- Thread starter
- #321
Liverpool fans have been asked not to speculate or make accusations to avoid prejudicing any proceedings.
Liverpool fans have been asked not to speculate or make accusations to avoid prejudicing any proceedings.
Liverpool fans have been asked not to speculate or make accusations to avoid prejudicing any proceedings.
Brilliant for the families.
Wonder if this will open the door for a return to terraces?
About bloody time - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-44656778
Indeed. Daft question time - under what justification was a stay on him being prosecuted issued ?
I fail to see how any charges against him stood any chance of a successful prosecution not the answer for all the victims but reality in a court case in our legal system.
Do you know what the charges were, and why they wouldn't have been successful?
I doubt any of us will ever know not that we ever should.
Presumably CPS decided not to proceed
We know what the charges were, and that the situation has changed since they were first brought, hence the CPS deciding not to proceed.
What I want to know is how BG is so sure that the original charges wouldn't have been successful?
There are few things more cloying in football; more morally repugnant in decent society than the sight of Sir Norman Bettison continuing to play the victim, arrogantly believing he has been vindicated.
His statement outside the Courts briefly mentioned the victims, then the rest was how he had been made a scapegoat, and how HIS life had been ruined.
For their part, the Hillsborough families are launching a review into this decision.
My understanding is that the court have thrown this case out 'due to lack of evidence'. If there is no evidence against someone then a prosecution cannot move forward. On the basis of innocent until proven guilty doesn't that therefore vindicate Bettison?
I am not trying to be controversial or insensitive here. I would genuinely like to understand. Thank you
My understanding is that the court have thrown this case out 'due to lack of evidence'. If there is no evidence against someone then a prosecution cannot move forward. On the basis of innocent until proven guilty doesn't that therefore vindicate Bettison?
I am not trying to be controversial or insensitive here. I would genuinely like to understand. Thank you