Jump to content

Sunderland


Nobody

Recommended Posts

The direction they are given regarding reasonable doubt is that 'so they you are sure'.

 

Think of it this way, if you have a jigsaw puzzle but there a lot of pieces missing can you still tell what the picture is of ?

Good analogy, some instead of lots would've been better but A-
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well with human interpretation that will always be a problem. Human interpretation is also a strength. Is it perfect, no. FWIW I think you're at least just as likely to get a jury that convicts for the wrong reasons.

 

I just think we'd be better off with humans that are qualified and experienced in making reasoned interpretations determining the most serious criminal cases, rather than randoms off the street.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well with human interpretation that will always be a problem. Human interpretation is also a strength. Is it perfect, no. FWIW I think you're at least just as likely to get a jury that convicts for the wrong reasons.

 

I just think we'd be better off with humans that are qualified and experienced in making reasoned interpretations determining the most serious criminal cases, rather than randoms off the street.

That'll be RTG's excuse then, "It was just a jury of Humans and they could be wrong, nee one reelly knaas wot happened marra"

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well with human interpretation that will always be a problem. Human interpretation is also a strength. Is it perfect, no. FWIW I think you're at least just as likely to get a jury that convicts for the wrong reasons.

 

I just think we'd be better off with humans that are qualified and experienced in making reasoned interpretations determining the most serious criminal cases, rather than randoms off the street.

That'll be RTG's excuse then, "It was just a jury of Humans and they could be wrong, nee one reelly knaas wot happened marra"

 

Oh and for what it's worth the educated classes are just as likely to have the wool pulled over their eyes as the lower classes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well with human interpretation that will always be a problem. Human interpretation is also a strength. Is it perfect, no. FWIW I think you're at least just as likely to get a jury that convicts for the wrong reasons.

 

I just think we'd be better off with humans that are qualified and experienced in making reasoned interpretations determining the most serious criminal cases, rather than randoms off the street.

That'll be RTG's excuse then, "It was just a jury of Humans and they could be wrong, nee one reelly knaas wot happened marra"

 

"Bet at least one of 'em was a mag!"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonder if the prosecution would exclude any jurors from Sun'lun'... shame. really. Might have found an honest, outspoken, albeit possibly retarded foreman/spokesperson "Wheese lees are thees liese?"

Quoted so you can't deny you posted that.
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

  What they have done is morally reprehensible, but not illegal. I'm sure  football fans across the country will let them know what they think.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Byrne is in trouble. The club has been completely exposed here, they should count themselves very lucky if they escape punishment.

 

Only if what Johnson is saying is true. We only have his word for it so far. We really need a statement from the club, and hopefully the PFA who were also involved in his suspension being lifted. We'll see what happens at the end of the trial.

 

Also this

 

Didn't the detective involved also say that they met with the club, spoke about safeguarding young uns and they were made aware of the case etc?  I forget the exact wording, but it wasn't just that they knew that there was a case.  It seemed to indicate, that the club were aware of some of the more intricate details.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Sunderland did know about it, but still allowed him the play in front of thousands of impressionable children, surely that brings that game into disrepute, and for that they could get punished?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Sunderland did know about it, but still allowed him the play in front of thousands of impressionable children, surely that brings that game into disrepute, and for that they could get punished?

Nah.

They've acted very wrong morally, but nothing more than that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Sunderland did know about it, but still allowed him the play in front of thousands of impressionable children, surely that brings that game into disrepute, and for that they could get punished?

Nah.

They've acted very wrong morally, but nothing more than that.

 

Aye, people thinking Sunderland will face anything from the FA are clutching at straws like. He was available to play, so they played him. If he was that big of a risk, the police would have stopped it for a start

 

Not like he'll be scouring the north east for kids under 10

Link to post
Share on other sites

Johnson is back in the witness box. Kate Blackwell will resume her cross examination.

 

Jurors are being handed a photograph of Johnson in the bath to look at.

 

Great way to start the day

 

Josh Halliday ‏@JoshHalliday  2m2 minutes ago

Juror 6 told to put his nob away by the judge and warned about his future conduct within the courtroom.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...