Guest Phillipealbert Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 He admitted to the club that he was guilty of some of the crimes but later and at numorous times he pleaded not guilty to those crimes. Surely the club should have informed the police about his confessions? Spot on. The club have broken the law. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figures 1-0 Football Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 He admitted to the club that he was guilty of some of the crimes but later and at numorous times he pleaded not guilty to those crimes. Surely the club should have informed the police about his confessions? Spot on. The club have broken the law. He had already confessed the same information to the police though, so it is nothing new. Sunderland should have sacked him as soon as he confessed to kissing a 15 year old girl, there is no other possible outcome for that conversation other than sacking him with immediate effect. Legally they have done nothing wrong, in the football rule book they have done nothing wrong, but morally they have acted despicably. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbnufc Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 He admitted to the club that he was guilty of some of the crimes but later and at numorous times he pleaded not guilty to those crimes. Surely the club should have informed the police about his confessions? He told the police about the kiss in his interview. He told the club about "it all", which I assume is the kiss as well. They didnt withhold any info. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
1964 Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 if he were a teacher he would have been suspended pending the outcome of the investigation. It would not prejudice his case at all it would just be the moral thing to do. They suspended him then un-suspended him on request from the management. His words under oath Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Didn't realise he used that monkey emoji when he said 'ages then' about her 16th birthday. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaizero Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Didn't realise he used that monkey emoji when he said 'ages then' about her 16th birthday. Somehow makes it even worse Fuck that emoji. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Phillipealbert Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Didn't realise he used that monkey emoji when he said 'ages then' about her 16th birthday. Somehow makes it even worse f*** that emoji. Using the monkey emoji on a young girl is the electronic version of Werther's Originals and a van with a stained matress inside. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED209 Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 He admitted to the club that he was guilty of some of the crimes but later and at numorous times he pleaded not guilty to those crimes. Surely the club should have informed the police about his confessions? Spot on. The club have broken the law. What law would they have broken exactly? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Ages then lol http://i.imgur.com/PfGwGuj.png Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
1964 Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Of course they haven't broken any law. Morally bankrupt and not at all 'classy' - yes Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbnufc Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Of course they haven't broken any law. Morally bankrupt and not at all 'classy' - yes They stayed in the Prem, that's all that matters Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 If Sunderland had sacked him before the trial started, they would have prejudiced his case. i.e., ''his club sacked him therefore he is guilty''. He would then have been in a position to claim that he could not get an unbiased jury. As the case would have been seen to have been pre-judged, and MAY have been able to walk away from it all Everyone is entitled to a fair trial, and you are supposed to be innocent until proved otherwise. That applies to everyone, even if you are scum and lower than a snakes belly. Sunderland would have had legal advice on how to conduct themselves. As soon as he pleaded guilty to two counts, Sunderland could then sack him. You can rightly sack someone, provided you have genuine belief (in this case, an admission) that they have committed a serious offence and it impacts the company (serious damage to reputation). Any two-bit lawyer knows this, and the club would have been informed of this fact. The fact that the let him play, let alone sack him, shows that they would rather play a known child sex offender than risk relegation. This is absolutely wrong, and the club should be heavily fined. When other fans (rightly) lay into the mackems with paedo chants, they will not have a leg to stand on. By continuing to support the club, the are supporting an organisation that has knowingly harboured a paedophile. They really are a disgusting club. Not to mention a sizeable minority of their fans chanting things that attempted to made a joke of the situation. Good on some of their fans who stood up and said it was disgraceful. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shays Given Tim Flowers Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 How can the jury be sure "beyond all doubt" (or whatever the quote is) to give a guilty verdict? I mean, I'm not and I dont see how I would be even if I was in the courtroom throughout the trial. There's literally no evidence. Surely he'll be found not guilty? This is what I've been asking for days. Suppose the jury must just decide who to side with in all these paedophile cases where the only witness is the victim... I honestly don't know. It's a beauty contest, if they don't like him they will pot him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dogmatix Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Of course they haven't broken any law. Morally bankrupt and not at all 'classy' - yes YES Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Do a football club not have a particular duty of care or whatever you want to call it given their special status in the community and with young people? If it was the groundskeeper I'm pretty fucking sure he'd not have been near the club until his trial was resolved like. I haven't and won't go overboard on Sunderland's actions but it does honestly seem like the FA or PL (or both) should be asking them some very serious questions about this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
1964 Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Do a football club not have a particular duty of care or whatever you want to call it given their special status in the community and with young people? If it was the groundskeeper I'm pretty f***ing sure he'd not have been near the club until his trial was resolved like. I haven't and won't go overboard on Sunderland's actions but it does honestly seem like the FA or PL (or both) should be asking them some very serious questions about this. Yes but it will be a moral decision I imagine not a legal one and I doubt the FA have any specific rules for such circumstances Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Do a football club not have a particular duty of care or whatever you want to call it given their special status in the community and with young people? If it was the groundskeeper I'm pretty f***ing sure he'd not have been near the club until his trial was resolved like. I haven't and won't go overboard on Sunderland's actions but it does honestly seem like the FA or PL (or both) should be asking them some very serious questions about this. Yes but it will be a moral decision I imagine not a legal one and I doubt the FA have any specific rules for such circumstances a duty of care over children in and around the football club? i'd like to think there's a fucking rule about it somewhere tbh Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 How can the jury be sure "beyond all doubt" (or whatever the quote is) to give a guilty verdict? I mean, I'm not and I dont see how I would be even if I was in the courtroom throughout the trial. There's literally no evidence. Surely he'll be found not guilty? This is what I've been asking for days. Suppose the jury must just decide who to side with in all these paedophile cases where the only witness is the victim... I honestly don't know. Yeah, while I reckon he probably did have a feel, even with that I wouldnt be sure 100% Can he get time for the other two things he pleaded guilty for? Reckon after all this we might see him with community service and a fine(?) The test is not "all doubt", it's "reasonable doubt". No offence like, but you are demonstrating the main problem with the jury system, normal people struggle to understand where the line is between reasonable doubt and absolutely no doubt, juries can be easily swayed too far to the side of caution by a good barrister representing someone that can afford one. The jury don't have to have been there and seen it to convict. It's a balancing exercise, one persons word against another can and often does lead to criminal convictions, especially when there is evidence the tips the balance. The jury can weigh the content of the messages, the admission of intent and everything else in the balance. It's not 'pics or it didn't happen'. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shays Given Tim Flowers Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 You know you can get very good barristers for free right. In most cases if the prosecution were sufficiently resourced and the police had the resources to investigate properly nobody would ever be acquitted. The burden is exactly what it ought to be. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UncleBingo Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 If Sunderland had sacked him before the trial started, they would have prejudiced his case. i.e., ''his club sacked him therefore he is guilty''. He would then have been in a position to claim that he could not get an unbiased jury. As the case would have been seen to have been pre-judged, and MAY have been able to walk away from it all Everyone is entitled to a fair trial, and you are supposed to be innocent until proved otherwise. That applies to everyone, even if you are scum and lower than a snakes belly. Sunderland would have had legal advice on how to conduct themselves. As soon as he pleaded guilty to two counts, Sunderland could then sack him. They did didn't they? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsunami Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 One of his biggest obstacles is by changing his plea on the first 2 charges and evidence provided has shown that he has lied about certain events makes him fundamentally an unreliable witness. He's trying to overcome this by seemingly being open and honest under cross examination whilst denying that any other than kissing happened and that he got himself a bit aroused. He's therefore giving "full" disclosure for actions that he's pleaded guilty for in the hope for credibility to be given for his not guilty pleas to the other 2 charges. As the burden is for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt he's trying to claw back his position. The girl has come across very well however, if there's any doubt he'll more than likely be found not guilty imo. The Judges summing up and advice to the jury will be interesting. As for Safc, they really shouldn't have been playing him under the circumstances. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shays Given Tim Flowers Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 I think he will be deemed credible about pleading on the day. As shitty as it is one can understand why he did it. Maximise earnings before he's finished. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bhoywhonder Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Legally they have done nothing wrong, in the football rule book they have done nothing wrong, but morally they have acted despicably. Despiclassy? :monkeysheedemoji: lol Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sho Time Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Ages then lol http://i.imgur.com/PfGwGuj.png :lol: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 You know you can get very good barristers for free right. In most cases if the prosecution were sufficiently resourced and the police had the resources to investigate properly nobody would ever be acquitted. The burden is exactly what it ought to be. I agree, it appears to me that the burden is what it ought to be. My issue is that I think that a lot of the people plucked off the street for jury duty don't have the capacity to grasp where that burden lies. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts