Guest neesy111 Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 We can thank the Condem government for this. No money to put people in prison you know. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGuv Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 Carroll's glass accidentally slipped out of his hand and caused a cut to Mr Cook's eyebrow, the court heard. etc Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 Seriously the law is a joke in this country though. Happy he'll be able to play, but really this doesn't set much of a precedent does it? I don't know, I'm not party to the full facts of the case. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 Seriously the law is a joke in this country though. Happy he'll be able to play, but really this doesn't set much of a precedent does it? I don't know, I'm not party to the full facts of the case. True, but he's hardly got a cleaner than clean past. I'd say it was pretty likely that he did actually glass somebody, with intent. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
clintdempsey Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/5130/acccx.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DubblyDubblyDubbly Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 Seriously the law is a joke in this country though. Happy he'll be able to play, but really this doesn't set much of a precedent does it? I don't know, I'm not party to the full facts of the case. True, but he's hardly got a cleaner than clean past. I'd say it was pretty likely that he did actually glass somebody, with intent. You might want to edit that , and slip in an "alledgedly" otherwise you might find you're the next one before the beak Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Antec Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 [stevie G's lawyer]Clearly self defence[/stevie G's lawyer] Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeyt Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/5130/acccx.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 The mackems have taken this badly, on one hand they want him sent down and they are itching for it to happen. On the other they are calling him a geordie Kevin Kyle. WTF Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 The mackems have taken this badly, on one hand they want him sent down and they are itching for it to happen. On the other they are calling him a geordie Kevin Kyle. WTF They're a special bunch, like. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueStar Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 True, but he's hardly got a cleaner than clean past. I'd say it was pretty likely that he did actually glass somebody, with intent. You simply can't take that into account when passing a verdict though, you have to look at the case on an individual basis and simply at the evidence available. You can't base it on "Well he's a dodgy bloke so he probably did it" or "Well, you're a nice lad so we'll ignore that bit of evidence and assume you're innocent." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 True, but he's hardly got a cleaner than clean past. I'd say it was pretty likely that he did actually glass somebody, with intent. You simply can't take that into account when passing a verdict though, you have to look at the case on an individual basis and simply at the evidence available. You can't base it on "Well he's a dodgy bloke so he probably did it" or "Well, you're a nice lad so we'll ignore that bit of evidence and assume you're innocent." Aye anar, and me pre-judging him like that is wrong. It just doesn't sit easy with me that he could be potentially laughing off a small fine for a pretty serious incident. (again, if it did actually happen). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan_Taylor Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/5130/acccx.jpg Awesome Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Antec Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 If he scores the winner on sunday, Pennywell could quite easily explode Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan_Taylor Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 If he scores the winner on Sunday, most of Sunderland could well disappear tbf Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 True, but he's hardly got a cleaner than clean past. I'd say it was pretty likely that he did actually glass somebody, with intent. You simply can't take that into account when passing a verdict though, you have to look at the case on an individual basis and simply at the evidence available. You can't base it on "Well he's a dodgy bloke so he probably did it" or "Well, you're a nice lad so we'll ignore that bit of evidence and assume you're innocent." Is it only civil cases where you can use previous convictions to tar someone's character? Has to be relevant of course Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Icke - Son of God Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 If he scores the winner on sunday, Pennywell could quite easily explode It doesn't take much at the best of times tbf. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 True, but he's hardly got a cleaner than clean past. I'd say it was pretty likely that he did actually glass somebody, with intent. You simply can't take that into account when passing a verdict though, you have to look at the case on an individual basis and simply at the evidence available. You can't base it on "Well he's a dodgy bloke so he probably did it" or "Well, you're a nice lad so we'll ignore that bit of evidence and assume you're innocent." Is it only civil cases where you can use previous convictions to tar someone's character? Has to be relevant of course This is what the latest law says, I'm not sure I can understand it. Seems the rules about introducing evidence of bad character have been relaxed quite a lot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Justice_Act_2003#Bad_character Whether or not it would affect sentencing I don't know. Obviously that's the most important thing when someone pleads guilty, as in this case. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElDiablo Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 Schweet. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 If he scores the winner on sunday, Pennywell could quite easily explode It doesn't take much at the best of times tbf. I'm looking forward to seeing the trouble down Washington tbf. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skirge Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 Not to sure about their tribute act mind..Nolan really can't sing http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/2015/kenandy.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theregulars Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 It's not about whether he did it or not. It depends entirely on the evidence and case presented by the prosecution, the strength of the defence's case and the application of the law to the facts as doen by a masgistrate but advised by a clerk, and thus whether the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. A magistrates' court can only give a maximum 6 months imprisonment and (I think) £5,000 grand fine, so the fact it was there in the first place meant it was never likely to be taken seriously. Don't know the details but so likely he was found guilty to be fined but not overwhelmingly so. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anderson Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 They where at the Old Firm together yesterday.. does Carroll always wear the same hoody, swear he's had it on in every photo of him this week. http://www.whoateallthepies.tv/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/PA-Photos_t_Celtic-Rangers-SPL-Old-Firm-derby-photos-2510c.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueStar Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 Probably his bail conditions, has to wear a top with his prisoner number on it so they can just chuck him straight in a cell next time he decks someone. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobby_solano Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 canny scratches on his neck like, blunt razor? or angry birds again? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts