http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/9326140.No_charges_over_Saints_player_s_nightclub_incident/ as reported in the echo, - seaborne must have played a part in it for sure
At least the incident can be put to bed now and Seaborne can be fully focussed on his rehabilitation. Afterall, we don't really want our players involved in too many court cases - we've already got Barnard's pending trial!
Ah, I see. As someone else pointed out, under the Echo article - you were there then. Can you give us your account of what happened..? As the character in the film said, rather wisely, assumption is the mother of all f*** ups.
So because there were no chargers he must of played some part?. And couldn't be due to lack of evidence or to the fact it could of just been a accident?. In other words you say its his fault yet you wasn't there. Not a very sound view tbh when you don't have the facts. To say anyones guilty just because there was no chargers is sad tbh.
There are a ridiculous amount of possibilities that could have happened without Seaborne having "played a part" - and even so, if he had, it wouldn't necessarily make other people get off either. If he pushed someone and then they did that to him, then they'd still be guilty of Assault occasioning ABH or whatever they were going to be charged for.
i didnt mean played a part as in he was involved in a fight, but after looking at CCTV he cant be all innocent can he if these 2 bouncers are let off? im only assumung here
there could be a million reasons why convictions arent being pursued. like there isnt enough evidence to charge etc etc
One man was arrested and bailed, then told there will be no further legal action. Another man had been detained but was released without charge when they determined he had acted in self-defence and used reasonable force.
exactly - the bouncer acted in self-defence, presumably against Seaborne, this is what i can see anyway
It seems that one of the guys was adjudged to have broken the law and the other wasn't. Seaborne was probably at least partly at fault.
If you read the report the doorman said he has no complaints towards danny. He was ejected for being drunk, so when the doorman forced him outside he stumbled and fell. As he was drunk his reaction's were slowed meening he couldn't stick his arms out to cushion the fall. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-15461792
Sounds like a bit of pushing and shoving and Danny was accidently injured...isn't it better that no one hurt him deliberately. Everyone can just move on.
Well if the suspect had acted in self-defence, that means Danny is guilty of some form of violent act. There's also this quote: "A 35-year-old from Southampton, on bail in connection with the incident, has been told he will face no legal action" which seems to imply that this man was also at fault for something.
My post at the time read:- "You asked for our opinions, you have had many negative responses, does it not occur to you that the majority don't see a problem of the magnitude that that you are putting to it, for all we know Dan may have been involved in an altercation and as a result taken a tumble, bashing his head on the way down, the papers have sensationalised it a wee bit, they don't know any more than we do, let the experts make the decisions, if anyone is culpable then they should be taken to task, until that happens be patient, as for Barny, he hasn't been found guilty of anything either, again lots of speculation, but no actual proof, wait and see." Was I right or wrong to have that opinion?
More or less what I was getting at, both parties have some culpability, but it just seems that it was one of those unfortunate things that happen when you are in the wrong place at the wrong time, best just to hope that Dan makes a full recovery and that the blow knocked him sensible.
