Charles Green - Legend
- Thread starter Mind The Duck
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
I was being serious for a minute.
If his comments were judged to not transgress the two counts against him = not guilty
If they were = guilty
If they had no evidence he said those things or evidence was inconclusive of his intent = not proven (I know Walter Scott disapproved but I still reckon the third verdict is just one of the things that makes Scots Law better than it's regional counterparts).
He questioned their impartiality.
They could've found him not guilty of bringing the game into disrepute (unlikely but it could be argued that his comments were misconstrued as such) but guilty of questioning their impartiality (absolutely not in question - he straight up did that)
Not Proven???
On the second count, in particular, his comments were a direct questioning of the panel's impartiality.
Seriously, why do any of you think he got that verdict?
I don't think there was any political manouevring as it was an independent panel, I believe (he didn't question their impartiality bizarrely) and they were in no position to plea bargain with him or anything and he hasn't changed his view on the outstanding subjects.
From the Wiki definition of Not Proven
Not Proven (nowadays) is a verdict based on lack of evidence - there is recorded evidence it's bizarre.
Just thought I'd "fill in" while Dev is Maddieing it up in the Algarve
The other option, of course, is that the content of the statements was correct.
It was judged by the same independent panel that is hearing the double contracts stuff including Lord Nimmo-Smith.
So, you're saying that they judged themselves to be partial???
I was expecting this "beeling" malarkey.
I'm asking seriously - the only possible thing I can think of is (as I can only recall seeing his statements in print to be fair) that he is suggesting he was misquoted and the Not Provan (geddit) was as a result of not being able to determine whether he's a lying prick or a grandstanding prick (I doubt this and it's extremely far fetched in any case).
I see our fourth estate has paid it all absolutely no heed at all and have suggested he was "cleared"
<mongs>
I was being serious for a minute.
If his comments were judged to not transgress the two counts against him = not guilty
If they were = guilty
If they had no evidence he said those things or evidence was inconclusive of his intent = not proven (I know Walter Scott disapproved but I still reckon the third verdict is just one of the things that makes Scots Law better than it's regional counterparts).
He questioned their impartiality.
They could've found him not guilty of bringing the game into disrepute (unlikely but it could be argued that his comments were misconstrued as such) but guilty of questioning their impartiality (absolutely not in question - he straight up did that)
Not Proven???
On the second count, in particular, his comments were a direct questioning of the panel's impartiality.
Seriously, why do any of you think he got that verdict?
I don't think there was any political manouevring as it was an independent panel, I believe (he didn't question their impartiality bizarrely) and they were in no position to plea bargain with him or anything and he hasn't changed his view on the outstanding subjects.
From the Wiki definition of Not Proven
Not Proven (nowadays) is a verdict based on lack of evidence - there is recorded evidence it's bizarre.
Just thought I'd "fill in" while Dev is Maddieing it up in the Algarve
Now that's a couple of meaty examples of beel...
Why do you think he got "off" then diccus
Wtf are ticketus and Craig Whyte to do with anything?
What's a sevco?...
Regards the OP, those rumours are doing the rounds on twitter too. And it's not celtic fans that are spreading them ...
Whether there's any truth in them is another matter entirely.
Whether there's any truth in them is another matter entirely.
I wasn't buying it before, but the 'Not Provan' gag has convinced me that Bib really is Russ.
I get it now - question = beel, gotya.
He didn't "get off" but you know that anyway. He received a not provan
without any explanation of what evidence they lacked.It cannot be that his assertions are correct as that would be "not guilty"
None of you find this weird?
I don't remember a "not proven" SFA verdict before. Can't say I'm fussed but it strikes me as an attempt to defuse the situation more than anything else.
Regards the OP, those rumours are doing the rounds on twitter too. And it's not celtic fans that are spreading them ...
Whether there's any truth in them is another matter entirely.
any links to these non-timmy rumour spreaders?
Well what's your thoughts?
Frightened that this is the start if it and the dual contracts will be given a bit provan verdict tae?
Btw, if these letter "exist" this enquiry will have to prove that they were actually issued from rangers and not wee Timmy on his wee lappy
I get it now - question = beel, gotya.
He didn't "get off" but you know that anyway. He received a not provan
It cannot be that his assertions are correct as that would be "not guilty"
None of you find this weird?
It was judged by the same independent panel that is hearing the double contracts stuff including Lord Nimmo-Smith.
So, you're saying that they judged themselves to be partial???
I was expecting this "beeling" malarkey.
I'm asking seriously - the only possible thing I can think of is (as I can only recall seeing his statements in print to be fair) that he is suggesting he was misquoted and the Not Provan (geddit) was as a result of not being able to determine whether he's a lying prick or a grandstanding prick (I doubt this and it's extremely far fetched in any case).
I see our fourth estate has paid it all absolutely no heed at all and have suggested he was "cleared"
Maybe he has pictures of Saville, Nimmo and Maddie?
If so it augurs well for the dual contract stuff
It's really not important to anything at all in the grand scheme but, logically, does it make any sense to you?
I mean, more legally learned minds than mine came up with it and I really doubt any political machinations behind it as the panel were independent.
I just, other than claims of a misquote being upheld, cannot fathom it.
I'm not beeling and I'm not contesting it - I'm really curious as to why that verdict was returned.
