Big Man Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 The sectarian part of the charge against the loon who attacked neil lennon has been found not proven. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-14732110 Link to comment
OddJob Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 The sectarian part of the charge against the loon who attacked neil lennon has been found not proven. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-14732110The Tims will still no doubt have something to say about that. But common sense prevailing right enough. Link to comment
Monkey Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 Not sure if I'm reading the report right but it suggests the assault charge against him was not proven and he was only found guilty of Breach of the Peace. If this is right and as he was seen on TV making contact with Lennon it makes it all the funnier. More likely sloppy reporting though. Link to comment
Big Man Posted August 31, 2011 Author Share Posted August 31, 2011 Not sure if I'm reading the report right but it suggests the assault charge against him was not proven and he was only found guilty of Breach of the Peace. If this is right and as he was seen on TV making contact with Lennon it makes it all the funnier. More likely sloppy reporting though. No you're right Monkey. Link to comment
OddJob Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 The jury saw Lennon trying to put the boot into the guy as well and thought "oh well f**k you Lennon you c**t, you've made up our mind now" Link to comment
Big Man Posted August 31, 2011 Author Share Posted August 31, 2011 My interpretation of what went down at the trial: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKkDqI04RtI Link to comment
Big Man Posted August 31, 2011 Author Share Posted August 31, 2011 ''In scotland we can have jurors who can't read, can't write, can't count and may be full of prejudices - we will need to revisit this issue'' - Paul McBride QC tonight: Link to comment
DD1903 Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 the crown didnt put enough evidence across to prove that the assault was religiously motivated, causing the not proven. had the charge only been for assault without that element they would have got the guilty idiots! Link to comment
Monkey Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 ''In scotland we can have jurors who can't read, can't write, can't count and may be full of prejudices - we will need to revisit this issue'' - Paul McBride QC tonight: Rent-a-quote opens his mouth and lets his belly rumble. the crown didnt put enough evidence across to prove that the assault was religiously motivated, causing the not proven. had the charge only been for assault without that element they would have got the guilty idiots! Don't think that was the issue as he was found guilty of the breach of the peace but the jury took out the bit in that charge about it being religiously motivated so they could of done the same with the assault charge if they wanted. The best bit about it appears to be that the boy's lawyer tells the jury that he accepts assaulting Lennon and tried to plead guilty to it but without it being religiously motivated but the crown would not accept that plea. And despite this they still find him not proven. Link to comment
daytripping Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 The chap was still remanded in custody awaiting sentencing, he'll probably still get the same sentence he would have got if he'd been found guilty of the other charge. Link to comment
daytripping Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 McBride is correct in a way about the jury system, it should be a voluntary thing for people who like that kind of thing, I wouldn't want to do it. Link to comment
vanderark14 Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Not sure if I'm reading the report right but it suggests the assault charge against him was not proven and he was only found guilty of Breach of the Peace. If this is right and as he was seen on TV making contact with Lennon it makes it all the funnier. More likely sloppy reporting though. read elsewhere that the charge of racially motivated assault was dropped but the hearts fan was happy to plead guilty to assault. not sure if thats true or not. others wanted the racially motivated charge but the jury didn't agree and quite right too. Link to comment
vanderark14 Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/news/Anger-as-football-fan-is.6828812.jp nil by mouth now piping up about this. these c**ts do more harm than good Link to comment
vanderark14 Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/3787711/Thugs1-Justice0-after-Neil-Lennon-hooligan-is-let-off.html McBride said: "It is not quite as extreme, but it is redolent of the Rodney King video in LA."No one could believe that the police got off with that. No one had any faith left in the system. :hysterical: what a f**king tube Link to comment
Big Man Posted September 1, 2011 Author Share Posted September 1, 2011 the crown didnt put enough evidence across to prove that the assault was religiously motivated, causing the not proven. had the charge only been for assault without that element they would have got the guilty idiots! Na according to one of our solicitors in glasgow who knows a clerk at the court: The jury retired, came back and asked the Sherrif if it was O.K. to delete the aggravation parts from both charges on the indictment. She said yes, obviously thinking they would go ahead and find him guilty of both charges with deletions, and they came back with a not proven on the assault.... It was an open and shut job. A monkey could of presented that case and got an assault conviction. Im glad he got off with it though, it sends a powerful message to the crown.... McBride is correct in a way about the jury system, it should be a voluntary thing for people who like that kind of thing, I wouldn't want to do it. I dunno about that. Lay people/random strangers are always make the best jurors. If you get people signing up/voluteering then you'll get the court junkie amateur lawyer types applying, who watch too much judge john deed - that would be dangerous. I would question the sanity of anyone who wants to do jury service voluntarily. You should be judged by 15 your random peers (men and woman) - Its a testament to our criminal justice system that we have juries that are allowed to decide cases completely on their own. In other countries a judge might of directed the jury to find him guilty... Link to comment
Terrorfex Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Na according to one of our solicitors in glasgow who knows a clerk at the court: The jury retired, came back and asked the Sherrif if it was O.K. to delete the aggravation parts from both charges on the indictment. She said yes, obviously thinking they would go ahead and find him guilty of both charges with deletions, and they came back with a not proven on the assault.... It was an open shut job. A monkey could of presented that case and got an assault conviction. Im glad he got off with it though, it sends a powerful message to the crown.... I dunno about that. Lay people/random strangers are always make the best jurors. If you get people signing up/voluteering then you'll get the court junkie amateur lawyer types applying, who watch too much judge john deed - that would be dangerous. I would question the sanity of anyone who wants to do jury service voluntarily. You should be judged by 15 your random peers (men and woman) - Its a testament to our criminal justice system that we have juries that are allowed to decide cases completely on their own. In other countries a judge might of directed the jury to find him guilty... There's nothing wrong with the concept of having a right to a trial, "Judged by a jury of your peers." The real issue, for me, is that "peers" are nothing more than "A bunch of other humans." Link to comment
spamspamspam Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Its a testament to our criminal justice system that we have juries that are allowed to decide cases completely on their own. In other countries a judge might of directed the jury to find him guilty... :hysterical: I told you, sarcasm doesnt suit. (This isnt saying he was innocent before that wormcan is opened) The judge at Mark Simpson's trial told the jury, in so many words, that he was guilty, go and find this animal guilty and then I'll throw away the key. Link to comment
Bobby Connor Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 This in the comments section sums it up perfectly: It was the procurator fiscal, who messed this up by charging the guy with assault aggravated by religious prejudice. Had he just been accused of assault, i have no doubt he would have been found guilty, Shouldn't have played the sectarian card should they. Link to comment
Dynamo Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 This in the comments section sums it up perfectly: Crazy innit. Link to comment
Admin Bebo Posted September 1, 2011 Admin Share Posted September 1, 2011 I see the tabloids this morning are spinning it as some sort of injustice, yet conveniently ignoring the sectarian aspect of the assault. On their front page, the scottish sun ran with a picture of the incident and the headline: "So what part of this is NOT an assault on Neil Lennon?", um, the part where you ignored the whole aggravated by religious prejudice part you bias pricks, and inside a two page spread, a quick skim it's not even mentioned. It was the correct verdict, but the wrong charge. You do have to wonder why the jury didn't just delete the religious prejudice part though, unless all of them wanted to make the ticks even more paranoid for a laugh. Link to comment
Big Man Posted September 1, 2011 Author Share Posted September 1, 2011 There's nothing wrong with the concept of having a right to a trial, "Judged by a jury of your peers." The real issue, for me, is that "peers" are nothing more than "A bunch of other humans." What kind of system would you propose then? A minimum IQ for jurors for example.... :hysterical: I told you, sarcasm doesnt suit. (This isnt saying he was innocent before that wormcan is opened) The judge at Mark Simpson's trial told the jury, in so many words, that he was guilty, go and find this animal guilty and then I'll throw away the key. What are you talking about spam i wasn't being sarcastic. Jury nullification is a sacred and ancient right not to be messed with lightly. Scotland is famous for it. http://en.wikipedia....y_nullification Link to comment
Tommy Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 A bit disappointed. I reckoned Lennon was guilty. Link to comment
spamspamspam Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 What kind of system would you propose then? A minimum IQ for jurors for example.... What are you talking about spam i wasn't being sarcastic. Jury nullification is a sacred and ancient right not to be messed with lightly. Scotland is famous for it. http://en.wikipedia....y_nullification I'm talking about the Mark Simpson trial, thought that was clear from the comment. Have you read the judges closing statement to the jury? Read it, then you'll know why I said you must be being sarcastic Link to comment
Big Man Posted September 1, 2011 Author Share Posted September 1, 2011 I'm talking about the Mark Simpson trial, thought that was clear from the comment. Have you read the judges closing statement to the jury? Read it, then you'll know why I said you must be being sarcastic Do you mean mark simpson the alledged child killer? Then no i haven't... Link to comment
Admin Bebo Posted September 1, 2011 Admin Share Posted September 1, 2011 What kind of system would you propose then? A minimum IQ for jurors for example.... How practical would that be? I did Jury duty when i was 18 and was quite pissed off that i had to miss a few classes from uni due to it. Adding an IQ test would add expense and waste even more of people's time. Although, it would be quite an easy get-out-clause by feigning retardeness. Link to comment
Big Man Posted September 1, 2011 Author Share Posted September 1, 2011 How practical would that be? I did Jury duty when i was 18 and was quite pissed off that i had to miss a few classes from uni due to it. Adding an IQ test would add expense and waste even more of people's time. Although, it would be quite an easy get-out-clause by feigning retardeness. Not very, im just throwin it out there to stimulate discussion. Minimum number of highers then... Lucky b*stard - iv'e always wanted to do jury duty. How long did it last? Did you not claim expenses? What was the food like? Link to comment
spamspamspam Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Do you mean mark simpson the alledged child killer? Then no i haven't... nothing alleged about it and yes I do. The judge led the jury to their verdict by the short and curlies. Remember discussing it with mother before the jury came back. The judge's closing remarks were printed in the papers, we both said that we expect an appeal because of them, they were extremely leading. Cant find them online, was going to link them. Link to comment
Admin Bebo Posted September 1, 2011 Admin Share Posted September 1, 2011 Not very, im just throwin it out there to stimulate discussion. Minimum number of highers then... Lucky b*stard - iv'e always wanted to do jury duty. How long did it last? Did you not claim expenses? What was the food like? Lasted two days. I claimed bus fares and the courts paid for the jurors to have lunch in Five, just off the castle gate. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now