Talk:Geoff Clark

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Portal	Geoff Clark is maintained by WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

[edit] Status of rape allegation

As I understand it, Clark has been found by a court to have caused a rape, but has not been found guilty of rape per se. So does that make him a rapist? The obvious parallel is OJ Simpson's legal status. Joestella 02:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Factually, he is a rapist if he actually did it, regardless of the state of play legally. But, yes, the siutation is similar to O J Simpson, with the added issue that the allegations are 35 years old and wouldn't normally be allowed in court (due to problems with witnesses's memories etc). Because it is a civil case, the matter of fact was decided on balance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt as in criminal cases. In other words, the jury decided - based on the evidence presented - that Clark was 'probably' a racist, but there was a 'reasonable' possibility that he wasn't.--Jack Upland 08:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Oops, freudian slip. I think you meant "rapist", not "racist".  :) JackofOz 07:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)