You might want to think it does, but unfortunately that does not change the fact that it just isn’t a legal term.
Mason Greenwood | Please be respectful and stay on topic
- Thread starter keithsingleton
- Start date
Exactly, it's not a term accepted by courts on a legal standpoint. It is something they're looking into updating the legal process for down the line though.
Well that's my overarching point, he can't just say shit like that an not expect people to fill in the blanks. That's not taking any responsibility for anything that happened, and as you point out, it could mean anything.
But if we can't believe he's innocent based of what we know, why should we be OK with him coming back?
I think the problem people constantly trot out the "innocent until proven guilty" line as to why he should be allowed back and when challenged on that we get the immediate contradiction of "no one's saying he's innocent". Doesn't make any sense to me. Just willful ignorance.
Im really not interested in a semantic argument about what exactly a 'legal term' is and it makes absolutely no difference to the point I made so if you have any comment on that point then let me know
Asked and answered.
And here is the relevant article by Barrister Bethan Rogers about the dangers of 'trial by social media', it was written specifically in response to the Greenwood case
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/commen...gers-of-trial-by-social-media/5111441.article
Anyone who has an issue with a legal professional using this term should contact her directly:
https://redlionchambers.co.uk/bethan-rogers-examines-the-dangers-of-trial-by-social-media/
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/commen...gers-of-trial-by-social-media/5111441.article
Anyone who has an issue with a legal professional using this term should contact her directly:
https://redlionchambers.co.uk/bethan-rogers-examines-the-dangers-of-trial-by-social-media/
I was once called a knobhead by a lawyer friend of mine, does that make knobhead a legal term?
Ok cheers mate bye now.
But but I was told that people will put their hate aside in order to support the team. So it’s ok, they will all be quiet when at matches
:/sarcasm off:
I'm happy to stop calling it a legal term - like I said it makes no difference to the point
More importantly what do you think about the article ?
So if it's not a legal term, then what is it? Isn't the social media just a conduit of 1, the evidence, that hasn't been refuted and 2, for the discussion of the alleged crime?
If someone played me the audio in the pub and then we discussed it, is that trail by social media?
Honestly? It was nicely written but I'm really struggling to see what in it is particularly novel or groundbreaking. Also, the point of the article seems to be that social media makes a fair trial difficult. As Greenwood won't be going to trial I'm struggling to understand what point you think it makes as relates to this case, beyond the self-evident 'social media can convince people that something is true when it's not'?
It is definitely a term in legal circles, although it is fairly new because social media is itself still fairly new. Its simply an information age manifestation of a concept that has been around for thousands of years, which could more aptly be called "trial by mob rule", which is something I'm sure we could all agree is not a good way to adjudicate any issue.
It's a term used in legal circles, but it's really a legal terrm? Surely it's just used in context of influencing an actual trial, which there won't be, so it's just a discussion? One that is split 50/50 ish so who picks which side is the mob?
Not in the formal sense but it definitely is colloquially in that there are quite a few legal discussions taking place, usually centering around whether it is fair for someone to get a proper legal trial in the age of social media, where some or all evidence is uploaded to social media before the actual legal process takes place.
Who cares about the term "trial by social media"? Regardless of the channel of delivery, the audio and photos are appalling, and so far inexplicable (other than the obvious and most likely explanation). Seems to me to be a deflection tactic to muddy the waters of discussion and discredit the POV that is against his return.
Yeah exactly, it's used in relation to the actual justice system and influencing an actual trial. It's not some some sort of Kangaroo court.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/...at you say or,trial and seeing justice served.
That's exactly what it is.
Aka the court of public opinion.
....or that of pitchfork wielding mobs. Depending on which perspective one has.
I'm still struggling to see what this has to do with the legal side of things, given that the case isn't going to trial so won't impact anything on that front.
Sure, some people are likely to have made up their minds about his guilt or otherwise but I don't think we can exactly claim that the Internet is adjudicating the issue.
I don't think it has anything to do with Greenwood's situation at this point. I'd say 98% of fans are decided one way or another on whether they want him back or not. Both the legal case and initial wave of social media chat related to the case are both history now. The only thing that matters going forward is how a Ratcliffe run United process the decision they have to make at seasons end.
I think this is a reasonable post. Wrong use of the word impartial, but excusable. Some good points. I haven’t thought all that much about this topic, but there are some odd angles to it.
The "mob" is quite clearly the group trying to impose sanctions on an individual without a formal trial.
This would be a more compelling argument if there wasn't a piece of incredibly damning evidence already in the public domain.
Technically, it's to uphold sanctions, he's already been exiled. Odd mob behaviour, upholding the status quo.
Given the stance seems to be "there are a lot of unknowns", when it comes to be a reason for him coming back, are you more worried about the possibility of him being innocent than the possibility of him being guilty? I feel as though that's where the divide seems to be.
Mob's always have some evidence. In the days before ubiquitous cameras and social media it often used to be a personal accusation. Mob's may even often be correct in their judgement as the mob probably are in this case. What distinguishes mob rule is a lack of a formal legal proceeding where the accused has a chance to confront the accuser and the evidence against them and the imposition of sanctions that have never been passed into law.
May that's why he was the breaking bail conditions to not contact her!
Yes and no. You can't expect society to ignore a blatantly obvious piece of evidence already in the public domain just because the legal case was stopped due to a lack of cooperation by the victim and their family. The likes of OJ Simpson have been widely ostracized by the public despite not having been criminally convicted. Mel Gibson has been blackballed in Hollywood for a bizarre racist rant on a tape, and then a comparably bizarre anti-semitic rant when he was pulled over by a cop. Large swaths of the public decided that was enough to not support any of his films and he was quietly blackballed by the industry. These things do happen by way of public reaction, with or without criminal convictions.
So evidence is bad?
What is the "mob" doing here? Sending him to jail? Giving him 100 hours community service? Requiring him to wear a tag? Or giving their opinion on whether they want him to play at the club they support?
I don't expect anything. I'm just holding a mirror up to those who don't seem to realize they are the mob in the phrase mob rule. Mob rule is generally popular at the time, that's how you can get a mob. It's the same impulse that leads to the popularity of vigilante movies and books. But, it is "trial by social media" or mob rule.
OJ had a widely televised and publicised trial and access to capable lawyers to present his defence. He was acquitted by the jury but much of the public who had seen the trial concluded the jury was influenced by racial bias. And his football career was long over though I believe he lost a lucrative broadcasting career in the aftermath. So, it's debatable in his case. But, Mel Gibson was definitely a victim of trial by media.
You mean that people were put off by the things he said, decided not to watch his films and the producers decided it wouldnt be profitable to produce them?
Worth noting that OJ was found guilty in civil case and had to pay millions in damages
Could that possibly be that a civil case is decided on the balance of probabilities as apposed to beyond all reasonable doubt.
But we're only allowed to use beyond all reasonable doubt with Greenwood?
Yes. Mostly by the industry itself. He's still been active over the past decade, but in a much lower profile than his previous Hollywood star persona of he 80s, 90s, and most of the 2000s.
Another more recent celebrity example of trial by social media is Johnny Depp. He was tried and convicted by the mob. Then got his day in court and was able to present his side of the story. The jury result was a mixed bag that seemed to indicate they were both somewhat guilty. The PR result was that his ex-wife was held to be equally responsible for their terrible marriage with him and while I wouldn't say he has been redeemed, I think it's fair to say he is held in less odiom than prior to the trial.
Looking at what he’s been once since then he’s definitely been relegated in status
Yes it’s far worse accusing an innocent person. (That’s aside from this case by the way) m. I think being falsely accused would be absolutely horrendous and surely that’s why the courts are set up the way they are to minimise that risk.