ancientsaint Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 Right result or wrong ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newyear'sday97 Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 Right result or wrong ? Definitley wrong. I haven't got much time for Lennon, but this was captured on telly and I can't see how it wasn't proven. It's right up there with the Totten/Smith one. "Alex Totten, you're a bad lad fightin with Sir Walter - I fine you £250" "Sir Walter, I think you are probably as much to blame - but I cannae prove that so you're free to go":confused: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rammsteinally Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 i think the police etc just wanted to try out the sectarian bit out. if they had said ok we'll drop that part he would have pled guilty, saved a trial, put him in the nick for a wee bit, job done. but they got drawn into the sectaian stuff and they have made scotland look lie idiot and cost us all money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the mad referee Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 Wrong. The photographic evidence showed the "Gentleman" Clearly approached Lennon with a view to Causing him Harm Yet again Scottish Justice is shown to be ALL WRONG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wish i was Joe McGurn Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 Maybe it viewed him trying to cause him harm. But what was he charged with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesaint Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 Correct, the wee runt bought it on himself, it was only a matter of time before someone did it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HertsSaintee Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 Wrong. The photographic evidence showed the "Gentleman" Clearly approached Lennon with a view to Causing him Harm Yet again Scottish Justice is shown to be ALL WRONG Rammsteinally is correct - the "not proven" issue was not about whether the guy assualted Lennon, it was about whether it was religiously aggravated. There's no doubt the thug was guilty of assault and he'll be sentenced for that. What they "didn't prove" was the second bit. Common sense should prevail here. Everyone should know that where the OF are involved, sectarianism follows. God knows which rock the jury have been hiding under, particularly when stewards and the like were giving evidence that he called Lennon a F**** B******. How much more evidence do they need?? Of course it was religiously aggravated, irrespective of whether the guy says all his family are Catholic, or whatever half-assed excuse he came up with. Start birching these clowns and we'll all get on a bit better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryangordon86 Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 Rammsteinally is correct - the "not proven" issue was not about whether the guy assualted Lennon, it was about whether it was religiously aggravated. There's no doubt the thug was guilty of assault and he'll be sentenced for that. What they "didn't prove" was the second bit. Common sense should prevail here. Everyone should know that where the OF are involved, sectarianism follows. God knows which rock the jury have been hiding under, particularly when stewards and the like were giving evidence that he called Lennon a F**** B******. How much more evidence do they need?? Of course it was religiously aggravated, irrespective of whether the guy says all his family are Catholic, or whatever half-assed excuse he came up with. Start birching these clowns and we'll all get on a bit better. Why should everyone know this was religiously motivated? I couldn't tell you whether it was racially motivated and neither could you unless you know the guy personally. Lennon doesnt have many friends but it could quite as easily be alcohol induced Fortunately cases are decided on facts and not the "holier than thou" views of those such as yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ancientsaint Posted September 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 Maybe it viewed him trying to cause him harm. But what was he charged with. Appears he was charged with Assault aggravated by sectarianism ----Had he been charged with Assault only he would certainly have been found guilty (according to the press report)- but because the Sectarian bit was added the Jury couldnt agree that the comments were made. He was also tagged with a Breach of the Peace which covered his running towards Lennon putting him in a state of fear and alarm (press comment). Apparently he will only be sentenced on the B o P charge and nothing else (again according to the press). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wish i was Joe McGurn Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 Sadly nowadays you have to be pigeonholed into one thing or another. Look at what happened in Norway, the white Muslim turned out to be a white Christian. If they done the guy just with assault rather than trying to get him for something that there was very little evidence of, the word of one man, then a conviction would probably been assured. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wish i was Joe McGurn Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 Isn't encroaching the field of play a criminal offence now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babychunder Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 Apparently the Hearts Security guy heard the accused say "Lennon you Fen*** Bas****" as he ran at them. Can't see how it could be not proven with that testimony??? As my lawyer uncle often laments "anything can happen in a jury trial - and it usually does". Just as a footnote. Not all OF fans are bigots. Some I know are ashamed at the behaviour of certain of their fellow supporters. The younger fans I think are starting to get it, a few of my mate's laddies say they're baffled by it "Who's King Billy anyway?". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wish i was Joe McGurn Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 Maybe cause its the word of one man to another and is probably seen as heresay. No one to corroborate what he heard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilgour Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 Its all down to the rushed through,ill conceived anti-sectarian law. The old guy from G4S says he heard him but no-one else did including police. the accused admitted shouting abuse and assaulting him but vehemently denied it was sectarian. Clearly the fiscals office wanted to show off their new law and discourage bigots,however it has back-fired spectacularly. Last night at a prom concert in London a group of anti-Jewish demonstrators caused the concert ( conducted by an Israeli ) to be stopped by chanting ,blowing whistles etc.It would be interesting to note how the new laws would be interpretated for this had it occurred in Scotland. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wish i was Joe McGurn Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 It's a stupid law just like this one. I can get on a train to go to a football match in Glasgow. Go to the game, get the train home. When i get home if I go for a drink and have a fall out with someone and be arrested, I can be charged with a football related crime. Because I had been or was going to a game. Even though what I was arrested for had nothing to do with football. Then be given a court banning order Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstar101 Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 It's a stupid law just like this one. I can get on a train to go to a football match in Glasgow. Go to the game, get the train home. When i get home if I go for a drink and have a fall out with someone and be arrested, I can be charged with a football related crime. Because I had been or was going to a game. Even though what I was arrested for had nothing to do with football. Then be given a court banning order and that's speaking from experience, eh Joe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wish i was Joe McGurn Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 and that's speaking from experience, eh Joe Not at all. Wasn't Glasgow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babychunder Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 Well that guy was guilty of assault, everybody saw it. Seeing him get off with it will encourage other nutters to have a go too. He should be re-tried for a lesser charge of some kind now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOODLUM65 Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 Right result or wrong ? Rules are rules. Had Saints been involved, we would have been screaming from the top of the multis. In your case from the top of your bungalow:laugh: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wish i was Joe McGurn Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 He was charged with assault by what he said to him not by touching him. I agree with you babychunder. It's the fiscal that said they had enough evidence to convict him of what they charged him with rather than looking at it and charging him with something that would be hard for the guy to deny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOODLUM65 Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 Rules are rules. Had Saints been involved, we would have been screaming from the top of the multis. In your case from the top of your bungalow:laugh: delete this post wrong thread. too much guinness whoops Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.