There's a strange situation brewing up with the ex Celtic player Jota and his recent £25 million transfer to Al-ittihad... Apparently he's surplus to requirements already and has been released? There's a 'rumour' doing the rounds up here(and I stipulate it is a 'rumour' and for all I know it could've been started by some or other Rangers fan) but the rumour is he's a homosexual, Al-ittihad have found out and got rid? It would certainly tie-in with the attitude towards homosexuality in Saudi. When discussing the extremely strange set of events unravelling around Jota on Talksports breakfast show yesterday,Alan Brazil was quoted as saying "I've got my own idea about it but I'm not going to air it"... Like I say,'rumour' but not beyond the realms of possibility given the Country we are discussing and the sharia law upheld within said Country?
Imagine how many sport wash points you’d get for having a gay player come out in your league. They’d see it as a golden goose.
No. Nobody is ‘proven’ innocent in a court of law in our legal system. Everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty and the burden of proof rests with the prosecution or plaintiff, depending on whether it’s a criminal or civil case. Ched Evans was not proven innocent. He appealed, had a retrial and was found not guilty. Whilst it seems reasonable to assume, being found not guilty does not equal proof of innocence. OJ Simpson was not ‘proven innocent’ and many people think he was guilty but he was found not guilty because the prosecution couldn’t convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty. The reason why it matters is because our legal system, despite its flaws, is based on a decent principle of presumption of innocent but that doesn’t mean the average person can’t make a moral judgement. Greenwood was not found guilty but most of us who heard the recordings are entitled to think he’s a ****.
He's only presumed innocent, so in the eyes of the law he's as guilty as the rest of us...or something.
Only Scotland could go against the grain and have 3 verdicts!! Guilty,not guilty and not proven(both being acquittal),though they are in talks to do away with the not proven.
I thought you were making a distinction between found not guilty and having a guilty verdict overturned that’s all.
It's generally given when a jury believes the accused is guilty but the Crown hasn't provided sufficient evidence.It's set to be removed though and many think the reason is because the jury,only having 2 choices,will sway towards a guilty verdict in such circumstances. All very confusing to be honest...
in that case, i wish to mention that the last time i was on jury service, in the case in which i was a juror, we believed the defendant to be innocent.
I'm actually on jury service this week,what a complete and utter shambles!!! Called the attendance update line on Sunday night,wait for possible call at 9 a.m the Monday morning,they phoned me to tell me I was in the ballot and could be asked to attend that afternoon,never heard anymore so phone again after 5p.m Monday evening same ****e.Not called yesterday,phoned after 5p.m,same nonsense... Not called today,phone after 5 tonight!! These condescending uppity twats think they've got you on a piece of string,ready and available at their beckon call...Strongly worded letter popped off to the Scottish Courts and Tribunal services this morning...
Done it twice - first time 9 & 1/2 days of no cases before getting sent home on the last possible 1/2 Day. Last year 2 days no case, then case for days 3-5, up to the point of the 'video' evidence none of us were sure, video evidence absolutely clear the 'person' had done it and baffled me why they had gone down the not guilty route (well not as they get longer as a remand prisoner with better privalages...) any who... We were excused the second week jury service as they had that many spare, annoyingly had to go back to work for week 2, ended taking 3 days off, as only had the crapy jobs no one wanted to do at work, as i'd cancelled my planned work...
Nah, in both cases the court ruling is that the defendant is not found guilty but not ‘proven innocent’.
Given the content of the recording, I wonder if he has grounds to appeal for not really understanding what 'consent' means?
There's lots of differences between the English and Scottish legal systems, for example if your criminally insane in England you're excused jury service, whereas in Scotland... The views expressed in my posts are not necessarily mine.
