newts · 10 Sep 2013 at 18:09

Burnsy2023 said:
He's not been proved innocent, he just hasn't been found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. It's a subtle but important distinction. The court aren't proving the negative - that being that he didn't do it.

Did he do it? There's simply not enough evidence to know either way.

So by extension he is innocent and cleared of all wrong doing as opposed to presumed guilty "we just cannot prove it."

Your presumption (or if not your presumption the point you present) is a despicable one and quite frankly insane. Under that presumption on the commitment of a crime everyone, everywhere is guilty of commiting said crime until they either prove their innocence or someone else is proven guilty. Sounds like the perfect foundations for a fascist, big brother state that one.

UncleRuckus · 10 Sep 2013 at 18:10

What the girl said was pretty dark:

She alleged that he had told her he was "just getting rid of all the evil and bad inside me".

She must be pretty messed up if this was a lie.

iamtheoneneo · 10 Sep 2013 at 18:13

This was the case that was dropped by the cps only to be open again months later. They didnt have anything then , now or ever.....10 high fives for wondering why......

Bc he didnt do it.

Amp34 · 10 Sep 2013 at 18:13

Burnsy2023 said:
Court will always need to be an open process so he'll always be named in the public domain during the trial.

In which case you need to name the alleged victim as well to keep the process open...

Burnsy2023 · 10 Sep 2013 at 18:14

No1newts said:
So by extension he is innocent and cleared of all wrong doing as opposed to presumed guilty "we just cannot prove it."

No, there is no presumption of guilt, merely that we simply don't know what the true version of events are. There are two people saying conflicting things and although there is not enough for a conviction (which lets remember is a high bar) we still don't know which version of events are true.

arctine · 10 Sep 2013 at 18:14

Burnsy2023 said:
And in the eyes of the court that is correct, but that doesn't change the fact that he is assumed to be innocent, not proved.

Because you can't be found innocent, you can only be found guilty or not guilty.

People need to realise this is why you are to be considered as being innocent unless proven guilty.

Biohazard · 10 Sep 2013 at 18:16

nick.lidgett said:
but only you as the accused would know that and the victim, if there was one for the alleged crime, not anybody else, not the jury, the judge, the media.

I cant see how supposedly intelligent people cant see a differences between Innocent and Not guilty

That would be not proven under Scots Law. Or the ******* verdict.

Although there are problems with this, namely the charge essentially hanging over them indefinitely. It is proposed that this verdict be repealed.

arc@css · 10 Sep 2013 at 18:18

Suarez7 said:
that's what I can't stand about the media, they always portray people to be guilty before trial.

+1

kindai · 10 Sep 2013 at 18:19

Glad to see he's been found not guilty.

He won't be the first, nor the last to be falsely accused by someone trying to make a fast buck.

Spook187 · 10 Sep 2013 at 18:19

nick.lidgett said:
Just because somebody has been found not guilty does not mean he didnt do it, it just means the prosecution didnt do a good enough job convincing the jury.

Which could entail he was innocent all the time, just because somebody goes to court does that mean they are all guilty :confused:

I would have love to seen the face of the clown coppers who charged him, no bonus for them this month. :rolleyes:

Biohazard · 10 Sep 2013 at 18:21

Spook187 said:
Which could entail he was innocent all the time, just because somebody goes to court does that mean they are all guilty

I would have love to seen the face of the clown coppers who charged him, no bonus for them this month.

Who are the police to decide?

Isn't that exactly what the court is there for??

Spook187 · 10 Sep 2013 at 18:22

Biohazard said:
Who are the police to decide?

Isn't that exactly what the court is there for??

Well they must have thought they had enough evidence againt him to charge him, which now is not the case.

Burnsy2023 · 10 Sep 2013 at 18:22

Biohazard said:
Who are the police to decide?

Isn't that exactly what the court is there for??

Indeed, Police are investigators, not prosecutors. That's the CPS.

No1newts · 10 Sep 2013 at 18:22

Burnsy2023 said:
No, there is no presumption of guilt, merely that we simply don't know what the true version of events are. There are two people saying conflicting things and although there is not enough for a conviction (which lets remember is a high bar) we still don't know which version of events are true.

So if someone is found guilty are they equally, innocent, as we don't know the true version of events. That is the logical continuation of your train of thought.

Innocent is innocent. You can think what you want personally but he IS innocent, that is a fact and casting aspersions otherwise is both ignorant, damaging and frankly unfair on the bloke.

On every level he is innocent, privately think what you like but publics ally (at least beyond the confines of keyboard warrioring on forums) you cannot share such a viewpoint officially as it completely undermines a key foundation if the justice system. Presuming guilt always, even when innocent is utterly abhorrent in a free society.

Burnsy2023 · 10 Sep 2013 at 18:22

Spook187 said:
Well they must have thought they had enough evidence againt him to charge him, which now is not the case.

Again, you're wrong. It's the CPS that decide to charge in rapes.

No1newts · 10 Sep 2013 at 18:24

Burnsy2023 said:
Again, you're wrong. It's the CPS that decide to charge in rapes.

+1

Whoever arrested was told to do it, they didn't personally decide his guilt then set off to get him.

Biohazard · 10 Sep 2013 at 18:27

Spook187 said:
Well they must have thought they had enough evidence againt him to charge him, which now is not the case.

They clearly did have enough evidence to charge him or the CPS wouldn't have had him in court?

Clearly it is no longer the case as the judicial system has, we presume, done its job.

Burnsy2023 · 10 Sep 2013 at 18:28

No1newts said:
So if someone is found guilty are they equally, innocent, as we don't know the true version of events. That is the logical continuation of your train of thought.

If he was convicted than he may be innocent, miscarriages of justice do occur, but with the evidence we have now, there isn't any reasonable doubt. That's all that a guilty verdict means.

No1newts said:
Innocent is innocent. You can think what you want personally but he IS innocent, that is a fact and casting aspersions otherwise is both ignorant, damaging and frankly unfair on the bloke.

You can scream and shout a loud as you want, but saying something is a fact doesn't make it so. I am not assuming he is guilty nor suggesting it, just that the court process doesn't prove innocence.

No1newts said:
On every level he is innocent, privately think what you like but publics ally (at least beyond the confines of keyboard warrioring on forums) you cannot share such a viewpoint officially as it completely undermines a key foundation if the justice system. Presuming guilt always, even when innocent is utterly abhorrent in a free society.

Again, I'm not presuming guilt however many times you keep saying I am. You seem to only deal in absolutes; guilty or not guilty, but the world isn't as perfect as that.

Kevin Webster not a paedo

Sgarrista