Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Football] Mason Greenwood charged with attempted rape
- Thread starter TomandJerry
- Start date
- May 8, 2018
- 10,503
Tom Bombadil
Well-known member
Only among people who don't understand the difference between manslaughter and murder.
Last edited:
Seagull58
In the Algarve
If they released the "new information" that caused them to drop the case it would help in making a determination regarding rehabilitation. If the new info is the fact that he broke bail conditions for months, with the knowledge of the police and their refusal to take action, by contacting the girl and that they are back in a relationship ( IF), then he will quite possibly stay in the EPL.
Lenny Rider
Well-known member
- Sep 15, 2010
- 5,951
Sorry Tom, if you get pissed in a pub, get in your car and kill someone, most of their family and friends will brand you a murderer.
schmunk
Second time lucky?
And, absent of any evidence of targeted motive, they'd all be wrong.
Sheebo
Well-known member
- Jul 13, 2003
- 29,319
No way. No English prem club would at all imo.
.......... and if the new information is that he bought off the girl with a huge lump of 'hush money'?
stewardxxx
Active member
I think it is more along the lines of a huge bump given to her...
The huge bump would not be an explanation for dropping ths case - a huge lump sum might be.
But your original point was regarding an “age old debate”, I presume, about law?
Whilst I’m supportive of forgiveness and rehabilitation it has to be earned and there has to be genuine contrition. If I was the PFA I’d recognise the severity of his situation, recognise the bigger picture and offer to help but only with strict rules. Any breach and he’s discarded
It is an interesting point, but surely the point of a Union is to protect its members and if there is no legal action, despite what we all heard, then that’s their job in a way
I was thinking precisely the same thing, but Tom is right that in law it would not be murder. I suspect it has been argued for decades whether deliberately doing things that increase the chance of a bad things happening constitutes contributory negligence. I understand why laws say not. We all do things that increase the likelihood of something bad happening. We can't all be prosecuted every time the bad thing happens. With certain things, though, we can be prosecuted, for example if drink driving leads to a death. But it isn't murder. The nature of a crime can't be defined on the basis of how angry or upset people feel. If it were, the bloke who stole my bike would be a dead man.
It’s certainly an interesting point, and I don’t envy the PFA one bit. I agree the Union is to protect and help it’s members but at what cost? I wonder how the police Union responded to the recent cases with their members? I appreciate he isn’t guilty in the sense of a criminal record but he’s certainly one very unpleasant individual.
My experience of unions is that if someone gets punished for breaking the law the person may get some help after they have paid their dues. The question here seems to me (although I could be wrong) whether the lad has paid his dues. The union will otherwise help only over a disputable work matter, for example accusations of harassment. We have a student presently who has already reported a member of staff to the principle, accusing them of not assessing their work fairly. She accused me of rudeness (me? fer fucks ache!) but backed off when someone else with authority told her I wasn't being rude (dear). With two fail marks and more disaster on the way I am expecting her to accuse a colleague, perhaps me, of racism. That's when the union will step in (as this is potential harassment of staff and false accusation). I suspect we have moved on from the 'instant suspension' scenario that used to befall victims of false accusations, thankfully. All that said I quit my union over their Corbyn-worshipping anti-Semitic tomfoolery. At the end of the day, it is what it is.
Seagull58
In the Algarve
That makes a difference. It's also obstruction of justice.
studio150
Well-known member
and among people who don't understand that the driver would be charged with the offence of causing death by drink driving, which now carries a maximum sentence of live imprisonment.
Tom Bombadil
Well-known member
Not dead imprisonment then?
We all have that to look forward to.