Jump to content

Loic Remy


GeordieMark
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 617
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Because they didn't believe the defences case, that isn't what happened, the defence successfully showed there was doubt or the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the crime happened. That's what happened in the eyes of the law, which is what we are talking about. There may have been people in the jury who believed the defence and people in the jury that believed the prosecution but as a whole the jury came together and decided that the prosecution did not have a strong enough case, belief did not come into it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because they didn't believe the defences case, that isn't what happened, the defence successfully showed there was doubt or the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the crime happened. That's what happened in the eyes of the law, which is what we are talking about. There may have been people in the jury who believed the defence and people in the jury that believed the prosecution but as a whole the jury came together and decided that the prosecution did not have a strong enough case, belief did not come into it.

 

But you cannot know if that is correct can you? Only people in the jury know that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do know, it isn't the Jury's job to believe the defence or prosecution. You said the Jury believed the defence which is completely wrong, like I said before the defence successfully proved doubt in the prosecutions case or the prosecution couldn't prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. Belief doesn't enter into it and neither do assumptions. What the individuals in the jury believed is completely irrelevant, they made their judgement based on what was proven in court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

It is illegal to do otherwise.

 

No wonder he was found not guilty then

 

edit; which does not change my original belief that the accused should remain anonymous.

Edited by desmondTUTU
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

No wonder he was found not guilty then

 

edit; which does not change my original belief that the accused should remain anonymous.

That wasn't your original belief though. You said, and I pataphrase here " the slappers should get the same jail time as a rapist would". Edited by Kevin Carr's Gloves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That wasn't your original belief though. You said, and I pataphrase here " the slappers should get the same jail time as a rapist would".

 

That was actually asprilla that said that but I will let it go because you tend to get everything else wrong when you first wake up

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We can all agree that rape is vile.

 

A good quote I read recently was about teaching boys not to think that consent was enough but rather to look for actual enthusiasm!

 

That said, there is clearly a breed of girl who makes it their focus to snare a footballer. Those girls aren't really like normal girls and have a different moral outlook.

Edited by Asprilla
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not even questionable that this girl should face any action. The coppers can't go from believing your story and making a case against someone off the back of it, getting it to court and then flip it round to try and make a case against the complainant. If there were any doubts about her sincerity it wouldn't have got this far.

 

And DT is a bellend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She must be entirely sincere. That much is true. That also goes for the other ladies who accuse footballers and celebrities of rape. They have no motives or greed and their entirely genuine.

 

Totally

 

If there's evidence to the contrary, like here, then they're charged.

 

It's estimated that around two false rape allegations are made every month in the UK.

 

The BBC report 85,000 women raped in the UK in a year, equating to about 230 cases every day.

 

The problem of malicious, false accusations applies to about 0.03% of cases on those figures.

 

What change to the law are you proposing to deal with that tiny minority?

Link to comment
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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.