Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

 

News of Ex Players

Kev The Rat said:
Not necessarily - see my post above

The employer may have had no choice but to sack and the courts would take this into account.
Click to expand...
case law (common law) is by nature mailable and changes over time ( it’s why it’s great) - do you recall if it was a supreme court (can I still call it high court pls) ruling?

if this case law isn’t overturned or superseded. It does open it up to all kinds of fraud and malpractice.

Primary school teachers will have to be nice to everyone and never get into a spat or their job is gone with no pay on one malicious report.
 
Paul Rideout said:
case law (common law) is by nature mailable and changes over time ( it’s why it’s great) - do you recall if it was a supreme court (can I still call it high court pls) ruling?

if this case law isn’t overturned or superseded. It does open it up to all kinds of fraud and malpractice.

Primary school teachers will have to be nice to everyone and never get into a spat or their job is gone with no pay on one malicious report.
Click to expand...
Like I said above - people would never get sacked in your theoretical rampant malpractice - and they’d all be at home on full pay. So they’re making out either way.
 
The binman chronicles said:
They might have had a witness who due to age/mental state might not have withstood the barrage from the defence etc. which will end up losing the case. You guys are just taking the 'innocent until proven guilty" line as a totally factual statement, when we know there have been and will always be people who get away with crimes that they have committed.

All that has happened is a person has not been charged with a suspected offence. If you want to say in the eyes of the law that person is innocent, fine, but I'd imagine in the eyes of the law that worked on his case will be pretty pissed off with the decision.
Click to expand...
But the innocent until proven guilty line is a totally factual statement, he is totally factually innocent right now, like it or not that's the reality of this.
If they could of found him guilty I'm sure they would of tried, they didn't even try, so he is innocent, there is no gray areas on this, it's black and white.
 
Pabbers said:
Oh yes it does.
Innocent untill prven guilty.....they have not proven any Guilt = Innocent, thats how it works.
Click to expand...
So if someone doesn't go down for the crime then the crime never happened?

Innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the law, it doesn't retroactively reverse what he's done and admitted to I will add.

Facts as we know them are the girl was underage and he confessed sleeping with her. The law is concerned over whether he knew or not but the facts remain that he's not innocent.
 

4737carlin said:
But the innocent until proven guilty line is a totally factual statement, he is totally factually innocent right now, like it or not that's the reality of this.
If they could of found him guilty I'm sure they would of tried, they didn't even try, so he is innocent, there is no gray areas on this, it's black and white.
Click to expand...


What does "factually innocent" mean?

He's considered innocent from a legal perspective because he hasn't been given a guilty verdict.

Legal innocence and actual innocence are different things.
 
That's clutching somewhat with respect the whole could have got £40m of whatever for Sigurdsson. Final year of deal and still emerging from Covid- the only real tangible thing that can be claimed is the amortisation and wages IMO.
 
Efcjake said:
What does "factually innocent" mean?

He's considered innocent from a legal perspective because he hasn't been given a guilty verdict.

Legal innocence and actual innocence are different things.
Click to expand...
They might be, but in law he is innnocent, thats it.

What i find strange in all this is how many people seem to be gutted he hasnt been found guilty, not because they feel sorry for the girl, or his wife, they just want him to be guilty so they can moan about him, its almost like some were looking forward to it and now cant accept he is innocent
 
4737carlin said:
Which basically means he is innocent as far as the law goes, he wont have a criminal record
Click to expand...

Which is what I said initially. He is innocent until proven guilty as the law dictates, ofcourse.

I'm not saying he isn't innocent by the way, but just backing up the point Connor was making.
 

Ruairi77 said:
He cant be found innocent of something he hasn't been charged with.
He is, there fore, innocent.
If a shop keeper accuses you of stealing sweets but there is no evidence or charges, you're innocent.
Click to expand...
But I wouldn't be innocent would I, because I did steal the sweets. I just wouldn't have been found innocent or guilty by a court. As I put in an earlier post he is innocent until proven guilty as our law dictates, but backing up Connor's point of just because he hasn't been charged it doesnt mean nothing has happened. Or equally, it doesnt prove something happened either.
 
Efcjake said:
You do all know that he never challenged the fact that he slept with this girl right?

That's not in dispute.

Can't work out you're all declaring his innocence.
Click to expand...
But then if he never challenged it when is there no case to answer now, I find that odd, maybe she was of legal age afterall, nobody is thinking about that, we just dont know.
 
4737carlin said:
They might be, but in law he is innnocent, thats it.

What i find strange in all this is how many people seem to be gutted he hasnt been found guilty, not because they feel sorry for the girl, or his wife, they just want him to be guilty so they can moan about him, its almost like some were looking forward to it and now cant accept he is innocent
Click to expand...
And when you specify that legally he's considered innocent then I've no argument but let's not pretend he's completely innocent in reality and did nothing wrong.

He did what he was accused of. How much he knew of it and what could be proven from that is the only part in question here.

I've not a clue who you're talking about at the end of the post. All I've seen is people declaring his innocence and more reasonable people saying "Hold on, he admitted he did do it".

This concept of "Well he didn't get charged so you have to say he's innocent now" is utter nonsense. People do crimes and don't go down for them all the time. Being sentenced or not doesn't change the fact they did the crime.
 

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top