|
Post by lordb on Aug 1, 2014 8:10:53 GMT
I didn't intend to suggest that the GMP were corrupt and I'm sorry if it came across that way. The area that I was trying to comment upon, albeit obliquely, was the Gang Division, which has a particular Divisional name. I am not suggesting that Ravel Morrison is Not Guilty, I haven't got a clue. What I am saying is that to be refused bail for such minor offences is rare in the extreme. Ordinarily, the Police would usually not even remand someone into custody for such offences, which would mean that a Bail Application would not even be necessary. The right to bail remains for such offences, in spite of its erosion in other areas by successive Governments. Bail can only be refused if there are "substantial grounds for believing that the defendant will" A) Fail to Surrender to Custody - How? He is a known and highly regarded Premier League footballer B) Commit further offences on bail - Even if he did as a kid, it's the first accusation for quite a while C) Interfere with the Course of Justice - I have no idea whether he has done this before (But see below) D) For his own safety - Hardly; not this case. Even if the Court has concerns about any of the above, it can only remand a defendant into custody if it believes that the imposition of Bail Conditions couldn't deal with any perceived risk. As I said earlier, even if he does have a conviction for Witness Intimidation; how on earth can the risk of repetition not be dealt with by conditions that he lives in London, doesn't travel to Manchester and has no contact with any Prosecution Witness? I appreciate that the gangs of Manchester pose a particular problem for the police, but the answer to that is not to ignore the Rule of Law, which maybe convenient in the short term and by the tone of this thread, many would be happy with. To do so is a very significant step on a very slippery slope. I appreciate that my view is plainly in the minority and sadly, it tends to remain so until one of the "hang em high" Daily Mail readers sons is charged, following a minor accident with "Causing Death by Dangerous Driving" or when they witnessed a savage assault by being charged with a joint enterprise Murder. Its amazing how people change their views of both the Police and lawyers when it happens to them. I don't do my job to be popular with the majority, had I wanted to be so I would have become a Doctor! But I am continually surprised by the lack of understanding of what actually happens in the Courts and to those charged with Criminal Offences. On a happier note, I have no doubt that many of the doubters would be more reasonable if they ever sat on a jury in a serious case. Now you are just coming across as a condescending, look at me pisshead. For someone who keeps admitting he knows nothing of the context of this case / remand into custody, you don't half keep spouting shit. Assaulting two women may be minor offences in your world but hey, this is 2014. A word of advice, if you want to get people interested in the injustices and inequities of the criminal justice system then Mr Morrison is probably not the case to hang your hat on. Weirdo. Seems to me that he knows what he is talking about. To be fair that is weird for one of us.
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Aug 1, 2014 8:15:38 GMT
In any proper profession this sort of behaviour would result in instant dismissal and being struck off. I know a dedicated and skillful person in the medical profession who had some thick chav qunt get out of car and mouth off at him and and when he decked the pathetic prick he lost his career. But these stupid vile little wankers get away with it. Footballers contracts should have standards of behaviour included in them and a clause that says that if they commit this sort of act they forfeit signing on fees, future wages and can't be re-employed by spivs like the owners of West Ham. As for "madasasnake" - yes let's forget the rights of women not to be assaulted, including a middle aged lady presumably trying to protect her daughter, and concentrate on the well being of the cowardly, moron, millionaires shall we? Fucking pathetic! If it was my daughter Morrison and any apologists for him would need to stay safely tucked away in custody! That's a perfectly reasonable point of view but I think you have missed his point 're the bail issue. Two wrongs don't make a right e.t.c.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Aug 1, 2014 8:40:02 GMT
Their agenda is keeping a dangerous thug off the streets isn't it? Good on 'em. I'd guess going off his history of gangs it's to stop/limit harassment. I don't, I like seeing little scrotes being treated like the shit they are. The trouble is a lot of police treat everyone as shit. It's also a shame that they didn't take such an interest in Jimmy Saville, mate. I agree with you that Morrison sounds a complete twat, though! I disagree, in most cases I think it's the opposite. In football it isn't but I do think football fans ask for it. Dons tin hat and hides. That's not me saying their treatment of all people is correct and especially not football fans but I think they get a lot of unwarranted bad press imo.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2014 10:48:45 GMT
By your own admission, you don't have a scooby do and have no insight into the context of these alleged offences. This conspiracy shit you are attempting to formulate is just that, shit. There are many 'specifics' that the Court will take into account when deciding bail applications and they are argued coherently by prosecution and defence before a decision is made. Unless you are in Court or there is very specific reporting (often not the case in offences of IPVA) then you wouldn't know so stop chatting shit about revenge and jealousy. It makes you sound daft. Thank you for your insightful observation BM. I suspect that after 24 years I have a great deal more experience than you about the GMP. I know precisely what they "think" or "believe" Ravel Morrison to have been guilty of in his youth, But lets not let the facts get in the way of your Daily Mail view of the world. It must be wonderful to be so untouched by reality. I genuinely hope that you never have cause to appreciate how misplaced your confidence in the system is! I am also hugely amused by your understanding of what happens in a Magistrates Court?? The particular advantage of being a proper lawyer is that I no longer have to appear there. Arguing law in that Forum is akin to nailing blamange to a passing bus! But please don't let that stop you abusing me; I am sure that you are a notable Qc! Everything you have said is spot on. Apart from calling yourself a 'proper lawyer'. That makes you a massive twat. Without us 'lesser' solicitors you wouldn't have any work at all....even your la di da murder trial... It's just a serious common assault you know. Also...I regularly see barristers come to the Magistrates Court and make a right pigs ear of what they are doing....different rules you see
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Aug 1, 2014 11:11:00 GMT
Oh no, two of the buggers.
|
|
|
Post by drjeffsdiscobarge on Aug 1, 2014 11:33:11 GMT
Barrister v Solicitor... shit just got real!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2014 11:46:03 GMT
Don't let any Arsenal fans see this thread, it will ruin our reputation.
|
|
|
Post by bassmaster on Aug 1, 2014 18:57:21 GMT
Now you are just coming across as a condescending, look at me pisshead. For someone who keeps admitting he knows nothing of the context of this case / remand into custody, you don't half keep spouting shit. Assaulting two women may be minor offences in your world but hey, this is 2014. A word of advice, if you want to get people interested in the injustices and inequities of the criminal justice system then Mr Morrison is probably not the case to hang your hat on. Weirdo. Seems to me that he knows what he is talking about. To be fair that is weird for one of us. If he knew what he was talking about, he would not be spewing such paranoid claptrap. He sets out why someone could be RIC then admits he knows nothing of this case. Then he develops a conspiracy theory. It's plainly idiotic and not indicative of a balanced individual.
|
|
|
Post by dutchstokie on Aug 2, 2014 8:37:28 GMT
Has he been flogged yet...?
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Aug 2, 2014 9:37:34 GMT
We can only hope!
|
|
|
Post by petershiltonsmini on Aug 2, 2014 9:51:10 GMT
Wow can anyone provide a calibrated dickmeasure?
|
|
|
Post by Beardy200 on Aug 2, 2014 11:41:24 GMT
Wow can anyone provide a calibrated dickmeasure? Ive got a 12" penis but I don't use it as a rule. Badum Tschhh.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2014 12:25:50 GMT
Seems to me that he knows what he is talking about. To be fair that is weird for one of us. If he knew what he was talking about, he would not be spewing such paranoid claptrap. He sets out why someone could be RIC then admits he knows nothing of this case. Then he develops a conspiracy theory. It's plainly idiotic and not indicative of a balanced individual. Granted bail today as expected
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Aug 4, 2014 12:30:33 GMT
If he knew what he was talking about, he would not be spewing such paranoid claptrap. He sets out why someone could be RIC then admits he knows nothing of this case. Then he develops a conspiracy theory. It's plainly idiotic and not indicative of a balanced individual. Granted bail today as expected Round 1 to our "in house" brief!
|
|
|
Post by bassmaster on Aug 4, 2014 12:42:25 GMT
Granted bail today as expected Round 1 to our "in house" brief! Really? So the fact he has been able to convince the Court that he will abide by his bail conditions means there was some kind of conspiracy last week? Get a grip.
|
|
|
Post by madelinesmithmmmh on Aug 4, 2014 12:56:07 GMT
I thought this was an irreverent footy forum, but I am now wasting time trying to identify the late night ITV legal/court series (not Crown Court) with a really stunning actress in it that ran in the late 70s (Granadaland)
|
|
|
Post by Mr_DaftBurger on Aug 4, 2014 14:42:01 GMT
Wow some real ten percenters on this thread. Being part of the 90% I haven't got a clue what any of it means. Is it because he's black?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2014 17:16:13 GMT
Hope he get's locked up!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2014 17:28:48 GMT
Round 1 to our "in house" brief! Really? So the fact he has been able to convince the Court that he will abide by his bail conditions means there was some kind of conspiracy last week? Get a grip. You've got it the wrong way round.... he doesn't have to convince anybody anything. He has an automatic right to bail. It was a bad decision based on information provided to the CPS by the Police which would have played very strongly on his 'gang connections'. It just surprises me that a District Judge made the decision
|
|
|
Post by bassmaster on Aug 4, 2014 17:48:36 GMT
Really? So the fact he has been able to convince the Court that he will abide by his bail conditions means there was some kind of conspiracy last week? Get a grip. You've got it the wrong way round.... he doesn't have to convince anybody anything. He has an automatic right to bail. It was a bad decision based on information provided to the CPS by the Police which would have played very strongly on his 'gang connections'. It just surprises me that a District Judge made the decision No, he will have applied for open remand, the prosecution would have opposed that and given rationale to the judge as to why Morrison would or could not abide by bail conditions. The judge on balance went with the prosecution. A week later, things will have changed and Morrison's team have convinced the Court that he can / will abide by bail conditions. It's not difficult, quite simple really and not a conspiracy in sight.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2014 18:06:15 GMT
You've got it the wrong way round.... he doesn't have to convince anybody anything. He has an automatic right to bail. It was a bad decision based on information provided to the CPS by the Police which would have played very strongly on his 'gang connections'. It just surprises me that a District Judge made the decision No, he will have applied for open remand, the prosecution would have opposed that and given rationale to the judge as to why Morrison would or could not abide by bail conditions. The judge on balance went with the prosecution. A week later, things will have changed and Morrison's team have convinced the Court that he can / will abide by bail conditions. It's not difficult, quite simple really and not a conspiracy in sight. No that's is not correct at all. He has not applied for anything. He has an AUTOMATIC right to bail. The prosecution object to bail being granted as they believe there are SUBSTANTIAL grounds for believing x, y and z. If the Court are concerned given the objections raised by the Crown bail conditions CAN be opposed to alleviate those concerns. I am positive the Crown would have raised concerns about 'gang connections'. That alone is not enough in my opinion given his right to bail, his ability to reside elsewhere and potential sureties.
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Aug 4, 2014 18:28:38 GMT
The main issue regardless of the legal technicalities though is he's clearly a nasty piece of work.
|
|
|
Post by bassmaster on Aug 4, 2014 18:56:26 GMT
No, he will have applied for open remand, the prosecution would have opposed that and given rationale to the judge as to why Morrison would or could not abide by bail conditions. The judge on balance went with the prosecution. A week later, things will have changed and Morrison's team have convinced the Court that he can / will abide by bail conditions. It's not difficult, quite simple really and not a conspiracy in sight. No that's is not correct at all. He has not applied for anything. He has an AUTOMATIC right to bail. The prosecution object to bail being granted as they believe there are SUBSTANTIAL grounds for believing x, y and z. If the Court are concerned given the objections raised by the Crown bail conditions CAN be opposed to alleviate those concerns. I am positive the Crown would have raised concerns about 'gang connections'. That alone is not enough in my opinion given his right to bail, his ability to reside elsewhere and potential sureties. Refer me to the part of the law where someone has the AUTOMATIC RIGHT to bail. Ta.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2014 20:04:30 GMT
No that's is not correct at all. He has not applied for anything. He has an AUTOMATIC right to bail. The prosecution object to bail being granted as they believe there are SUBSTANTIAL grounds for believing x, y and z. If the Court are concerned given the objections raised by the Crown bail conditions CAN be opposed to alleviate those concerns. I am positive the Crown would have raised concerns about 'gang connections'. That alone is not enough in my opinion given his right to bail, his ability to reside elsewhere and potential sureties. Refer me to the part of the law where someone has the AUTOMATIC RIGHT to bail. Ta. Section 4(1) Bail Act 1976. Can I ask....have you ever represented anyone in custody at a Magistrates Court?
|
|
|
Post by dutchstokie on Aug 5, 2014 13:15:23 GMT
Refer me to the part of the law where someone has the AUTOMATIC RIGHT to bail. Ta. Section 4(1) Bail Act 1976. Can I ask....have you ever represented anyone in custody at a Magistrates Court? Section 2 balls act 1976 Cut scrotum off with cheese wire.
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Aug 7, 2014 21:00:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by 2004 on Aug 7, 2014 21:15:58 GMT
He really is a vile man.
|
|
|
Post by drjeffsdiscobarge on Aug 8, 2014 8:50:35 GMT
Refer me to the part of the law where someone has the AUTOMATIC RIGHT to bail. Ta. Section 4(1) Bail Act 1976. Can I ask....have you ever represented anyone in custody at a Magistrates Court? That was a very bold question to ask a solicitor bassmaster ... always assuming you aren't also in the 'legal game'.
|
|
|
Post by Mr_DaftBurger on Aug 8, 2014 10:26:45 GMT
I think his bail restrictions show why his original bail was denied. It's not fucking rocket science this law shit. It's all in big books. I'd suggest that it was nothing to do with madasasnakes gangland fantasies and more to do with the safety of witnesses. Am I right? Am I? Oh and Morrison is a cunt!
|
|
|
Post by dutchstokie on Aug 8, 2014 15:01:06 GMT
I think his bail restrictions show why his original bail was denied. It's not fucking rocket science this law shit. It's all in big books. I'd suggest that it was nothing to do with madasasnakes gangland fantasies and more to do with the safety of witnesses. Am I right? Am I? Oh and Morrison is a cunt! Now now fella come on....hes not a cunt hes just been 'boistrous' and 'mis-guided' On second thoughts.........nah just kick the little bastard into next week !!!!
|
|