Once again, Trial by Media.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck
He has not been charged with a single crime, so how do you convict him??????????????????
Printable View
Once again, Trial by Media.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck
He has not been charged with a single crime, so how do you convict him??????????????????
He will be convicted when he is charged which will be when the current investigation is completed.Quote:
Originally Posted by drivesafe
It was not a trial by media - it was a defamation case where the Federal Court Judge found amongst other things that on the balance of probability he bullied other members of his unit, and he murdered people and he ordered the execution of others against the Rules of Engagement and against the Laws of Armed Conflict.
So you are now judge, jury and executioner.Quote:
Originally Posted by 101RRS
This is Australia, where every person is presumed to be innocent, but again you are just presuming he is guilty, without any trail.
If we end up in a war with China and/or Russia, I hope we have a lot more Roberts-Smiths on our side!
This would be a prime case of the risks of suing for defamation. Those being sued were careful (apparently) not to name him, and it was Roberts-Smith (or his employer) who decided that it was a good idea to sue.
There is a long history of cases where plaintiffs have sued for defamation, and even if they win the case, the evidence that comes out destroys their reputation.
Criminal trials require proof beyond reasonable doubt, but civil actions, which this is, are decided on the balance of probabilities. Another reason to be very careful when deciding on defamation action.
And when the defence is bankrolled by one news organisation and the plaintiff another, both are more interested in news rather than justice.
Didn't Oscar Wilde make a similar mistake?Quote:
Originally Posted by JDNSW
No, it was his boyfriend who sued. And yes, shortly after I wrote the above I was talking to a barrister friend, and briefly mentioned this case - and she immediately mentioned the Oscar Wilde case.
And even though that was over a century ago there are even earlier cases with similar results - it doesn't matter whether you win or lose, you can just about guarantee you don't have a reputation after all your dirty linen has been aired in court.
The main reason most defamation cases are started is with the aim of settling out of court.
I find it interesting that its such a touchy subject, its not a made up story by media or trial by media its not just Chinese whispers, it is directly from at least 3 other commanders that were there and findings after a long court case by a judge
IF the alleged allegations are correct he should be imprisoned with major changes to defense to insure all members are held to account and this sort of alleged disgrace never happens again, who cares what other other nations solders do, we should be at the highest level of professionalism and accountability
In 2006 a close relative of mine was involved in a highly publicised "incident" in Baghdad. The subsequent trial by media and associated ill informed public debate cost him his career, his marriage, and very nearly his life.
I'm with Tombie; send this to CA.
The discussions in news outs, papers, households, online, forums, social media…..it’s a global discussion and it ain’t going away.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tins
AULRO might get a dozen or so member having input on this thread…..don’t reckon our discussion will impact the past or the future in Bens case.
Maybe if you’re affected by comments in the thread might be easier to scroll past.
I've never had to make a 'Life or Death', 'Kill or Be Killed' decision, take into account the lives of others, in life threatening situations, been in a 'War Zone' (although the term seems to be used loosely, these days!) or been in any of the Services.
I therefore consider it inappropriate for me to comment on the bloke's rationale or actions.