E-Petition

Generali

Really2 wrote: »

But it is not in UK law, and is nothing to do with employment contract's with behaviour outside of work clauses.

Innocent until proven guilty relates to fair trials, use of a lawyer if you can't afford one etc.
The idea it means you are treated as innocent until jailed is a fallacy because if they think you should not get bail you will be locked up until trial.

PS guys the innocent until proven guilty line is in human rights law, it is not in the Magna Carta.
That is "a presumption of innocence exists until such time as the burden of proof or a jury of their peers decides otherwise."
Basically so until arrested (Burden of Proof) or via trail.
It is to give a fair trial. It does not mean you are innocent until proven guilty. It basically means that trials should be fair for all.

Apropos of nothing really there used to be a crime of 'perverse verdict' or something similar.

Basically it meant that if a jury gave the wrong verdict they could be locked up until they decided on a better verdict. It's commemorated in the Guildhall in the City of London.

Ark_Welder

Really2 wrote: »

But it is not in UK law, and is nothing to do with employment contract's with behaviour outside of work clauses.

Innocent until proven guilty relates to fair trials, use of a lawyer if you can't afford one etc.
The idea it means you are treated as innocent until jailed is a fallacy because if they think you should not get bail you will be locked up until trial.

PS guys the innocent until proven guilty line is in human rights law, it is not in the Magna Carta.
That is "a presumption of innocence exists until such time as the burden of proof or a jury of their peers decides otherwise."
Basically so until arrested (Burden of Proof) or via trail.
It is to give a fair trial. It does not mean you are innocent until proven guilty. It basically means that trials should be fair for all.

Have a deeper look into the two cases about footballers that you raised. You will see that in one the player was suspended by the club and his contract terminated three weeks later by mutual consent. The other player had not informed his club of events - they found out about the trial two only days beforehand. Once he was found guilty, he was dismissed by his club after the correct proceedures had been followed.

Then read all of your subsequent posts.

Really2

Jesus,

I stated the people who riot would most probably lose their jobs under a part of their contract.

Is it true or not? well yes it is true a footballer has been sacked yesterday and has not been sentenced yet.

So people may not agree but the people working who rioted stick a fair chance of getting the sack.

To go over what I originally said.

Really2 wrote: »

Presumably they would be sacked instantly?

Really2 wrote: »

Being charged with something is usually enough to get you the sack if it is deemed justifiable.
You don't have to go to jail before you lose your job.

Ark_Welder

Really2 wrote: »

Jesus,

I stated the people who riot would most probably lose their jobs under a part of their contract.

Is it true or not? well yes it is true a footballer has been sacked yesterday and has not been sentenced yet.

So people may not agree but the people working who rioted stick a fair chance of getting the sack.

To go over what I originally said.

Feeling fustrated are we? Perhaps you should not make dishonest statements. Let's recap on another of your statements:

Really2 wrote: »

Congratulations you have just supported a person who killed two children while over the Drink Drive limit and a convicted sex offender.:eek:

One even admitted guilt before court.

You should think long and hard about your life and how crime effects others.

Imagine the pain it would cause the parents of the dead children should the player keep his job until court.
Don't worry innocent until proved even if you are pleading guilty!
Sick TBH.

Which was your response to this:

Ark_Welder wrote: »

Echo of StevieJ. Suspended until found guilty. Dismissed once found guilty.

The cases of the two footballers are consistent with my sentiments described above. The former player that had admitted his guilt beforehand had already been suspended by his club, and then parted company by mutual consent before his trial.

Perhaps you need to think a little bit more about your posts before you make them.

Really2

Ark_Welder wrote: »

Perhaps you need to think a little bit more about your posts before you make them.

Dito Bigman as you seem to ignore the fact the only reason I wrote that is that I did not see steve's response so presumed you were saying that people should stay in a job until jailed.

Here it is

Really2 wrote: »

Never saw steves response.

I will leave it here.
It is now a petty argument not a debate and the recent points are no longer being discussed.

You still wont accept that people can be laid off before found guilty or jailed due to terms in their contract so their is nothing to discuss.
It was asked what will happen to rioters I said they could lose their jobs, that is now backed up with an example of a man who has lost his job and has not been sentenced yet.
I don't think the point is debatable, it can happen.
The argument seems to be you don't agree with it.

Ark_Welder

Really2 wrote: »

Dito Bigman as you seem to ignore the fact the only reason I wrote that is that I did not see steve's response so presumed you were saying that people should stay in a job until jailed.

Here it is



I will leave it here.
It is now a petty argument not a debate and the recent points are no longer being discussed.

You still wont accept that people can be laid off before found guilty or jailed due to terms in their contract so their is nothing to discuss.
It was asked what will happen to rioters I said they could lose their jobs, that is now backed up with an example of a man who has lost his job and has not been sentenced yet.
I don't think the point is debatable, it can happen.
The argument seems to be you don't agree with it.

Your next logical step: don't take personal responsibility and blame someone else.

So you riot in a post, try to deny any responsibility, the truth is shown by the CCTV of your posts, then you try to blame your actions instead on cuts and society in general.


Toodle Pip!

Generali

This is what I love about web forums. A couple of pages of discussion followed by 9 pages of pointless arguing about who is the biggest dickwad.

FWIW the petition now has 206,000 signatures. I doubt anyone cares any more though.

ETA: oooh. Dickwad gets through the sweary filters. I must remember that.