Worthington Share Discussion Threads

[davidkip] 18/11/2022 17:25

Them rocks ain't gonna break themselves ...

[arthur_lame_stocks] 18/11/2022 17:20

I thought you already were at work.

[fanofgeniusdazza] 18/11/2022 17:15

Allegedly saved you, back to work now.

[arthur_lame_stocks] 18/11/2022 17:13

I think we were all well aware of that, it's just that most of us hope they all get found guilty and go to prison.

[fanofgeniusdazza] 18/11/2022 17:11

Not referring to any individual, just stating the uk law.
Innocent until proven guilty.

[arthur_lame_stocks] 18/11/2022 17:10

Except when that free speech is about the allegedly fraudulant behaviour of your associates?

[fanofgeniusdazza] 18/11/2022 17:07

It has been my experience that defending robust free speech is as catnip to a cat:

[arthur_lame_stocks] 18/11/2022 17:06

Well if you're talking about Aidan and the gang I presume you're forgetting the £1.7m they're alleged to have trousered from selling shares in the company without notifying the market.

[fanofgeniusdazza] 18/11/2022 17:02

Calm down Arthur (watch your ticker and language please)
Innocence as such is not a concept known to our criminal justice system. We distinguish between the guilty and the not guilty. A person is only guilty if the state can prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. .... If it can be conclusively shown that the state was not entitled to punish a person, it seems to me that he should be entitled to compensation for having been punished. He does not have to prove his innocence at his trial and it seems wrong in principle that he should be required to prove his innocence now.

[arthur_lame_stocks] 18/11/2022 16:42

By the way Darren Chapman was reported to the Police for threatening me on here.

[arthur_lame_stocks] 18/11/2022 16:34

Well fogd maybe you've forgotten your hero making personal threats against us on here. Two can play at that game.

[sweet karolina2] 18/11/2022 15:05

With all the time they have before trial, FCA have the opportunity to get hold of the accomplices and get them to squeal against the 5 to save their own necks. Did I hear a rumour that the fake tanned oik was back in the country. It would be the duty of any law abiding citizen to pass on his whereabouts to the authorities.

[spikeyj] 18/11/2022 12:51

also in that broader sense that if the crown weren’t able
to prove that there had actually been an illegal pump & dump/ fraud
in the first place, then they could hardly prosecute the
hangers-on, pimps & accomplices for assisting a p&d/fraud.

[davidkip] 18/11/2022 12:00

It will be interesting to see the extent to which the SFO/FCA move on to the "second tier" of names, after they've dealt with the big ticket ones. They normally work their way down from the top, on the understandable logic that if you can't get beyond the burden of proof to bring charges for the main names, then you're unlikely to be able to go after the second tier.

[spikeyj] 18/11/2022 11:32

ware … what a wuss

[spikeyj] 17/11/2022 22:30

“We’re gonna give you a fair trial. Followed by a first rate hanging.”
(Cobb)

[arthur_lame_stocks] 17/11/2022 22:16

I presume they're all going to get a fair trial, followed by a prison sentence.

At least I hope so.

[fanofgeniusdazza] 17/11/2022 22:02

SK ZZZZZZ
A fundamental principle behind the right to a fair trial is that every person should be presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty. Many people who are accused of crimes will ultimately be found innocent. This is why any restriction on an accused person’s rights, such as holding them in pre-trial detention, should only take place where absolutely necessary.

It is the responsibility of the state to prove that someone is guilty not for the suspected person to prove their innocence. People should not be coerced into confessing to a crime or to give evidence against themselves. In general, if someone exercises their right to silence, it should not be used as evidence of guilt or as a reason to place them in pre-trial detention.

Being convicted of a crime has serious, sometimes devastating, consequences. Therefore, States must prove guilt to a high standard. If there is ‘reasonable doubt’, an accused person must be given the benefit of the doubt and cleared because the state’s ‘burden of proof’ has not been met.
Under Article 6 (2) of the Human Rights Act 1988,

[bbmsionlypostafter mk2] 17/11/2022 08:28

My memory may be hazy but wasn't AE already struck off? Didn't seem to make much difference to his behaviour. Maybe the courts should teach him a lesson.