Was Paul McBride the prosecuting lawyer? If not, then why does he feel the need to comment on the case? Also, if the procurator fiscal is planning on appealing, then it could be argued that due to press exposure, the defence will not receive a fair trial. If the jury are influenced by anything outside of court then any judgement can not be seen as impartial
It's the Prosecutions fault and no one elses. Or maybe the Jury didn't like Lennon either Personally, I really couldn't give a ****, regardless of it being Lennon or anycunt else. I struggle to comprehend why the Celtic community are so 'outraged' at this, **** knows that they have got away with a number of assaults over the years on the field of play. Perhaps it's Karma? Anyway, stop greeting ya ****in mopey ****s, you're all still alive, so is your Dear leader, nothing to see here, move on.
Probably because he knows a **** load about Scottish law and has a history of dealing with Celtic and this case involved the law and the Celtic manager. Not exactly hard to work out is it ML?
That's certainly not what I said. Although I understand how "making a cunt of it" could easily be linked to the workings of the celtc minded In my eyes he was born a British citizen, in Britain. Your anti-British racism is so strong that you cannot your hero actually being British. Hard lines.
You said... ...when referring to the PF's office. So who are these rabid ******s and how are they able to have such influence over the PF?
But surely he should have kept his mouth shut until after the procurator fiscal decides if they are going to appeal. If they do appeal, it will be a further waste of money, because the defence will claim the jury may have been influenced outside of court. Not only is it the prosecutors fault for punting on the sectarian aspect, it will be McBrides fault that the case can't be appealed. Lennon should be charged now, seeing as he admitted aiming a kick at the man when he was pinned down. I'm pretty sure assaulting an innocent man is against the law.
Frank, just stop ffs Northern Ireland is part of the UK and not part of Great Britain - you can be a citizen of the UK but not a "British citizen" as you put it (I suspect you meant subject). If you live in a Bailliwick (like Jersey) you are a British subject but not a UK citizen as you're balliwick has declared crown dependancy or loyalty but is not subject to the various UK law and tax systems. The UK is one of the few constitutional countries which has no written constitution and its transfer from absolute monarchy to constitutional monarchy means that the lines between subject and citizen are blurred - the word "citizen" only appeared on passports fairly recently and is technically incorrect as we live in subjigation to a monarch. You're anti-British ignorance is astounding young man.
Its clear there was desperation for the sectarianism charge to be made. Otherwise they would have done him simply for assault and breach of the peace and done him for that. There was simply no need for religion to be brought into this. My eyes are pretty, unlike wee Lenny. Who is showing worrying effects of his drink and drug problems. Poor Lenny, sectarian booze got him.
I agree but you were inferring that the PF's office had come to that decision based on the influence of external sources. I just wondered who you think these people are?
So they must have been aware of the facility to remove the sectarian element on both counts? interesting.
The Sheriff's job is to explain to the jury exactly what their options are and those ooptions included deleting the sectarian element of both charges. If the Sheriff did not explain it (which I find hard to believe especially as that has not been reported as being the case here) then he would be at fault. That the jury chose not to find him guilty of common assault (which he admitted in court) is simply unfathomable.
In that case, yeah. Absolutely. I don't know too much about Scottish law, so I was searching for a reason that they should have returned such a verdict. In searching for a reason that they did not reach a guilty verdict the only thing I could reasonably point to was the inclusion of the Sectarian element as confusing matters.
They returned a not guilty verdict because he was not guilty Innocent until proven guilty, not proven guilty, so he is innocent.
