The topic is in the news but the specifics aren't. The first time the jury hear the evidence should be in court otherwise its not a fair trial. What could throw the case is if someone came here and said "Oh I knew the chap from the Mess, he was the one with a tricycle etc etc".
I agree that people who know him should not be posting as that cuts across the principles of this site too. However, the details we have been discussing are in the public domain and therefore fair game.
shall breifly explain, it is not the discussion about established facts that is the problem, only that the established facts are that he has been accused of committing fraud, and that is the only fact, speculating about his guilt or "what your mate in the sappers told you" is fine in the bar but once you commit it to paper and it is not based on fact and may in a roundabout way either influence a jury or his subsequent carreer you and the host of this message board will be held in contempt of court for a start and be highly vulnerable to a Libel case.
and I will say again, innocent until proven guilty!
No because issues discussed are not sublect to a pending case, CO spends a lot of time policing this up and you can help by not dropping him in the poo legally, after all thats what freind are for, and I will say it again INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY, WHICH PART OF THIS SENTENCE DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND, perhaps if some one was making allegations about you dear you might get very hsitty about it
You have made a serious point about the subject and we can agree not to post further on the topic.
Putting that to one side, you must accept that part of using a site of this kind is that others may challenge your comments, regardless of their nature. Repeating the same thing over and over with increasing aggression and unpleasantness is not an intelligent response and is unlikely to be influential.
Discussion of any points here that are in the public domain and already discussed in court will not influence any trial decision and are therefore ok to discuss. However, if any point reported in the papers proves to be inaccurate, even though they may be the source of info by way of being quoted on the baord or linked in a post, we the moderators are all equally liable under law for any subsequent claim of libel. As a civil case however it would be for the plaintiff to demsonstrate culpability of those of us who moderate and administer the boards. With the exulted status of moderator comes that legal responsibility.
So, you are quite ok to discuss what is in the paper, but as Wyn says, "mess hearsay" is out of bounds. The ultimate decision on what is said here is with the COs and ROS as they moderate this particular forum. Now chaps et chapesses lets get back to the point of the thread, and no more fighting in the back row there.