|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Feb 4, 2022 11:08:55 GMT
Custody Time Limits apply- the ‘earliest’ trial date is next June, he’s been on remand since last August. Defendants that are ‘presumed innocent’ cannot be detained beyond a fixed period (was 6 months, extended due to Covid to 8) without exceptional reason. Thank your local Conservative MP in true blue Stoke for reducing the criminal justice system to rubble. Well before Covid complicated matters. Even in March 2020 there were 40,000 Crown Court cases outstanding. This doesn't make sense as all defendants are presumed innocent? I guess it is something to do with the lack of prison spaces. They have also recently given JP's new powers to convict defendants to take the pressure off the judiciary system. In short the system is totally fooked and unfit for purpose and bad consequences start to happen (are already happening obvs). It will get worse before it gets better.
|
|
|
Post by gaznandi on May 23, 2022 15:35:25 GMT
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Jul 5, 2022 5:37:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Jul 5, 2022 8:16:16 GMT
Mendy is only 27, so another one on the list, or it's a girl wanting money out of someone
|
|
|
Post by flea79 on Jul 5, 2022 8:33:39 GMT
Mendy is only 27, so another one on the list, or it's a girl wanting money out of someone twitter is naming three potential suspects, one seems to be standing out based on some tweets from journalists prior to the arrest i could possibly suggest whom in open forum
|
|
|
Post by noustie on Jul 5, 2022 8:38:13 GMT
Mendy is only 27, so another one on the list, or it's a girl wanting money out of someone CSI Twitter have their man apparently - one London club's Twitter has been very quiet, has a 29 year old international going the world cup and they've been on holiday to the Med in the timeframe mentioned. It could be them or it could be loads of bampots thinking they're Poirot lumping on so seems unfair at this stage having his name out there as it'll stick even if it isn't him.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jul 5, 2022 8:57:06 GMT
Apparently it was a Partey that went wrong
|
|
|
Post by GeneralFaye on Jul 5, 2022 9:31:09 GMT
Do we know what's happened with Gylfi Sigurdson? Gone very quiet on that one.
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Jul 5, 2022 10:14:16 GMT
Do we know what's happened with Gylfi Sigurdson? Gone very quiet on that one. Police still investigating the matter, hence it being so quiet. He was bailed again a while back until July 16th, so there won't be any news whilst they're still investigating the matter. Looks like he's agreed a 1.7mill a year deal with Galatasaray as well
|
|
|
Post by flea79 on Jul 5, 2022 10:19:19 GMT
Apparently it was a Partey that went wrong have you heard the phrase contempt of court?
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Jul 5, 2022 10:53:05 GMT
Apparently it was a Partey that went wrong have you heard the phrase contempt of court?
As of yet there is no court case and wannabee hasn't named anyone that any Judge has said has to remain anonymous or is under 18..or even given his opinion as to whether or not he believes anyone to be guilty.
That post is in no way contempt of court i'm afraid....hence the reason there are hundreds of people naming the alleged offender on twitter and twitter not deleting those tweets. No offence is being committed by those people.
So, he probably has heard of contempt of court but is probably also aware that his post doesn't fall under contempt of court.
As you were.
|
|
|
Post by flea79 on Jul 5, 2022 11:03:02 GMT
have you heard the phrase contempt of court? As of yet there is no court case and wannabee hasn't named anyone that any Judge has said has to remain anonymous or is under 18..or even given his opinion as to whether or not he believes anyone to be guilty. That post is in no way contempt of court i'm afraid....hence the reason there are hundreds of people naming the alleged offender on twitter and twitter not deleting those tweets. No offence is being committed by those people. So, he probably has heard of contempt of court but is probably also aware that his post doesn't fall under contempt of court. As you were.
sorry rumpole! it was my attempt at humour, will close the door on my way out!!!
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Jul 5, 2022 11:07:21 GMT
As of yet there is no court case and wannabee hasn't named anyone that any Judge has said has to remain anonymous or is under 18..or even given his opinion as to whether or not he believes anyone to be guilty. That post is in no way contempt of court i'm afraid....hence the reason there are hundreds of people naming the alleged offender on twitter and twitter not deleting those tweets. No offence is being committed by those people. So, he probably has heard of contempt of court but is probably also aware that his post doesn't fall under contempt of court. As you were.
sorry rumpole! it was my attempt at humour, will close the door on my way out!!!
Probably less to do with your humour mate and more to do with me being a pedantic old fart (and when i say "Probably", i actually mean "100% definitely")
My bad!
|
|
|
Post by flea79 on Jul 5, 2022 11:07:59 GMT
sorry rumpole! it was my attempt at humour, will close the door on my way out!!! Probably less to do with your humour mate and more to do with me being a pedantic old fart (and when i say "Probably", i actually mean "100% definitely) My bad!
hence Rumpole! (of the bailey, kids google it)
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Jul 5, 2022 11:10:40 GMT
Probably less to do with your humour mate and more to do with me being a pedantic old fart (and when i say "Probably", i actually mean "100% definitely) My bad!
hence Rumpole! (of the bailey, kids google it)
Rumpole could only dream of being as grumpy and beligerent as me!
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Jul 5, 2022 11:14:31 GMT
As of yet there is no court case and wannabee hasn't named anyone that any Judge has said has to remain anonymous or is under 18..or even given his opinion as to whether or not he believes anyone to be guilty. That post is in no way contempt of court i'm afraid....hence the reason there are hundreds of people naming the alleged offender on twitter and twitter not deleting those tweets. No offence is being committed by those people. So, he probably has heard of contempt of court but is probably also aware that his post doesn't fall under contempt of court. As you were.
sorry rumpole! it was my attempt at humour, will close the door on my way out!!! 🤣Rumpole
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Jul 5, 2022 12:20:17 GMT
You shouldn’t laugh but someone went on aforementioned wiki page and added
“And a dirty rapist” to his bio
It was quickly taken down
|
|
|
Post by gaznandi on Jan 13, 2023 12:38:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by andylgr on Jan 13, 2023 12:45:04 GMT
Wonder if city will have him back.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Jan 13, 2023 12:50:36 GMT
Most charges not guilty
Some charges couldn’t make a decision.
On the face of it seems like buyers remorse.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jan 13, 2023 13:18:14 GMT
Wonder if city will have him back. Hardly as he has a Trial coming up in June on 1 charge of Rape and 1 charge of attempted Rape As his contract with City expires on 30th June 2023 its highly unlikely we'll ever see him play for City again
|
|
|
Post by Eggybread on Jan 13, 2023 14:23:51 GMT
Please stop called Manchester city ,city.
|
|
|
Post by flea79 on Jan 13, 2023 15:05:01 GMT
so he cant be found guilty on the counts yet his reputation is shattered and his lucrative career is destroyed (yes he might face retrial and has further trials coming up)
i do believe in these cases all parties should have anonymity until the conclusion of a case, if guilty then its feeding time but if found innocent the accused will never shake the stigma with such a charge, look at Ched Evans and the circus that followed his successful appeal and retrial
it just does not sit well with me, quite rightly the accuser remains anonymous but the accused should also be offered this until a guilty plea or verdict is given
i suppose the issue then comes at where the line is drawn on anonymity in crimes and who gets this "protection"
look at the case of Christopher Jeffries and how an innocent man who was only interviewed by the police was destroyed by the media
i dont need anybody with me for a conversation do I!
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Jan 13, 2023 19:16:53 GMT
so he cant be found guilty on the counts yet his reputation is shattered and his lucrative career is destroyed (yes he might face retrial and has further trials coming up) i do believe in these cases all parties should have anonymity until the conclusion of a case, if guilty then its feeding time but if found innocent the accused will never shake the stigma with such a charge, look at Ched Evans and the circus that followed his successful appeal and retrial it just does not sit well with me, quite rightly the accuser remains anonymous but the accused should also be offered this until a guilty plea or verdict is given i suppose the issue then comes at where the line is drawn on anonymity in crimes and who gets this "protection" look at the case of Christopher Jeffries and how an innocent man who was only interviewed by the police was destroyed by the media i dont need anybody with me for a conversation do I! Something doesn't add up. I'm not familiar with the case, but I assume 6 different women accused him of rape? At what point do the accusations, in effect, form part of the evidence? If you said to me "X raped Y", I would probably say "that's a heck of an accusation, but I'm going to wait for the courts to deal with that". If you said "X raped A, B, C, D, E and Y", I would probably say "sick evil bastard". Either 6 women have lied, perhaps in collusion or we have had an unforgivable miscarriage of justice.
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Jan 13, 2023 19:20:10 GMT
so he cant be found guilty on the counts yet his reputation is shattered and his lucrative career is destroyed (yes he might face retrial and has further trials coming up) i do believe in these cases all parties should have anonymity until the conclusion of a case, if guilty then its feeding time but if found innocent the accused will never shake the stigma with such a charge, look at Ched Evans and the circus that followed his successful appeal and retrial it just does not sit well with me, quite rightly the accuser remains anonymous but the accused should also be offered this until a guilty plea or verdict is given i suppose the issue then comes at where the line is drawn on anonymity in crimes and who gets this "protection" look at the case of Christopher Jeffries and how an innocent man who was only interviewed by the police was destroyed by the media i dont need anybody with me for a conversation do I! Something doesn't add up. I'm not familiar with the case, but I assume 6 different women accused him of rape? At what point do the accusations, in effect, form part of the evidence? If you said to me "X raped Y", I would probably say "that's a heck of an accusation, but I'm going to wait for the courts to deal with that". If you said "X raped A, B, C, D, E and Y", I would probably say "sick evil bastard". Either 6 women have lied, perhaps in collusion or we have had an unforgivable miscarriage of justice. Let’s face it, the bloke isn’t short of a bob or two if you know what I mean
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jan 13, 2023 23:16:24 GMT
so he cant be found guilty on the counts yet his reputation is shattered and his lucrative career is destroyed (yes he might face retrial and has further trials coming up) i do believe in these cases all parties should have anonymity until the conclusion of a case, if guilty then its feeding time but if found innocent the accused will never shake the stigma with such a charge, look at Ched Evans and the circus that followed his successful appeal and retrial it just does not sit well with me, quite rightly the accuser remains anonymous but the accused should also be offered this until a guilty plea or verdict is given i suppose the issue then comes at where the line is drawn on anonymity in crimes and who gets this "protection" look at the case of Christopher Jeffries and how an innocent man who was only interviewed by the police was destroyed by the media i dont need anybody with me for a conversation do I! The rationale is if you name the alleged abuser you may get others to come forward which could strengthen the case and the new people coming forward would not have made accusations on their own Maybe it backfires in some cases It is an alleged offence notoriously difficult to prosecute about 1% of Rapes reported get to Trial, I have no idea of % who are convicted Some of the difficulties are proving non consent, there are usually no witnesses The alleged Victim will be subjected to cross examination not only over the alleged offence but her entire sexual history and it can take up to 4 years to get to Court if it passes the CPS Test. The defendant obviously has legal representation, the alleged victims does not. Not many people want to go through this process
|
|
|
Post by foster on Jan 14, 2023 6:40:02 GMT
so he cant be found guilty on the counts yet his reputation is shattered and his lucrative career is destroyed (yes he might face retrial and has further trials coming up) i do believe in these cases all parties should have anonymity until the conclusion of a case, if guilty then its feeding time but if found innocent the accused will never shake the stigma with such a charge, look at Ched Evans and the circus that followed his successful appeal and retrial it just does not sit well with me, quite rightly the accuser remains anonymous but the accused should also be offered this until a guilty plea or verdict is given i suppose the issue then comes at where the line is drawn on anonymity in crimes and who gets this "protection" look at the case of Christopher Jeffries and how an innocent man who was only interviewed by the police was destroyed by the media i dont need anybody with me for a conversation do I! Something doesn't add up. I'm not familiar with the case, but I assume 6 different women accused him of rape? At what point do the accusations, in effect, form part of the evidence? If you said to me "X raped Y", I would probably say "that's a heck of an accusation, but I'm going to wait for the courts to deal with that". If you said "X raped A, B, C, D, E and Y", I would probably say "sick evil bastard". Either 6 women have lied, perhaps in collusion or we have had an unforgivable miscarriage of justice. Collusion or money grabbers jumping on the bandwagon. Either way, he's innocent until proven guilty and I don't have any issue with him playing football, unless that conviction ever changes.
|
|
|
Post by shakermaker on Jan 14, 2023 9:26:13 GMT
Something doesn't add up. I'm not familiar with the case, but I assume 6 different women accused him of rape? At what point do the accusations, in effect, form part of the evidence? If you said to me "X raped Y", I would probably say "that's a heck of an accusation, but I'm going to wait for the courts to deal with that". If you said "X raped A, B, C, D, E and Y", I would probably say "sick evil bastard". Either 6 women have lied, perhaps in collusion or we have had an unforgivable miscarriage of justice. Collusion or money grabbers jumping on the bandwagon. Either way, he's innocent until proven guilty and I don't have any issue with him playing football, unless that conviction ever changes. If he’s found not guilty at his remaining trials, guaranteed he will have a club within a fortnight.
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Jan 14, 2023 9:56:43 GMT
Something doesn't add up. I'm not familiar with the case, but I assume 6 different women accused him of rape? At what point do the accusations, in effect, form part of the evidence? If you said to me "X raped Y", I would probably say "that's a heck of an accusation, but I'm going to wait for the courts to deal with that". If you said "X raped A, B, C, D, E and Y", I would probably say "sick evil bastard". Either 6 women have lied, perhaps in collusion or we have had an unforgivable miscarriage of justice. Collusion or money grabbers jumping on the bandwagon. Either way, he's innocent until proven guilty and I don't have any issue with him playing football, unless that conviction ever changes. His occupation is irrelevant. I strongly agree that we are all innocent until proven guilty; it's the exact reason why both parties should be given anonymity. However, something is very off in this case. If found guilty, he would have been forever known as a fairly prolific serial rapist. You say bandwagon jumpers, but I think only a tiny percentage of people would jump on a 'rape case bandwagon'. Imagine the intense scrutiny you would have to go through, with no guarantee of any returns. Imagine the potential for your name to be released and you be trolled by people on the internet. Imagine you travel to court everyday, spending money on fuel, parking and food etc just waiting for the fabricated bandwagon you jumped on to fall apart. So either, there's a serious miscarriage of justice and 6 women have been horribly wronged or there needs to be a cursory glance at how 6 people could all make the same accusation without a single guilty verdict.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Jan 15, 2023 12:55:55 GMT
so he cant be found guilty on the counts yet his reputation is shattered and his lucrative career is destroyed (yes he might face retrial and has further trials coming up) i do believe in these cases all parties should have anonymity until the conclusion of a case, if guilty then its feeding time but if found innocent the accused will never shake the stigma with such a charge, look at Ched Evans and the circus that followed his successful appeal and retrial it just does not sit well with me, quite rightly the accuser remains anonymous but the accused should also be offered this until a guilty plea or verdict is given i suppose the issue then comes at where the line is drawn on anonymity in crimes and who gets this "protection" look at the case of Christopher Jeffries and how an innocent man who was only interviewed by the police was destroyed by the media i dont need anybody with me for a conversation do I! Something doesn't add up. I'm not familiar with the case, but I assume 6 different women accused him of rape? At what point do the accusations, in effect, form part of the evidence? If you said to me "X raped Y", I would probably say "that's a heck of an accusation, but I'm going to wait for the courts to deal with that". If you said "X raped A, B, C, D, E and Y", I would probably say "sick evil bastard". Either 6 women have lied, perhaps in collusion or we have had an unforgivable miscarriage of justice. Rape is incredibly hard to prove beyond all reasonable doubt as it is often “he says, she says” and there is often no helpful evidence. It can be complex, where the alleged victim is game for it then changes their mind and voices this (sometimes half way through sex) and if the alleged perpetrator doesn’t immediately stop, it is technically rape, but very different from a violent rape by a stranger being jumped (and far less physical evidence). Just because he hasn’t been found guilty, it doesn’t mean he didn’t do it. Rightly, the criminal burden of proof is very high and it makes rape about the hardest of crimes to prove.
|
|