This innocent until proven guilty thing isn't actually right though is it. That means Jack the Ripper, whoever he was, is an innocent chap. People who get off on technicalities are innocent. So on and so forth. Being found innocent or guilty by a jury doesn't actually change whether you have or have not committed a crime. Does "innocent until proven guilty" mean "guilty upon being proven guilty"? If so I feel for the people who wrongly go down for crimes they haven't committed. At some point common sense needs to come into it and not just what a jury have decided. That said I have no ****ing idea as to whether he's done it or not. I can't really imagine how evidence to suggest grooming has taken place can result in an innocent verdict. I doubt it's just her word against his at this point.
Leave them be. They are just crying into their executive hankies planning next seasons trip to Bristol City.
If you want "justice," Disco, see a priest. Whether you go to prison or not is down to whether or not 12 men/women think you are a scum-bag.
Are you a hippy? I can't imagine the modern day hippy has as much fun, let's face it, the VW Camper is way too old to be a reliable motor home now, it'd just be constant trips to the garage nowadays.
Hippy girls are great if you are into hair-beads, multi-coloured toe-nails and massively hairy 70s-style bushes.
Nobody saw the signs, according to one source, he turned up at your new shirt sponsor unveiling asking "Where's these Kidvests then"?
I'm not saying I want justice mate. I'm simply saying throwing innocent until proven guilty around doesn't change whether he has or hasn't done it.
I would assume this is a fairly easy thing to prove you haven't done. He's done it mate, for sure. It just remains to be seen whether he knew he was doing it.
My point was though mate if they've got some facebook/text/whatsapp based evidence of grooming... He's done for!? Surely? Hard to disprove something that's right before your eyes. It's like an atheist meeting god, shaking his and and telling him "You don't exist."
Grooming could just mean he was sex pesting her, no? It remains to be seen if his lawyers can convince the jury he thought she was old enough. Even if they do, I'd imagine his career is still royally ****ed. He'll never play again. If there's as much as one inference of her age he is doing serious bird.
I can't imagine they'd take it to trial if there was nothing to suggest he knew her age. Maybe that's just me having too high an opinion of our legal system.
