Jump to content

Mason Greenwood


mouldy_uk

Recommended Posts

Just now, Happinesstan said:

I believe 'Claimant' is the term used.

People in here have already convicted him because he's a young, wealthy footballer.

Claimant?! Ffs! Lol! She hasn’t even ‘claimed’ anything according to her fathers statement- her phone was hacked and the evidence revealed. She didn’t go to the police. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Happinesstan said:

I believe 'Claimant' is the term used.

People in here have already convicted him because he's a young, wealthy footballer.

 

 

 

The bloody face could have been an accident.  :sad:

Link to post
Share on other sites

They've convicted him because there's substantial evidence he's done it. This isn't just some accusatory tweet.

 

Fair enough, it's not literally 100% proof, but it's clearly beyond the line of us playing semantics on whether or not she's a victim[emoji38]

 

 

 

Edited by Hanshithispantz

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Happinesstan said:

Trouble is, until a conviction is achieved, she's not legally a victim, so accusing people of victim blame, whilst a perfectly natural emotional response, is a little premature. 

 

Wrong. The Police and CPS both refer to the person(s) as a victim prior to a conviction.

 

Claimant is in relation to a civil case, not criminal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said:

 

Wrong. The Police and CPS both refer to the person(s) as a victim prior to a conviction.

 

Claimant is in relation to a civil case, not criminal.

I did edit to say I can't remember exactly as I've tried my best to erase the memory, if you think that audio recording was traumatic, we were treated to a full video display.

As to the Police and CPS, they are both assuming a conviction, or it wouldn't make the court, but neither  barrister or judge referred to them as victim, I think either their name, or simply the witness.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Happinesstan said:

I did edit to say I can't remember exactly as I've tried my best to erase the memory, if you think that audio recording was traumatic, we were treated to a full video display.

As to the Police and CPS, they are both assuming a conviction, or it wouldn't make the court, but neither  barrister or judge referred to them as victim, I think either their name, or simply the witness.

Of course the judiciary don’t refer to them in court as ‘the victim’- that’s more than a little demeaning to them! The police and CPS don’t address the individual purely by that title either, but legally, that’s what they are. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Happinesstan said:

I did edit to say I can't remember exactly as I've tried my best to erase the memory, if you think that audio recording was traumatic, we were treated to a full video display.

As to the Police and CPS, they are both assuming a conviction, or it wouldn't make the court, but neither  barrister or judge referred to them as victim, I think either their name, or simply the witness.

 

That’s not what your post said. You said it was premature to call her a victim, that’s not true.

 

Even if he is found not guilty, or charges are not applied, it doesn’t stop her being a victim - it just means there wasn’t enough evidence.

 

The court will identify them as a witness, as the whole role of the court is to be impartial during trial and referring as a victim may set prejudices.

 

Appreciate the horrific evidence you probably had to listen to and hear, can’t have been easy.

 

6 minutes ago, Manxst said:

Of course the judiciary don’t refer to them in court as ‘the victim’- that’s more than a little demeaning to them! The police and CPS don’t address the individual purely by that title either, but legally, that’s what they are. 

 

Sadly, they do call them a victim quite routinely (not in court) which is wrong imo.

 

Same as social care referring to people as ‘service users’ or hospitals calling people ‘patients’. Aye, the term to describe a group of people isn’t too bad but when speaking about a specific person, you should use their name.

 

I hate people being referred to by a title and think people have names for a reason.

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Manxst said:

Of course the judiciary don’t refer to them in court as ‘the victim’- that’s more than a little demeaning to them! The police and CPS don’t address the individual purely by that title either, but legally, that’s what they are. 

And if he gets placed on remand he'll be asked if he wants to be put with the nonces due to the nature of his crime, despite legally being innocent at that point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Fantail Breeze said:

 

Sadly, they do call them a victim quite routinely (not in court) which is wrong imo.

 

Same as social care referring to people as ‘service users’ or hospitals calling people ‘patients’. Aye, the term to describe a group of people isn’t too bad but when speaking about a specific person, you should use their name.

 

I hate people being referred to by a title and think people have names for a reason.

Oh, I’m well aware…which is why I said ‘address’ and tried to mean specifically to their face etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Happinesstan said:

And if he gets placed on remand he'll be asked if he wants to be put with the nonces due to the nature of his crime, despite legally being innocent at that point.

So? If he gets put on remand, then there would have to be specific reasons why that is the case. Just because there hasn’t been a conclusion to his potential trial to give him a guilty or not verdict, doesn’t mean he can’t or shouldn’t be remanded. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Shays Given Tim Flowers said:

The fact he hasn’t been charged with an offence is a reason why he’s not going to be remanded. 

No one has said otherwise, I don’t think? It’s why I’ve mentioned trial….after being charged.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Manxst said:

So? If he gets put on remand, then there would have to be specific reasons why that is the case. Just because there hasn’t been a conclusion to his potential trial to give him a guilty or not verdict, doesn’t mean he can’t or shouldn’t be remanded. 

I never questioned whether anybody should be remanded. I trust the courts in that decision.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Happinesstan said:

I never questioned whether anybody should be remanded. I trust the courts in that decision.

Your prior post suggested that being ‘put with the nonces…despite being legally innocent’ might be seen as an unjust occurrence? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Manxst said:

Nah. Judging by your posts I know where you stand on the matter. I’ll bow out for a while here. Might be good if you do some reading yourself…

I don't stand anywhere on the matter. Each case is unique and  should be judged free of all emotion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this discussion is what I was getting at. Girl X has experienced something traumatic, is clearly hurt and distressed and this board is picking apart language here. Anyway, I’m aware that I’m now contributing to this myself, so off I fuck.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...