|
Post by madnellie on Oct 17, 2019 17:28:20 GMT
Whereas I can see, just, why he might not be convicted of sexual assault, I can not for the life of me see how he hasn't been convicted of battery. I almost tagged you in. Pleased to see you agree Same here, I'm really confused by this. A technicality maybe? Perhaps the victim didn't show up to court and that swayed the jury?
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Oct 17, 2019 17:38:02 GMT
I almost tagged you in. Pleased to see you agree Same here, I'm really confused by this. A technicality maybe? Perhaps the victim didn't show up to court and that swayed the jury? From the bit of skim-reading I've done a common assault by beating involves the "application of unlawful force" to another person. They can only have concluded that an unsolicited kiss does not constitute unlawful force?
|
|
|
Post by madnellie on Oct 17, 2019 17:46:28 GMT
Same here, I'm really confused by this. A technicality maybe? Perhaps the victim didn't show up to court and that swayed the jury? From the bit of skim-reading I've done a common assault by beating involves the "application of unlawful force" to another person. They can only have concluded that an unsolicited kiss does not constitute unlawful force? From the tiny bit I know, I think you're right. Which makes me wonder where on earth they dug the jury up from?! Jesus wept.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2019 18:31:37 GMT
Whereas I can see, just, why he might not be convicted of sexual assault, I can not for the life of me see how he hasn't been convicted of battery. Juries. As you well know they can be convinced of almost anything. It would be interesting to see what the Judges summing up was regarding the battery. It's a relatively straightforward offence: The unlawful application of force by the defendant upon the victim; with the force being any intentional [or reckless] touching of another person without the consent of that person and without lawful excuse. Lawful excuse generally covers self-defence, prevention of crime, reasonable chastisement and importantly consent. The touching need not necessarily be hostile, rude, or aggressive. The mens rea is did the person intend to apply force or were they reckless in doing so. I accept there is case law about the daily trivialities of life not amounting to an assault such as bumping into someone in the street, getting a pat on the back etc but this isn't one of those cases. I accept consent can often be implied. You don't ask your missus "can I kiss you or hug you" everytime you do but this ain't his missus or friends. In this case Gazza accepted applying force and there was no lawful excuse offered. Just because he gets kissed all the time doesn't make it not an assault if he kisses someone else. Consent isn't an issue as quite clearly she didn't consent. I honestly don't know what his defence was. It was quite clearly a verdict of "well it might be an assault but we don't think it should be."
|
|
|
Post by numpty40 on Oct 17, 2019 19:10:25 GMT
An independent witness described Gascoigne's tongue in the victim's mouth and the victim described it as a sloppy kiss!!! But hey chill folks, he's innocent.
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on Oct 17, 2019 19:13:12 GMT
Juries. As you well know they can be convinced of almost anything. It would be interesting to see what the Judges summing up was regarding the battery. It's a relatively straightforward offence: The unlawful application of force by the defendant upon the victim; with the force being any intentional [or reckless] touching of another person without the consent of that person and without lawful excuse. Lawful excuse generally covers self-defence, prevention of crime, reasonable chastisement and importantly consent. The touching need not necessarily be hostile, rude, or aggressive. The mens rea is did the person intend to apply force or were they reckless in doing so. I accept there is case law about the daily trivialities of life not amounting to an assault such as bumping into someone in the street, getting a pat on the back etc but this isn't one of those cases. I accept consent can often be implied. You don't ask your missus "can I kiss you or hug you" everytime you do but this ain't his missus or friends. In this case Gazza accepted applying force and there was no lawful excuse offered. Just because he gets kissed all the time doesn't make it not an assault if he kisses someone else. Consent isn't an issue as quite clearly she didn't consent. I honestly don't know what his defence was. It was quite clearly a verdict of "well it might be an assault but we don't think it should be." I agree entirely. It does depend on how the Judge summed up but there doesn't seem to be anything coming out implying misdirection. I suspect it's more a case of a starry eyed North East Jury being asked to decide on the evidence given by a North East hero or a rather unsympathetic victim (I don't know that but the description given during the trial seems to suggest it). No contest really and hang the legalities.
|
|
|
Post by GoBoks on Oct 17, 2019 20:31:43 GMT
Shame she didn't see it as comedy. If someone kissed me on a train I don't think I would be going to the police. Its not like he stuck two fingers inside her 😏 You’d probably have to pay them to kiss you!
|
|
|
Post by hyaduck on Oct 17, 2019 23:06:29 GMT
There have been dozens of ex footballers who have succumb to alcohol since retiring from football. So why does everyone defend this absolute bell end every time he fucks up?? He was a good player but so were others, better in fact...Let's be honest he wasn't and Isn't the smartest bloke on the grid, so a career in media was out of the question. So his way of making a living is to try and make everyone laugh, fair enough. But when he constantly fucks up everyone has this out pouring of grief and blames it on mental health. There are lots of ex players and ordinary folk in and around Stoke on Trent with mental health issues but nobody seems to give a toss about them, Gascoigne on the other hand...
|
|
|
Post by BristolMick on Oct 17, 2019 23:29:36 GMT
Whatever you think of him I'm not quite sure crying in the dock while on trial for sexual assault fits into the category of attention seeking..? Not the first time he's used that tactic is it ? He's had multiple opportunities to turn his life around and been given more chances and interventions than most alcohol/drug dependent people in society can ever dream of. He never/ever accepts responsibility for his actions . He's an egocentric attention seeking prick who refuses to make any meaningful changes in his life and plays his sad self centered drama out in the public eye. GD Bit harsh mate. An addict struggling with his addictions but I’m sure he didn’t seek this publicity and in fact if it hadn’t been him would this even have gone to court?
|
|
|
Post by danceswithclams on Oct 17, 2019 23:43:34 GMT
I really hope someone brought Gazza some fried chicken and a fishing rod during the trial.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2019 0:36:41 GMT
I haven't really followed what has exactly happened here, but kissing a girl on the lips is sexual assault? Well there have been many years, when after the singing of Auld Lang Syne - I would have been found guilty. I never bothered to ask her to sign a consent form.
All of this fake "cheek kissing" , and hugging, is really fairly new. It is something that I am not comfortable with. Strangers hugging each other, in a fake way? In my day, there was only one way to kiss a girl.
I don't mean "tongues".
|
|
|
Post by musik on Oct 18, 2019 0:54:40 GMT
addiction problems, but
hopefully the operation he had was a good and helpful one
I wish him the best!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2019 0:59:51 GMT
This whole thing is rediculous. Is there anyone here that hasn't had a woman come and kiss him on the lips - uninvited? She might also have been a bit drunk. Did you run off to the police to report it?
Fer fucks sake - I am no Adonis, but I have had drunk women sexually assaulting me. Grabbing my cock and balls etc. My wife was there - she nearly wet herself laughing as I tried to extricate myself (which I did). Oh the days of the old Pot Banks.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2019 1:27:59 GMT
The fact that Gazza is once again in the headlines, for the wrong reasons - I do not find it a "hoot" at all.
|
|
|
Post by nott1 on Oct 18, 2019 14:46:01 GMT
From the bit of skim-reading I've done a common assault by beating involves the "application of unlawful force" to another person. They can only have concluded that an unsolicited kiss does not constitute unlawful force? From the tiny bit I know, I think you're right. Which makes me wonder where on earth they dug the jury up from?! Jesus wept. The Toon Fan Club!
|
|
|
Post by nott1 on Oct 18, 2019 14:47:09 GMT
This whole thing is rediculous. Is there anyone here that hasn't had a woman come and kiss him on the lips - uninvited? She might also have been a bit drunk. Did you run off to the police to report it? Fer fucks sake - I am no Adonis, but I have had drunk women sexually assaulting me. Grabbing my cock and balls etc. My wife was there - she nearly wet herself laughing as I tried to extricate myself (which I did). Oh the days of the old Pot Banks.
Bet you'd never moved so slowly eh?
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Oct 18, 2019 15:05:50 GMT
This whole thing is rediculous. Is there anyone here that hasn't had a woman come and kiss him on the lips - uninvited? She might also have been a bit drunk. Did you run off to the police to report it? Fer fucks sake - I am no Adonis, but I have had drunk women sexually assaulting me. Grabbing my cock and balls etc. My wife was there - she nearly wet herself laughing as I tried to extricate myself (which I did). Oh the days of the old Pot Banks.
So you're saying that your individual feelings and reaction to certain situations in your life should form the basis of how all women report similar incidents in every other context?
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Oct 18, 2019 16:33:02 GMT
Juries. As you well know they can be convinced of almost anything. It would be interesting to see what the Judges summing up was regarding the battery. It's a relatively straightforward offence: The unlawful application of force by the defendant upon the victim; with the force being any intentional [or reckless] touching of another person without the consent of that person and without lawful excuse. Lawful excuse generally covers self-defence, prevention of crime, reasonable chastisement and importantly consent. The touching need not necessarily be hostile, rude, or aggressive. The mens rea is did the person intend to apply force or were they reckless in doing so. I accept there is case law about the daily trivialities of life not amounting to an assault such as bumping into someone in the street, getting a pat on the back etc but this isn't one of those cases. I accept consent can often be implied. You don't ask your missus "can I kiss you or hug you" everytime you do but this ain't his missus or friends. In this case Gazza accepted applying force and there was no lawful excuse offered. Just because he gets kissed all the time doesn't make it not an assault if he kisses someone else. Consent isn't an issue as quite clearly she didn't consent. I honestly don't know what his defence was. It was quite clearly a verdict of "well it might be an assault but we don't think it should be." I assume you are a lawyer ? - anyway, even if not, thanks for the legal clarification. The only thing I would say, having been called for jury service three times and been a witness in a criminal trial twice ( which all feels a bit above average ? ) is that I have great faith in the jury system, and in judges, and am very conscious that it is dangerous to draw conclusions unless you have heard all the evidence - and seen the witnesses giving evidence. And as you say the guidance on the interpretation of the law given by the judge will have been central to the jury's thinking. Do we know whether the jury were unanimous ?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2019 18:12:04 GMT
It would be interesting to see what the Judges summing up was regarding the battery. It's a relatively straightforward offence: The unlawful application of force by the defendant upon the victim; with the force being any intentional [or reckless] touching of another person without the consent of that person and without lawful excuse. Lawful excuse generally covers self-defence, prevention of crime, reasonable chastisement and importantly consent. The touching need not necessarily be hostile, rude, or aggressive. The mens rea is did the person intend to apply force or were they reckless in doing so. I accept there is case law about the daily trivialities of life not amounting to an assault such as bumping into someone in the street, getting a pat on the back etc but this isn't one of those cases. I accept consent can often be implied. You don't ask your missus "can I kiss you or hug you" everytime you do but this ain't his missus or friends. In this case Gazza accepted applying force and there was no lawful excuse offered. Just because he gets kissed all the time doesn't make it not an assault if he kisses someone else. Consent isn't an issue as quite clearly she didn't consent. I honestly don't know what his defence was. It was quite clearly a verdict of "well it might be an assault but we don't think it should be." I assume you are a lawyer ? - anyway, even if not, thanks for the legal clarification. The only thing I would say, having been called for jury service three times and been a witness in a criminal trial twice ( which all feels a bit above average ? ) is that I have great faith in the jury system, and in judges, and am very conscious that it is dangerous to draw conclusions unless you have heard all the evidence - and seen the witnesses giving evidence. And as you say the guidance on the interpretation of the law given by the judge will have been central to the jury's thinking. Do we know whether the jury were unanimous ? It will have been unanimous. Every verdict has to be unanimous unless directed by the Judge
|
|
|
Post by broadwayroundabout on Oct 19, 2019 8:50:00 GMT
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Oct 19, 2019 9:11:06 GMT
I assume you are a lawyer ? - anyway, even if not, thanks for the legal clarification. The only thing I would say, having been called for jury service three times and been a witness in a criminal trial twice ( which all feels a bit above average ? ) is that I have great faith in the jury system, and in judges, and am very conscious that it is dangerous to draw conclusions unless you have heard all the evidence - and seen the witnesses giving evidence. And as you say the guidance on the interpretation of the law given by the judge will have been central to the jury's thinking. Do we know whether the jury were unanimous ? It will have been unanimous. Every verdict has to be unanimous unless directed by the Judge If the verdict isn't unanimous the Judge will give directions to try and reach a majority verdict. Is that correct?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2019 9:48:10 GMT
It will have been unanimous. Every verdict has to be unanimous unless directed by the Judge If the verdict isn't unanimous the Judge will give directions to try and reach a majority verdict. Is that correct? Yep. A majority verdict is permitted only after the judge gives the jury a majority direction. A majority direction can only be given at least 2 hours and 10 minutes after retirement, although it is rare to give a majority direction after such a short period of time. Much depends on the complexity of the case and the issues involved and in a long and complex case it can be days before a majority direction is given. Often the judge will only give such a direction after discussion with the prosecution and defence advocates.
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Oct 19, 2019 13:32:46 GMT
If the verdict isn't unanimous the Judge will give directions to try and reach a majority verdict. Is that correct? Yep. A majority verdict is permitted only after the judge gives the jury a majority direction. A majority direction can only be given at least 2 hours and 10 minutes after retirement, although it is rare to give a majority direction after such a short period of time. Much depends on the complexity of the case and the issues involved and in a long and complex case it can be days before a majority direction is given. Often the judge will only give such a direction after discussion with the prosecution and defence advocates. Cheers. Thanks for that.
|
|
|
Post by redandwhitetundra on Oct 19, 2019 14:25:05 GMT
Have to admit I'm shocked and appalled by some of the comments on here.
It doesn't matter who does it - if you forcibly kiss someone, against their consent, that is wrong.
If some random bloke came up to your wife or daughter in the street and forced her to kiss him, I'm guessing you'd all be OK with that?
Seriously. Doesn't matter what was "OK" in the past, it doesn't make it OK now (and it never should have been OK!)
|
|
|
Post by georgieboy52 on Oct 19, 2019 14:32:11 GMT
Have to admit I'm shocked and appalled by some of the comments on here. It doesn't matter who does it - if you forcibly kiss someone, against their consent, that is wrong. If some random bloke came up to your wife or daughter in the street and forced her to kiss him, I'm guessing you'd all be OK with that? Seriously. Doesn't matter what was "OK" in the past, it doesn't make it OK now (and it never should have been OK!) If my wife were ok with it I'd more worried about it.
|
|