So does that mean he is innocent or guilty? Our system says that you are innocent until proven guilty. If he is found not guilty or not proven, then it means he is innocent.
No it does'nt It means the case was "Not proven" if he was "innocent" they would have returned a verdict of "Not Guilty". The jury believe the case was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt (how they came to that conclusion is another matter) so they did not think he was innocent, no one does.
Jesus Christ no That's the purpose of the Not Proven verdict in Scotland - many people want it changed and someone famously called it "That Bastard Verdict" (Walter Scott maybe?) People who've had Not Proven verdicts complain that it affects their future job prospects (I think it still comes up under a criminal record check - I'm not sure) and it is in no way an indication of the lack of guilt - simply the lack of suitable evidence to prove the conviction.
It was Walter Scott <quitepleasedwithmymemory> http://arthurdobrin.wordpress.com/2...nows-theyre-guilty—scotlands-bastard-verdict/
So is this to say the innocent until proven guilty does not apply to this case? He's guilty because it was Lennon involved? Until the guy is found guilty, he is innocent
Whether or not he called Lennon a fenian or not its another moment that has made Scotland a laughing stock. No wonder no **** wants to move to Scotland to play football.
He is still in jail over all of this - and is due to be sentanced next week. Got off with 2 out of about 20 charges in fairness. But it certainly wasnt a not guilty offence. Indeed he admitted openly he did hit Lennon - which i didnt even know he did and i watched the game!!!
ML - read the link I put up - Scots Law is a non-binary system where there are more than two absolute verdicts available - the "innocent until proven guilty" quote was uttered back in the day by an English lawyer. Here's another link about it: http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland/Individuals-are-presumed-innocent-until.3273124.jp Basically, the not proven verdict means that you are suspected to be guilty but there's not enough evidence. I still think it's a good thing to have in Scotland - it means we don't over-convict like other countries on supposition and the like but, every so often, a not proven case causes us all to discuss its validity. ...and that's all I know about the law (except that the world's first civil case was in Paisley - over a slug in a ginger bottle - my mate did an LLB and learned that in his first lecture)
I'm pretty sure wee Neil hasn't given up his (original, birth) British citizenship. Stop with the silly semantics. I have a British passport, and I have an Irish passport because of their rules - doesn't mean I can vote in their elections or claim their benefits though as I don't live there. As for the bloke on the charges...pretty sure I read somewhere that he'd admitted, as was obvious, an assault. But as he wasn't actually charged with just "assault", he couldn't be convicted for it. The charge having the sectarian element, which seemingly couldn't be proved, was dismissed.
And I'm pretty sure wee Neil has never lived down south either so basically he's profiting from the same rules many of us in Northern Ireland do (if he even holds an irish passport?). It's well known that the Irish passport rules are particularly lax. I have relatives in Canada whose only link to "Ireland" is a grandparent...born in Northern Ireland AFTER partition and even they can get a passport with no hassle. I think this is almost unheard of anywhere else in the world. I believe Germany has some sorts of similar rules but I'm not entirely certain. So to anyone bickering about what citizenship he holds - wise up. Only clowns would totally reject getting a British passport - i'd be 99.9% certain Neil has always had one and always will. There are people in the world who would probably crawl for a thousand miles over broken glass to get their hands on one. I'm a unionist and a Rangers supporter but I'll not begrudge an easy passport so I hold an Irish one too. You never know when they'll come in handy.
Don't claim to. Just saying that it seems someone decided to go for a trumped up charge and then failed to prove it. Hence the bloke is acquitted.
