No Charges for the Danny Seaborne Incident

What Fran said. Not everything goes to court. If one guy has acted in self-defense, then there must have been an assault. Assault can be merely the threat of violence or just a shove. Clearly Danny didn't cause anyone any serious harm, so court proceedings would just not be worth the time and money.

 

And to everyone saying there haven't been any charges so he can't have done anything wrong:

- Just because we haven't heard about it doesn't mean it hasn't happened. These things can be confidential.

- It is likely that there was an out-of-court settlement, whereby Danny agreed to pay a small amount of damages. No court proceedings needed and, more importantly, no prying eyes of the media.

 

Oh for crying out loud, I'm getting fed up with this thread!

WE DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED, ALL CHARGES HAVE BEEN DROPPED, LET'S LET GO OF IT AND MOVE ON!!!!!

 

Don't come on here then

 

An eye wittness stated they saw a tall gangly man with a dutch accent making a quick exit from the scene....

 

Look, Joe, I apologise for the virtual shouting but you are speculating about stuff you have really no evidence of! I don't mind a heated discussion about any subject on which there is at least some knowledge on either side, but you have to admit, we don't know what went on that night, so why make things up? Why turn things round so that Dan is suddenly to blame for everything? You don't know either way, neither do I, but as far as the police and the courts are concerned, it's all over.

All I'm saying is, let's agree to let this go now, there's plenty of other things to talk about.

 

I'm not making things up. One man was adjudged to have been acting in self-defence, which means that there definitely was an assault or battery. There is no alternative. All I'm saying is that, while it is certain that there was some form of assault, it doesn't necessarily mean that any real harm was caused by Danny, and so it could have been settled out of court.

Like it or not, if one man has been cleared for self-defence, then the other has committed a crime. There are no two ways about it. I know the law, I'm doing this for a living.

And yes, I'm tired of talking about this as well seeing as I've made this point a couple of times already.

 

OK mate, I hear what you say, and I take your point. 'Nuff said.

 

Look at my last comments.
Then add
Perhaps the police would like to prosecute but can't due to lack of CCTV evidence.

 

Speculation. My sole interest is to see DS pull on a Saints shirt again. The rest is all b***ocks.