Stephen Lawrence

My point, Greatnan is that they wouldn't have someone on a jury in the first place if they thought that person was convinced of the guilt of the accused. But whatever! I agree everyone has a right to their opinion and to express it in any way they think fit.

Whenever my mother was about to say something hurtful, she would preface it by her mantra 'I am entitled to my opinion', to which I would reply, 'Yes, but you are not necessarily entitled to express it , if it is going to hurt someone's feelings'.

Well put Greatgran that is why I will continue to keep my own counsel on this and other controversial threads.

Hmm. Now we're onto free speech. I don't agree that one shouldn't express an opinion just because it may offend someone's feelings. One shouldn't say things only to cause offence, but sometimes there is no intention to cause offence but offence is still taken. What then? Censorship? If controversial things were never discussed we'd still be in the Dark Ages. Controversial things have to be discussed (confronted) for progress to be made. Think slavery, for instance, or women's suffrage.

I digress. Fair trials for all is what justice is about. Our justice system may not always achieve that because human beings are faulty, but we can at least try. And verdicts of trials must depend on hard evidence rather than emotion.

Well said Bagitha

I am very happy for the men accused of Stephen Lawrence's murder to have a fair trial and I am confident that, having heard the evdence, the jury will reach the correct decison.
I have no objection to anyone expressing an opinion on any subject, but it is contrary to the etiquette of most forums to post derogatory remarks about another member.
Freedom of speech is not universally applicable as it is governed by respect for the rights of others, as evinced by the laws of slander, incitement to racial hatred, etc.

petallus, there are often horrible rumours put out on the internet which are completely untrue. In this case any rumours out there have been put out by more racist scum.

Of course the judge told the jury to ignore.

Jingl not sure what you mean but if you are referring to my comments on previous page I was quoting what the judge said to the jurors after they were sworn in when he was instructing them on how they should approach the case (you will see I've used quotation marks). I think he meant that some of the rumours which were untrue were against the suspects and shouldn't be taken into account when they were weighing the evidence. It wasn't my own observation.

Yes. Was referring to a couple of posts back.

After all this time, and given the existence of the internet, there is bound to be stuff on both sides which one hopes will not be given credence to. The judge would have been referring to all of it.

The internet could well influence some of the jurors.

I agree jingl. Honestly, all of this is taking me over. I was in the middle of a yoga session just now and broke off to come and do a post. I'm going to have to be firm with myself and close my computer down for an hour or two

As a non-intellectual, I'm finding this matter totally mesmerising. I just wish to say however, that Bagitha's wise input, makes sense. I shall now drift off and compose a word picture in order to calm myself down...