He hasn't even been charged yet, let alone found guilty. It will probably depend on the result of the DNA test.
yes, and we need to get him to tell the club exactly what happened and take it from there. show the world we aim for higher standards.
Of course everyone aims for higher standards then rape, especially of a child. If he is guilty he is finished, but he says he is innocent so let's wait and see?
agreed FHB, i just want to see the club getting on this early and doing all they can to act in a responsible manner
Whatever happens now he is, in some people's eyes, guilty by association. BUT... what if he is totally innocent? His career has been damaged by this if he is guilty or (more importantly) not! His name should not have been made public until all the facts were known! my guess is that a policeman thought he could score some points with his media chums by making this story known. If no eveidence is found then the police will just say "not sufficient evidence etc." They would not say "Jordan is innocent" just not sufficient evidence but his life will be ruined whatever. If he did carry this out then he will be charged and taken to court, the Club will not have to take any action if he is guilty because he will be locked up for a very long time and I guess his contract will be automatically terminated.
After some thought, I think this actually works out well for Charlton assuming he is not found guilty. This allegation will put clubs off from buying him. It will allow us to hold on to a potential star. Although, if he is charged and found guilty that's a whole different story, but in that case, the club isn't exactly the priority at that point.
In june 2005 while in rotterdam with the dutch national team for the 2006 qualifiers one of the dutch team players was arrested and charged with rape. He was held in prison for 14 nights whilst the dutch police investigated reports about him. He was then released without charge but remained under suspicion. It wasn't until February 2006 that the case against him was dropped by the dutch prosecution service. The truth is there is quite often smoke without any fire in these circumstances. The dutch player is exceedingly well known and continues with his career. I am not going to mention his name since that panders to the publicity seeking that accused him of rape in the first place. Jordan may well be innocent as he has protested. Until a prosecution has been brought and then if he is found guilty is the time when we should be judgemental. The publicity from the media dregs prejudice any court case and the fact that he is under 18 and they have named him because he has not been charged makes me more despondent about the state of our society. Dont get me wrong, if he is found guilty there is no hell hole that he shouldnt be sent to but the fact that he wasn't immediately charged suggests that there are grounds that the case is not on solid basis. Innocent until proven otherwise must be remembered.
If he isnt Guilty it makes you wonder... why would a 12-year girl scream rape like that, bit sad really the amount of people cry rape around Footballers these days (how many get sentenced??) What I do find strange is the fact that it apparantly happened before Christmas... Did it take over a month for her to sort her story out to make is more believable or something
I guess it took time to identify him, only because it quotes that "alleges a youth who bought her new trainers attacked her" so would have taken time to identify him? Reading this though one thing sprang to mind, and I guess it stokes the fire, but why are we encouraging our lawyers that we the fans pay for to defend him? I mean if he goes to trial the cost will be massive, and if convicted that cost would have been enough to buy a decent championship player! Dont players have some form of insurance they pay into for legal issues etc and the club just support him with whatever he needs in other aspects? And agree, it's weird how the details have come out. It is obvious though that MOST of the case seems to rely on DNA hence arrest to get the power to take his DNA. If this comes back as a match then he has trouble, wether by consent or not it is underage sex which I think is still prosecuted?! If the DNA doesn't match then the case is weakened but by no means is over, i think?!
Perhaps its inappropriate of me to suggest an explanation, but the fact that "he brought her trainers" suggests to me that he knew her and she knew him, perhaps they have had a falling-out and she decided to cry rape? Would certainly explain why she took a while to tell the police. I know 'cry rape' may be a very provocative thing for me to accuse somebody of, and I apologise if saying so has offended anybody, but I guess I would just rather believe that one of our youth players would not commit such a vile and disgusting act. If he did it, then yes, terminate his contract and I hope he goes to jail for a long time, but if he didn't do it, then I can see his career being destroyed; he's been tipped as the most promising youngster in our academy for a number of years (many of us had heard his name thrown around before Carl Jenkinson was even considered ready for the first team), I know he's not developing as well as many had believed he would, so an accusation like this could really send him off the rails, into the ugly expanse of non-league football. Its a long shot, but do any posters on here know what he is like as a person?
How do the press get this information? They have either taken a statement from the 12 year old victim which is illegal and is an sexual offence in itself or they have committed contempt by predjudicing the right to a fair trial by releasing key details of the alledged offence and a crucial piece of evidence about the trainers which may now prejudice the defence. It makes me wonder just how corrupt our police are,Or has this story has been leaked or someone has phoned it in looking for a few quid. We are 5 months into the leverson enquiry and the press become sleazier and uglier every single day. I thought they sunk as low as possible over milly dowler. Not all rape cases require DNA to secure a conviction by the way. A person under the age of consent cannot give mutual permission and therefore any act is regarded in law as rape.
It is interesting how dna has come into the discussion. There has been nothing in the press to state that there is any DNA evidence. What the Scun quoted was that Jordan C had been asked to give a dna sample thus subliminally suggesting that there was. Basically as I understand it if you are arrested these days you are required to give a dna sample in any event. So possibly no DNA evidence just an accusation and Jordan has been detained. An underage person arrested and his details leaked to the media. He's a football progidy must be guilty as sin so let's ignore any rights he might have and sell the story to the Scun. I may be the only one on here who has sympathy for H Redknap esq who was brought to court on aspurious charge because he was a football manager and we all know they take bungs. There are a greater number of spurious businessmen in the city who avoid paying tax by having schemes of an illegal or even legal nature that our tax money would have been better used on. £8m pounds to prosecute for alleged unpaid tax of 50k. Probably find that the cps chap who took that decision was an embittered Southampton supporter.
Scratching - it may well be that 'Arry' was taken to court as a show case, i.e. HM Revenue & Customs saying to other people "own up or if we find hidden accounts we will take you to court" I often go to U18 games and talk to a lot of people, mostly parents of players. I was talking to the parent of one U18 starter (a few months ago) saying that Jordan was having a poor season and he said that Jordan had obviously missed having the summer off due to England duties but that Jordan was 'a very good lad and will make a good pro' The impression I get is that Jordan is NOT a 'Billy big balls' and is liked by the people around the U18s set-up.
All Hell Harry was taken as a show case may indeed be the reason, but normally you would want a show case to be a slam dunk. In terms of evidence they were relying on the testimony of a news of the world journalist. Even the CPS must have seen that as a weak link. Redknap did not deny that he had received the money only when he knew it had been put into the account and how it was classified. To be fair to the man, and this takes some effort, he did not run or even deny the money existed even the cps confirmed that he had told them about the money. His other dealings may stretch the law to breaking point (the issue of a property in Portsmouth is questionable), but the CPS have to learn to pick their fights. I hope that the person who chose this as a show case gets the opportunity to defend his selection even if it is in an employment tribunal. JC from all reports has been a decent enough young man. There is obvioulsy not enough evidence to charge him. If that is the case I hopw that, unlike the other case I mentioned earlier it doesn't take 9 months for them to confirm that they are not taking it any further and if appropriate (only if appropriate) issue a statement that he is not a suspect.
SVT I am not sure the Inland Revenue would ever take a case to court even if they were assurred a slam dunk. That simply never happens in tax issue cases. The issues are far too complicated for a jury and the test for a conviction is 'beyond all reasonable doubt' if you dont understand the case, then you must have doubt!The QC that defended Manderic was by all accounts brilliant, and charmed the jury who had lost interest in the case on day 2 and by day 3 were so lost inn the forensics accounts that they wanted to go home. Harry did his usual 'working class boy done me bit for charity routine" What would a juror of 20 years of age know about tax? The big mistake aside from spending 8 million on the investigation was trying the two together. Had Harry stood alone you may have got a conviction. Harry was saved by Manderic and his fame. The next poor sod who gets up, will not have such expirienced counsel or public eye status and will cop it.
The no comment from the club is because : 1 he is under 18 and shouldn't be named if he is charged 2 If he is guilty then the club make their position worse by commenting ahead of any trial 3 The last thing he needs is being publically supported and the profile of the case raised. The club is right to make no comment in a potential criminal case in which they have no part to play. If they support him behind the scenes then that is fine by me, but by publically supporting him, every Nigel, Denizen and whammer, not forgetting holier than though gunners, spuds and supporters of every other club in the land would condemn the club as well as the player. Let us do the right thing by the player and let the due process be followed. We know no more of the case than the Scun do, so dont inflame the fire with the air of publicity. Before anyone jumps on the bandwagon I have seen on other sites where they compare the club supporting the police in their arrest of those on the train after the Fulham match, let us remember that the club helped identify these people as possible trouble makers who were damaging the reputation of the club. This would be the same as identifying and banning a supporter who runs on to the pitch and damages our reputation by hitting a player from the opposition. This is not the same as the allegations made against our player which has to be treated calmly and sensibly. So far the club has behaved properly by not making a comment. ( I guess they may have had to confirm to the press that he is indeed on our books).
The case was a prosecution on behalf of Her Majesties Revenue and Customs, the new name for the revenue and this is the third or fourth high profile case they have lost. They win many more low profile cases against bsuinesses for smaller sums often small traders over failure to declare and pay VAT, but don't want to go after the boys who have the tax schemes on being paid for work they do in the US office of their business etc with the money being paid into a caymans account. There are plenty of tax loopholes that £8m pounds of tax consultancy would enable them to close and that investment would pay for itself many times over, but it might offend the friends of the government, be that Fred the Shred the mate of Gordon Brown or ex Oxford colleagues of Cameron. It is easy to identify the ways of closing the loopholes it is getting agreement of parliament of either persuasion to do it. The French have an interesting system in that any wealth that is not declared for tax in the country cannot be inherited. The assets and income that is not declared for tax by the living becomes part of the State when they die - inheritance tax at 100% for those who have been devious. One way of closing loopholes.
