Scottish Transfer Deadline Extended 24 Hours.

Dodger

Dodger

Blackballed
Banned
Joined
Aug 20, 2007
Messages
9,083
Location
An underground bunker
Visit site
As all the SFA were on Jury Duty today.....


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-14732110

Go out,run up to someone and *** them,make sure it is in front of 17000 folk and umpteen more on the box and you'll get away with it.

Today an 11 year old boy was sentenced to 18 months detention for stealing a bin in the recent London riots but someone who assaulted a man live on TV gets away with it..........words fail me. :D

Sadly this is exactly why sectarianism will never die in Scotland.
 
I seen this on SSN and was wondering how that came about.

It is an absolute farce and as you say Dodger sectarianism will never be stamped out with this attitude.
 
Guys,the sectarianism bit aside,the fact this verdict was returned is just incredible!!


Scottish justice is a joke, this gives a red light to every nutter in Scotland, on both sides. Him and Ally should take baseball bats into the dugout from now on because the law isn't going to protect them.

There will be a lot of bad feeling festering after this, there will be trouble at matches because of it, I'm sure.

A guy leaps over a retaining wall, runs along a track and attacks another guy in front of a full stadium and hundreds of thousands of others on TV and it is not an assault. The attacker admits assault, but yet it is not deemed an assault.......the law is an ass and any Lennon haters need to take off their blinkers for a minute and consider what might have happened. What if the guy has a blade and slashed Lennon? What if it was your Dad, or brother or son that was "assaulted?"

Scotland is an affront to human decency.

It's Edinburgh though - trams, banks, assault charges....they can't get anything right. :(
 
Apparently the only person who heard him say anything was the steward. Lennon denied hearing a sectarian comment even though the tit was on top of him.
Click to expand...


Mmmmmm, no he wasn't, the drunken jambo fell over
 
A guy leaps over a retaining wall, runs along a track and attacks another guy in front of a full stadium and hundreds of thousands of others on TV and it is not an assault. The attacker admits assault, but yet it is not deemed an assault.......the law is an ass
Click to expand...

Good point, if you even touch a policeman with your finger it's assault, where is the common sense and justice?
 
I think the problem here lies with the Crown Office. They should have just gone for a straight assault rather than trying to make a point with their new 'aggravated' charge of religious prejudice being involved.

A straight assault charge would have been done & dusted before the jury even settled in their seats. The good old Scottish 'not proven' verdict was returned. In reality, this means, aye he did it, but Mr prosecutor, you didn't give enough evidence to prove it.

Don't think the Crown Office wil make the same mistake next time they take one of these to trial ;)
 
Agree with Dodger here. I can't understand how that is not assault. Forget the sectarianism side for a minute which is clouding things here, the guy assualted Lennon, he admitted assualting Lennon but did not get done for assault.

I don't get it.

edit: I do now, thanks DCB ^^^
 
Apparently the only person who heard him say anything was the steward. Lennon denied hearing a sectarian comment even though the tit was on top of him.
Click to expand...


Mmmmmm, no he wasn't, the drunken jambo fell over
Click to expand...
i think if you watch the video of this again you will see lennons assistant caught him by the collar , thats why he fell over ..if he hadnt it could have been alot worse .. makes a joke of the law in general ..sets a bad precident (sp)
 
Didn't he plead guilty to the assault charge but the not proven was because of the sectarian additional charges


Chris
 
I think the problem here lies with the Crown Office. They should have just gone for a straight assault rather than trying to make a point with their new 'aggravated' charge of religious prejudice being involved.

A straight assault charge would have been done & dusted before the jury even settled in their seats. The good old Scottish 'not proven' verdict was returned. In reality, this means, aye he did it, but Mr prosecutor, you didn't give enough evidence to prove it.

Don't think the Crown Office wil make the same mistake next time they take one of these to trial ;)
Click to expand...

Nothing to do with the Jury! As above it was the fact that the Crown added on the religous part which could not be proven!
 
I think the problem here lies with the Crown Office. They should have just gone for a straight assault rather than trying to make a point with their new 'aggravated' charge of religious prejudice being involved.

A straight assault charge would have been done & dusted before the jury even settled in their seats. The good old Scottish 'not proven' verdict was returned. In reality, this means, aye he did it, but Mr prosecutor, you didn't give enough evidence to prove it.

Don't think the Crown Office wil make the same mistake next time they take one of these to trial ;)
Click to expand...


Procurator Fiscal in Scotland chaps.
 
Was the guy guilty of assult?? Yes he has admitted it.

Was he charged with assult?? NO!!

He was charged with assult involving Religious prejudice.

Was the Religious element proven beyond doubt? NO!

CASE DISMISSED!!

Scottish Law - No Problem.

Procurator Fiscal - Egg on face!

Lennon is hated in Scotland for being a cheating, diving little scroat (Spoken as a true Caley Thistle fan)and his behaviour now that he is in the managers chair illustrates this trait.

The problem we have in Scotland is that you must be either Catholic or Protestant - there is no middle ground - and any opinions you have are therefore due to your religion, hence the accused, who hated Lennon, must be a protestant and at the trial it came out that... his dad is catholic AND his child is being brought up in the catholic faith so the ProcFisc had not carried out his research correctly!

The law is not an ass.. the Pro Fisc's office is the problem.

For common assult (not charged) he has now been held in jail for 3 months AND they still will not let him out!!
 
Would someone please explain to me why, under the law, it's considered acceptable to call someone a fu***ng wa**er (as Wilson claimed he did) and most definitely not acceptable to call someone a fe**an ba***rd ( or indeed an or**ge ba***rd) as the prosecution claimed.

And, yes, I do understand the trying to stamp out sectarianism bit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top