Neil Down Posted August 1, 2018 Share Posted August 1, 2018 http://www.iomtoday.co.im/article.cfm?id=42095&headline=Nightmare%20over%3A%20Museum%20worker%20cleared%20of%20indecent%20assault§ionIs=news&searchyear=2018 Just another reason why names should never be released until a conviction has been given. What a nightmare for him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesultanofsheight Posted August 1, 2018 Share Posted August 1, 2018 6 minutes ago, Neil Down said: http://www.iomtoday.co.im/article.cfm?id=42095&headline=Nightmare%20over%3A%20Museum%20worker%20cleared%20of%20indecent%20assault§ionIs=news&searchyear=2018 Just another reason why names should never be released until a conviction has been given. What a nightmare for him They seem to have now taken all the comments down as people seemed to largly be criticizing IOM Newspapers for naming him in advance. It’s a shitty thing to do when he’s not guilty of anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Down Posted August 1, 2018 Author Share Posted August 1, 2018 Lazy arsed sensationalist "journalism" at its worst. Not for the first time either. I remember taking Butt to task over a court report many years ago. His so called court reporters weren't even in court yet he attributed his shitty comments to them even though they were wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTeapot Posted August 1, 2018 Share Posted August 1, 2018 "The court heard that the mother, who rents her home off MNH, had been in dispute over her tenancy." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesultanofsheight Posted August 1, 2018 Share Posted August 1, 2018 2 minutes ago, TheTeapot said: "The court heard that the mother, who rents her home off MNH, had been in dispute over her tenancy." It’s sort of suggesting she accused him of touching up her kid as she had a grudge against MNH isn’t it? Not sure that’s a wise statement to leave in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTeapot Posted August 1, 2018 Share Posted August 1, 2018 From what I knew of this incident (second hand, man in the pub style gossip) that is exactly what happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted August 1, 2018 Share Posted August 1, 2018 He may have been told by the Deemster that he left Court an innocent man without a stain on his character, but it will show up on an advanced criminal record check for any job working with children or vulnerable as tried and acquitted and he can never get employment in those public facing roles again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uhtred Posted August 1, 2018 Share Posted August 1, 2018 The fact that the jury returned a unanimous not guilty verdict in only 30 minutes illustrates that they had no truck with this case whatsoever. A review of the appropriateness of this prosecution is urgently required. Said review needs to consider the reliability of the child’s mother as a witness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paswt Posted August 1, 2018 Share Posted August 1, 2018 55 minutes ago, John Wright said: He may have been told by the Deemster that he left Court an innocent man without a stain on his character, but it will show up on an advanced criminal record check for any job working with children or vulnerable as tried and acquitted and he can never get employment in those public facing roles again. In that event would he be entitled to be compensated financially ? Just curious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted August 1, 2018 Share Posted August 1, 2018 There was a Supreme Court decision Monday as to the legality of the police including it. The Court found it was proportionate. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-45004290 So, to answer the question, No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted August 1, 2018 Share Posted August 1, 2018 I thought there was supposed to be checks and balances in the system to prevent this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kopek Posted August 1, 2018 Share Posted August 1, 2018 Tis said that the only policeman wanting this to go to a prosecution was the original investigating officer! Was it a rash decision or a necessary route to let the courts sort it out? There will always be a stain in some peoples minds, apparently a not guilty verdict is not conclusive proof of innocence! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yootalkin2me Posted August 1, 2018 Share Posted August 1, 2018 1 hour ago, John Wright said: He may have been told by the Deemster that he left Court an innocent man without a stain on his character, but it will show up on an advanced criminal record check for any job working with children or vulnerable as tried and acquitted and he can never get employment in those public facing roles again. This is the second time I've heard of this advanced police check bullshit. Questions I have: 1. If it's innocent until found guilty then in such an emotional type of charge how are names realesed before the conclusion of a guilty verdict let alone at all if found not guilty? 2. If found not guilty how the hell is it allowed that an advanced police check would show the case? The law is an ass!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manxkipper Posted August 1, 2018 Share Posted August 1, 2018 I believe he is still employed by MNH and has just been suspended until the outcome of the trial. Hopefully he will now be able to return to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted August 1, 2018 Share Posted August 1, 2018 12 minutes ago, yootalkin2me said: This is the second time I've heard of this advanced police check bullshit. Questions I have: 1. If it's innocent until found guilty then in such an emotional type of charge how are names realesed before the conclusion of a guilty verdict let alone at all if found not guilty? 2. If found not guilty how the hell is it allowed that an advanced police check would show the case? The law is an ass!!! Read the bbc link I posted above. As soon as the judgment is on line I’ll link to that. The judges did say that the law needed some rethinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.