|
Post by thornestein on Feb 2, 2024 20:16:34 GMT
I think it was dismissed due the possibility of not getting a conviction. It’s a very difficult offence to secure a conviction for, as the statistics show. Those pictures and audio recordings his girlfriend released were pretty horrible, but who knows how she sustained such injuries. so he didn't pay her off then...she was probably only in it for the money anyway she dropped the charges as they got back together
|
|
|
Post by cvillestokie on Feb 2, 2024 20:21:25 GMT
What did you think of the horrifying footage that was released? Not good at all. But I don't know any of the background. I certainly don't know if he raped her. Last I heard she's having his kid and they're back together. Funny old world. Plenty of victims of domestic violence stay with the person that beats the crap out of them. Her getting back together with Greenwood means little one way or the other to be honest.
|
|
|
Post by a on Feb 2, 2024 20:35:04 GMT
Chronic underfunding will do that. I still stay in touch with several bobbies who are brilliant people, but there’s only so much they can do. I saw the CPS have launched a recruitment drive which I hope happens. An unbelievably thankless task. The number of scumbags seems to have increased at a faster rate than cops and prosecutors being cut. More cops may mean more Tories behind bars ... there is a reason they are underfunded Right, and the earth is flat…
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Feb 2, 2024 20:51:32 GMT
Not good at all. But I don't know any of the background. I certainly don't know if he raped her. Last I heard she's having his kid and they're back together. Funny old world. Plenty of victims of domestic violence stay with the person that beats the crap out of them. Her getting back together with Greenwood means little one way or the other to be honest. What it does mean is that there are an awful lot of people speculating and being judgemental about a situation they actually know bugger all about.
|
|
|
Post by a on Feb 2, 2024 21:00:26 GMT
Plenty of victims of domestic violence stay with the person that beats the crap out of them. Her getting back together with Greenwood means little one way or the other to be honest. What it does mean is that there are an awful lot of people speculating and being judgemental about a situation they actually know bugger all about. True. If a bloke was rumoured to be battering his missus and she posted pictures or walked in with visible injuries I wouldn’t be having anything to do with him 👍 Each to their own
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Feb 2, 2024 21:27:23 GMT
What it does mean is that there are an awful lot of people speculating and being judgemental about a situation they actually know bugger all about. True. If a bloke was rumoured to be battering his missus and she posted pictures or walked in with visible injuries I wouldn’t be having anything to do with him 👍 Each to their own Well as you don't know either of them and they both live in Spain then your chances of ever having anything to do with him is vanishingly small. In which case it must be a relief that you haven't got a decision to make.
|
|
|
Post by foster on Feb 2, 2024 22:23:21 GMT
Fucking hell. Had to go back a page just to find out everyone is talking about Greenwood in a Bellingham thread.
|
|
|
Post by stuammo on Feb 2, 2024 22:34:36 GMT
Come on, we all know what actually happened it was just never taken to court. Like many others have said, domestic abuse breads domestic abuse and it’s a matter of time before something else happens. No matter what Bellingham has or hasn’t said.
|
|
|
Post by skip on Feb 2, 2024 22:36:17 GMT
why she still with him then fella Because many abused women stay with their abuser because of the power imbalance.
|
|
|
Post by willieeetmiout on Feb 2, 2024 22:43:51 GMT
Come on, we all know what actually happened it was just never taken to court. Like many others have said, domestic abuse breads domestic abuse and it’s a matter of time before something else happens. No matter what Bellingham has or hasn’t said. No, none of us know what actually happend. It absolutely was taken to Court. He appeared at the Magistrates' Court in police custody. Was then remanded into custody by the District Judge. He was then granted bail by a CC Judge. He appeared at a PTPH. A trial date was set. The matter was then discontinued. I don't actually believe it was discontinued. I believe the CC Judge would have entered not guilty verdicts given an indictment was likely to have been preferred at that stage. As a side note if anyone actually believes it was dropped purely because she wanted it to be they are sadly mistaken.
|
|
|
Post by stuammo on Feb 2, 2024 22:47:32 GMT
Come on, we all know what actually happened it was just never taken to court. Like many others have said, domestic abuse breads domestic abuse and it’s a matter of time before something else happens. No matter what Bellingham has or hasn’t said. No, none of us know what actually happend. It absolutely was taken to Court. He appeared at the Magistrates' Court in police custody. Was then remanded into custody by the District Judge. He was then granted bail by a CC Judge. He appeared at a PTPH. A trial date was set. The matter was then discontinued. I don't actually believe it was discontinued. I believe the CC Judge would have entered not guilty verdicts given an indictment was likely to have been preferred at that stage. As a side note if anyone actually believes it was dropped purely because she wanted it to be they are sadly mistaken. And it would never have even reached a courtroom at all if the threshold wasn’t met!
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Feb 2, 2024 22:49:48 GMT
Come on, we all know what actually happened it was just never taken to court. Like many others have said, domestic abuse breads domestic abuse and it’s a matter of time before something else happens. No matter what Bellingham has or hasn’t said. No, none of us know what actually happend. It absolutely was taken to Court. He appeared at the Magistrates' Court in police custody. Was then remanded into custody by the District Judge. He was then granted bail by a CC Judge. He appeared at a PTPH. A trial date was set. The matter was then discontinued. I don't actually believe it was discontinued. I believe the CC Judge would have entered not guilty verdicts given an indictment was likely to have been preferred at that stage. As a side note if anyone actually believes it was dropped purely because she wanted it to be they are sadly mistaken. Clear as mud
|
|
|
Post by willieeetmiout on Feb 2, 2024 22:49:51 GMT
No, none of us know what actually happend. It absolutely was taken to Court. He appeared at the Magistrates' Court in police custody. Was then remanded into custody by the District Judge. He was then granted bail by a CC Judge. He appeared at a PTPH. A trial date was set. The matter was then discontinued. I don't actually believe it was discontinued. I believe the CC Judge would have entered not guilty verdicts given an indictment was likely to have been preferred at that stage. As a side note if anyone actually believes it was dropped purely because she wanted it to be they are sadly mistaken. And it would never have even reached a courtroom at all if the threshold wasn’t met! What difference does that make? The CPS charge everyday cases where they believe there is a realistic prospect of conviction. The CPS drop cases or people are acquitted everyday because there was insufficient evidence to convict. The charge or threshold means nothing.
|
|
|
Post by willieeetmiout on Feb 2, 2024 22:50:20 GMT
No, none of us know what actually happend. It absolutely was taken to Court. He appeared at the Magistrates' Court in police custody. Was then remanded into custody by the District Judge. He was then granted bail by a CC Judge. He appeared at a PTPH. A trial date was set. The matter was then discontinued. I don't actually believe it was discontinued. I believe the CC Judge would have entered not guilty verdicts given an indictment was likely to have been preferred at that stage. As a side note if anyone actually believes it was dropped purely because she wanted it to be they are sadly mistaken. Clear as mud Something you don't understand?
|
|
|
Post by stuammo on Feb 2, 2024 22:52:57 GMT
And it would never have even reached a courtroom at all if the threshold wasn’t met! What difference does that make? The CPS charge everyday cases where they believe there is a realistic prospect of conviction. The CPS drop cases or people are acquitted everyday because there was insufficient evidence to convict. The charge or threshold means nothing. The CPS charge on cases they’re going to win because they are judged on success rates.
|
|
|
Post by upthefud on Feb 2, 2024 22:54:22 GMT
Come on, we all know what actually happened it was just never taken to court. Like many others have said, domestic abuse breads domestic abuse and it’s a matter of time before something else happens. No matter what Bellingham has or hasn’t said. No, none of us know what actually happend. It absolutely was taken to Court. He appeared at the Magistrates' Court in police custody. Was then remanded into custody by the District Judge. He was then granted bail by a CC Judge. He appeared at a PTPH. A trial date was set. The matter was then discontinued. I don't actually believe it was discontinued. I believe the CC Judge would have entered not guilty verdicts given an indictment was likely to have been preferred at that stage. As a side note if anyone actually believes it was dropped purely because she wanted it to be they are sadly mistaken. As far as I understand, she got back with him and wanted to withdraw her evidence and statements. With her evidence withdrawn there was no chance of a conviction. No idea of pay or anything involved. Greenwood is at the very least a domestic abuser and at worst a rapist. The evidence was damning. Fair play to Bellingham for calling this little cretin out.
|
|
|
Post by willieeetmiout on Feb 2, 2024 22:55:50 GMT
What difference does that make? The CPS charge everyday cases where they believe there is a realistic prospect of conviction. The CPS drop cases or people are acquitted everyday because there was insufficient evidence to convict. The charge or threshold means nothing. The CPS charge on cases they’re going to win because they are judged on success rates. 😂😂😂 You don't actually believe that do you? The Code for Crown Prosecutors must have changed recently if you are right 😂
|
|
|
Post by stuammo on Feb 2, 2024 22:58:41 GMT
The CPS charge on cases they’re going to win because they are judged on success rates. 😂😂😂 You don't actually believe that do you? The Code for Crown Prosecutors must have changed recently if you are right 😂 Absolutely. And you think Man Utd have written of £50-75m worth of talent for nothing. We all know what he is and that’s why he’s no longer in England
|
|
|
Post by willieeetmiout on Feb 2, 2024 23:00:55 GMT
No, none of us know what actually happend. It absolutely was taken to Court. He appeared at the Magistrates' Court in police custody. Was then remanded into custody by the District Judge. He was then granted bail by a CC Judge. He appeared at a PTPH. A trial date was set. The matter was then discontinued. I don't actually believe it was discontinued. I believe the CC Judge would have entered not guilty verdicts given an indictment was likely to have been preferred at that stage. As a side note if anyone actually believes it was dropped purely because she wanted it to be they are sadly mistaken. As far as I understand, she got back with him and wanted to withdraw her evidence and statements. With her evidence withdrawn there was no chance of a conviction. No idea of pay or anything involved. Greenwood is at the very least a domestic abuser and at worst a rapist. The evidence was damning. Fair play to Bellingham for calling this little cretin out. The witness withdrawing her statement means nothing in this day and age. And the more serious the charge what little it does mean diminishes even further. The CPS routinely prosecute matters, much less serious, where the witness withdraws support. They issue witness summons and witness warrants to get these 'reluctant' witnesses to Court. The telling piece of information released by the CPS was that it was not just the withdrawal of the witnesses but "new material that came to light". That material must have been pretty damaging to the CPS case. Material we will never know about.
|
|
|
Post by willieeetmiout on Feb 2, 2024 23:02:43 GMT
😂😂😂 You don't actually believe that do you? The Code for Crown Prosecutors must have changed recently if you are right 😂 Absolutely. And you think Man Utd have written of £50-75m worth of talent for nothing. We all know what he is and that’s why he’s no longer in England Thank god you aren't a Crown Prosecutor then or anywhere near the criminal justice system. I perish the thought you are ever a juror.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Feb 2, 2024 23:13:22 GMT
Something you don't understand? All of it 🤣 got the gist from your subsequent posts though 👍🏼
|
|
|
Post by a on Feb 2, 2024 23:14:27 GMT
True. If a bloke was rumoured to be battering his missus and she posted pictures or walked in with visible injuries I wouldn’t be having anything to do with him 👍 Each to their own Well as you don't know either of them and they both live in Spain then your chances of ever having anything to do with him is vanishingly small. In which case it must be a relief that you haven't got a decision to make. A very insular view to take. Personally I take an interest in many things and I’m fortunate enough to consider things beyond the end of my own front garden.
|
|
|
Post by a on Feb 2, 2024 23:17:26 GMT
Come on, we all know what actually happened it was just never taken to court. Like many others have said, domestic abuse breads domestic abuse and it’s a matter of time before something else happens. No matter what Bellingham has or hasn’t said. No, none of us know what actually happend. It absolutely was taken to Court. He appeared at the Magistrates' Court in police custody. Was then remanded into custody by the District Judge. He was then granted bail by a CC Judge. He appeared at a PTPH. A trial date was set. The matter was then discontinued. I don't actually believe it was discontinued. I believe the CC Judge would have entered not guilty verdicts given an indictment was likely to have been preferred at that stage. As a side note if anyone actually believes it was dropped purely because she wanted it to be they are sadly mistaken. What makes you believe he would have been found not guilty? I’m not trying to argue I’m just curious as to your assumption of such a hypothetical verdict.
|
|
|
Post by willieeetmiout on Feb 2, 2024 23:32:05 GMT
No, none of us know what actually happend. It absolutely was taken to Court. He appeared at the Magistrates' Court in police custody. Was then remanded into custody by the District Judge. He was then granted bail by a CC Judge. He appeared at a PTPH. A trial date was set. The matter was then discontinued. I don't actually believe it was discontinued. I believe the CC Judge would have entered not guilty verdicts given an indictment was likely to have been preferred at that stage. As a side note if anyone actually believes it was dropped purely because she wanted it to be they are sadly mistaken. What makes you believe he would have been found not guilty? I’m not trying to argue I’m just curious as to your assumption of such a hypothetical verdict. I'm not saying he would have been found not guilty I'm saying I believe he has been technically found not guilty. Basically, there are very limited ways to end a case at the Crown Court where the prosecution no longer wish to proceed. One of the ways is to discontinue the case. This is what the CPS say they did. I'm not so sure though. You can only discontinue a case if an indictment has not been preferred. An indictment is basically just a draft list of the charges and the particulars served on the Crown Court. Greenwood had a PTPH (pre trial preparation hearing). Here there is usually an indictment and the Defendant is asked to enter pleas. If not guilty, like here, a timetable is set and a trial date fixed. If as I believe above an indictment has been preferred you can't discontinue a case at the Crown Court. You can only end proceedings by a CC Judge recording not guilty verdicts, or if a jury has been sworn the jury entering not guilty verdicts.
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on Feb 2, 2024 23:40:12 GMT
What makes you believe he would have been found not guilty? I’m not trying to argue I’m just curious as to your assumption of such a hypothetical verdict. I'm not saying he would have been found not guilty I'm saying I believe he has been technically found not guilty. Basically, there are very limited ways to end a case at the Crown Court where the prosecution no longer wish to proceed. One of the ways is to discontinue the case. This is what the CPS say they did. I'm not so sure though. You can only discontinue a case if an indictment has not been preferred. An indictment is basically just a draft list of the charges and the particulars served on the Crown Court. Greenwood had a PTPH (pre trial preparation hearing). Here there is usually an indictment and the Defendant is asked to enter pleas. If not guilty, like here, a timetable is set and a trial date fixed. If as I believe above an indictment has been preferred you can't discontinue a case at the Crown Court. You can only end proceedings by a CC Judge recording not guilty verdicts, or if a jury has been sworn the jury entering not guilty verdicts. Of course the CPS can 'discontinue' a case at any point. Eg offer no evidence. What's the Judge going to do say 'No I'm going to carry on even without any prosecution or evidence'?
|
|
|
Post by willieeetmiout on Feb 2, 2024 23:48:47 GMT
I'm not saying he would have been found not guilty I'm saying I believe he has been technically found not guilty. Basically, there are very limited ways to end a case at the Crown Court where the prosecution no longer wish to proceed. One of the ways is to discontinue the case. This is what the CPS say they did. I'm not so sure though. You can only discontinue a case if an indictment has not been preferred. An indictment is basically just a draft list of the charges and the particulars served on the Crown Court. Greenwood had a PTPH (pre trial preparation hearing). Here there is usually an indictment and the Defendant is asked to enter pleas. If not guilty, like here, a timetable is set and a trial date fixed. If as I believe above an indictment has been preferred you can't discontinue a case at the Crown Court. You can only end proceedings by a CC Judge recording not guilty verdicts, or if a jury has been sworn the jury entering not guilty verdicts. Of course the CPS can 'discontinue' a case at any point. Eg offer no evidence. What's the Judge going to do say 'No I'm going to carry on even without any prosecution or evidence'? No they can't. Discontinuance and offering no evidence are different things. If you don't believe me then read the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, the Criminal Justice Act 1967 and R v Renshaw (1989) then you can come back and say "oh you were right'.
|
|
|
Post by shakermaker on Feb 2, 2024 23:52:32 GMT
why she still with him then fella Because many abused women stay with their abuser because of the power imbalance. Or the money.
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on Feb 2, 2024 23:57:12 GMT
Of course the CPS can 'discontinue' a case at any point. Eg offer no evidence. What's the Judge going to do say 'No I'm going to carry on even without any prosecution or evidence'? No they can't. Discontinuance and offering no evidence are different things. If you don't believe me then read the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, the Criminal Justice Act 1967 and R v Renshaw (1989) then you can come back and say "oh you were right'. Semantics. Amounts to the same thing in layman's terms. If the CPS offers no evidence is the case discontinued or not? I'll wait while you climb down off your high horse and say 'you're right'.
|
|
|
Post by PotteringThrough on Feb 2, 2024 23:59:40 GMT
14 goals in 19 games in La Liga is some going to be fair though.
Keep being you Jude!
|
|
|
Post by willieeetmiout on Feb 3, 2024 0:03:52 GMT
No they can't. Discontinuance and offering no evidence are different things. If you don't believe me then read the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, the Criminal Justice Act 1967 and R v Renshaw (1989) then you can come back and say "oh you were right'. Semantics. Amounts to the same thing in layman's terms. If the CPS offers no evidence is the case discontinued or not? I'll wait while you climb down off your high horse and say 'you're right'. It's not semantics. Discontinuance allows for proceedings to be revived. Offering no evidence in nearly all cases means they can't as for either way offences at the Magistrates Court it is treated as an acquittal and at the Crown Court not guilty verdicts are entered. Why are you arguing with me about this when you clearly don't understand it.
|
|