3 ms·

on a flip side what is the point of releasing it now vs before, seems some malice intent on part of BBC. Indian Supreme Court already aquitted Modi of the Riots

on a flip side what is the point of releasing it now vs before, seems some malice intent on part of BBC. Indian Supreme Court already aquitted Modi of the Riots in 2012.

rhaway84773 4y ago
There is no flip side. One action is democratic, the other isn’t. But to answer your question, the documentary and its timing is the result of a UK report created by the UK consulate after the riots was made public within the last year or so because UK law requires such documents to be made public after a certain amount of time. Finally, Modi being acquitted in an Indian court of law doesn’t mean innocence. Even ignoring any questions of corruption, etc, India does not have one of those legal systems which decides whether a defendant is guilty or innocent. India’s court system only decides whether someone can be proven guilty. An acquittal simply means that one cannot be proven guilty, not that they are innocent. The not guilty verdict can also be the result of a lack of evidence (which was the case in this situation), or due to procedural mistakes, etc. which may lead to an acquittal even if someone is guilty.
anaganisk 4y ago
Supreme court or a local mobile court, all function based on evidence. And evidence can be tampered. And dont tell me in India people dont say "If he has money/power he will be free". Courts dont investigate. They listen to what prosecution has to provide, if prosecustion has new evidence decades later, the acquital can be oveturned. Doesnt mean someone is innocent forever. Its not a certificate of innocence.
- nocababges 4y ago
  So you will trust BBC propaganda more than Supreme Court. right on.
  - anaganisk 4y ago
    You do realise that you are literally turning gears in your head to come up with some witty line but end up justifying my comment yourself without even trying to understand what I said. If the BBC documentary can provide new evidence or some common person comes up with new evidence, they can literally repoen the case, and who knows may be the accusations may be found with a guilty verdict. There are several cases that have been re-opened, and verdicts reversed decades later. Supreme court giving a clean chit doesn't mean a permanent certificate of innocence. It just means evidence was not strong by prosecution during the trial.

on a flip side what is the point of releasing it now vs before, seems some malice intent on part of BBC. Indian Supreme Court already aquitted Modi of the Riots in 2012.

rhaway84773 4y ago

There is no flip side. One action is democratic, the other isn’t. But to answer your question, the documentary and its timing is the result of a UK report created by the UK consulate after the riots was made public within the last year or so because UK law requires such documents to be made public after a certain amount of time. Finally, Modi being acquitted in an Indian court of law doesn’t mean innocence. Even ignoring any questions of corruption, etc, India does not have one of those legal systems which decides whether a defendant is guilty or innocent. India’s court system only decides whether someone can be proven guilty. An acquittal simply means that one cannot be proven guilty, not that they are innocent. The not guilty verdict can also be the result of a lack of evidence (which was the case in this situation), or due to procedural mistakes, etc. which may lead to an acquittal even if someone is guilty.

anaganisk 4y ago

Supreme court or a local mobile court, all function based on evidence. And evidence can be tampered. And dont tell me in India people dont say "If he has money/power he will be free". Courts dont investigate. They listen to what prosecution has to provide, if prosecustion has new evidence decades later, the acquital can be oveturned. Doesnt mean someone is innocent forever. Its not a certificate of innocence.

nocababges 4y ago
So you will trust BBC propaganda more than Supreme Court. right on.
- anaganisk 4y ago
  You do realise that you are literally turning gears in your head to come up with some witty line but end up justifying my comment yourself without even trying to understand what I said. If the BBC documentary can provide new evidence or some common person comes up with new evidence, they can literally repoen the case, and who knows may be the accusations may be found with a guilty verdict. There are several cases that have been re-opened, and verdicts reversed decades later. Supreme court giving a clean chit doesn't mean a permanent certificate of innocence. It just means evidence was not strong by prosecution during the trial.