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...
BlueStar Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 That Nolan face is a smilie waiting to happen by the way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED209 Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 is that a fag nolan has in his hand?? in a public place?? he is going to gaol!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skirge Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 is that a fag nolan has in his hand?? in a public place?? he is going to gaol!! Kna its not.. looks like it might be one of those stirer things for his drink Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 is that a fag nolan has in his hand?? in a public place?? he is going to gaol!! Kna its not.. looks like it might be one of those stirer things for his drink Yeah, it looks like one of them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 probs already posted but is this delaying the inevitable ? isn't he bailed for his latest incident which could lead to further action and next time it will be custodial. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 Nobody posted the details yet? Sentencing Carroll, Judge Esmond Faulks said: "The prosecution accept you did not intend to injure Mr Cook, so that what happened to him was effectively an accident. "In these unusual circumstances I can proceed to deal with you by way of a financial penalty." The hearing heard that Carroll had drunk between eight and nine pints of lager before he lashed out at Sunday League footballer Mr Cook. Mr Cook was squeezing through the crowd when he spilt some of his drink on a woman who was standing next to Carroll, prosecutor Peter Gair said. She verbally abused Mr Cook and poured her drink over his top. He then threw a drink in her face. Carroll then hurled the contents of his glass over Mr Cook. Mr Gair said: "What happened was not a deliberate or reckless act but as a consequence of his throwing the drink. "His hand was wet; his glass left his hand and it struck Mr Cook above his right eye." Stuart Driver, defending, said: "The fact he is a famous footballer gives him no advantage in this court room at all. "In life it gives him opportunities and luxuries but it also brings with it unwanted attention and that is something he is going to have to learn to live with. "He is a Gateshead boy. He loves the city of Newcastle and wants to live his life within it. "Liquid was deliberately thrown but the glass accidentally travelled through the air due to the glass having been made wet." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 Nobody posted the details yet? Sentencing Carroll, Judge Esmond Faulks said: "The prosecution accept you did not intend to injure Mr Cook, so that what happened to him was effectively an accident. "In these unusual circumstances I can proceed to deal with you by way of a financial penalty." The hearing heard that Carroll had drunk between eight and nine pints of lager before he lashed out at Sunday League footballer Mr Cook. Mr Cook was squeezing through the crowd when he spilt some of his drink on a woman who was standing next to Carroll, prosecutor Peter Gair said. She verbally abused Mr Cook and poured her drink over his top. He then threw a drink in her face. Carroll then hurled the contents of his glass over Mr Cook. Mr Gair said: "What happened was not a deliberate or reckless act but as a consequence of his throwing the drink. "His hand was wet; his glass left his hand and it struck Mr Cook above his right eye." Stuart Driver, defending, said: "The fact he is a famous footballer gives him no advantage in this court room at all. "In life it gives him opportunities and luxuries but it also brings with it unwanted attention and that is something he is going to have to learn to live with. "He is a Gateshead boy. He loves the city of Newcastle and wants to live his life within it. "Liquid was deliberately thrown but the glass accidentally travelled through the air due to the glass having been made wet." aye righto, and shearer slipped at filbert street. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Haris Vuckic Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 £ustice has b££n done! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gray Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 Same thing happened in that scene in trainspotting, wet glass. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveR Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 I genuinely believe this was an accident on Carrolls behalf. I don't think he would've thrown the glass intentionally... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts