Shays Given Tim Flowers Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shays Given Tim Flowers Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 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 ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 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 More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 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 More sharing options...
madras Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 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 More sharing options...
madras Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 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 More sharing options...
sbnufc Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 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 More sharing options...
Altamullan Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Let's get shot of jurys all together. Judge Judy decides! That said, what if she's nonce-(im)partial? A bit of a perve too... https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/cf/83/f8/cf83f8e9b9dbfb90fc590efb9b24e444.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaus Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 'The lass is a mag n'al, seducing nonce footballas for money n lols' Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Plastic mag if you're from Durham marra. Her fatha stood on the Fulwell before 1992 when Keegan invented NUFC. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altamullan Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 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?" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 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 More sharing options...
Altamullan Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 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 More sharing options...
Dogmatix Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 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. 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 More sharing options...
bhoywhonder Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 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" So the "DiCanio Defence"? I'm detecting a pattern...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lush Vlad Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 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 More sharing options...
morpeth mag Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Wonder if he was allowed to hold the hand of the mascots on match day whilst the investigations were ongoing? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
54 Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 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 More sharing options...
Nobody Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 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 More sharing options...
xLiaaamx Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 If I had kids there I'd probably think it's a bit more than morally wrong tbh Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbnufc Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 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 More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Think the FA need better rules and guidelines for this type of thing. Of course if a player is pleading his innocence and he's out on bail, there's nothing they know to say he'ss guilty he's going to be able to play. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbnufc Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 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 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 So what's the purpose of looking at his knob, or photos of him in the bath? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 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 More sharing options...
Recommended Posts