I love it here in Oz when they say "allegedly". The use it all the time even though you know things have happened or are fact but haven't got to court. Wasn't the use of the term "allegedly" not protect you anymore from libel in the UK, or did I imagine that years ago??? Anyway see this video and let me know if the policeman allegedly beats a cricket fan. http://media.smh.com.au/sport/sports-hq ... 05823.html

I love it here in Oz when they say "allegedly". The use it all the time even though you know things have happened or are fact but haven't got to court. Wasn't the use of the term "allegedly" not protect you anymore from libel in the UK, or did I imagine that years ago??? Anyway see this video and let me know if the policeman allegedly beats a cricket fan. http://media.smh.com.au/sport/sports-hq ... 05823.html

It is entirely posible that the in and out motion observed of the Police officer could have been using a pump to inflate an air bed so that the cricket fan would feel more comfortable

I don't think so because the rlfans mods crap themselves if somebody writes a story about Martin Gleeson and prefixes it with "allegedly"

Repeating a libel and putting 'allegedly' in front of it is not a defence in English law, no. It never has been.

In all seriousness you can't see properly from that clip and it doesn't help that whoever edited it has pieced together three seconds of video to try and make it look as though it happened over three minutes.

Don't know what the law is in Australia but there is a procedure here for police officers to hit with an open palm to "assist" a desisting arrestee into offering up an arm for handcuffs to be applied after they have been arrested, its the defence that was offered when a police officer in Pontefract (???) was filmed using exactly the same striking motion to a lad a few years ago, in that case he hadn't been arrested at the time and was stood on his feet so it didn't quite work as a defence.

That video in the link is poor, you can't see the impact and you can't see if the fist is closed at impact or not, its not conclusive.

Very true. You don't actually see any contact. You only presume they connect.

Rooster Booster wrote:Very true. You don't actually see any contact. You only presume they connect. As always, reading the written report also fills in the gaps somewhathttp://www.smh.com.au/nsw/footage-of-bashing-by-police-leads-to-review-20120120-1qa6y.html resisting arrest is only going to result in one thing, you will be arrested and some force can be used to ensure that you are handcuffed to protect yourself and the public from you. Its quite possible that everything you see in that video is within the law.

Rooster Booster wrote:Very true. You don't actually see any contact. You only presume they connect. As always, reading the written report also fills in the gaps somewhathttp://www.smh.com.au/nsw/footage-of-bashing-by-police-leads-to-review-20120120-1qa6y.html resisting arrest is only going to result in one thing, you will be arrested and some force can be used to ensure that you are handcuffed to protect yourself and the public from you. Its quite possible that everything you see in that video is within the law.

Why would beating a cricket fan be a criminal offence in the first place?

In an article/court case i was involved in lately the local rag didn't even bother using the word "allegedly" in the article. and didn't even bother talking about facts either. which was very upsetting for me. It's taken me a long time to learn... But I won't take anything i read in the paper or see on the news seriously again.

it all boils down to whether you saying something as a fact or as an opinion and whether you can back up your fact if thats what you are saying.

Allegedly doesn't make a blind bit of difference.

In saying that though they use the word all he time on the TV in news bulletins, so it must work for them.