Discussion
Driver101 said:
She says she only used cocaine 3 times and the last weeks before the incident. I thought cocaine only stayed in the system for 2-3 days?
I read she sent a text message,but do they say what she sent?
It sounds as if they are suggesting she was out shagging before and after this incident.
The text was apparently perfectly legible with a kiss on the end.I read she sent a text message,but do they say what she sent?
It sounds as if they are suggesting she was out shagging before and after this incident.
Edited by Driver101 on Wednesday 5th October 18:40
There appears to be so many inconsistencies in the girls evidence from what has been tweeted. I think it will be difficult for the jury to be unaware of the hype in this case and to put that aside. Also the sexual behaviour of those involved might be abhorrent to many but it hangs on was she a willing participant in this or a victim.
And even if he is found not guilty this time, will those who ran the campaign against him ever accept the verdict? If found guilty will he have to serve time again and if so will it be the rest of the origanal sentence or will they slap more on?
And even if he is found not guilty this time, will those who ran the campaign against him ever accept the verdict? If found guilty will he have to serve time again and if so will it be the rest of the origanal sentence or will they slap more on?
desolate said:
Mr Snrub said:
If he is found not guilty that will be one hell of a compensation claim for lost earnings
Who would he claim that off?However, looks to me as if it is capped at £500k, and it would appear that it also reverses the burden of proof. It's not enough that your conviction is quashed because there is reasonable doubt about it, there has to be no reasonable doubt that you were innocent.
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/docum...
If I'm reading it correctly, there is no chance of compensation in this case, or cases like it.
otolith said:
desolate said:
Mr Snrub said:
If he is found not guilty that will be one hell of a compensation claim for lost earnings
Who would he claim that off?However, looks to me as if it is capped at £500k, and it would appear that it also reverses the burden of proof. It's not enough that your conviction is quashed because there is reasonable doubt about it, there has to be no reasonable doubt that you were innocent.
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/docum...
If I'm reading it correctly, there is no chance of compensation in this case, or cases like it.
He was on £20,000 a week at Sheffield Utd and his career was on the up. With the jail sentence and then clubs not signing him he went 4 years without work.
I don't imagine Chesterfield will be paying him much at all now.
I'm sure read a while ago that it was his girlfriend's dad who was paying his legal fees?
If he is innocent £500,000 wouldn't come close to his losses.
I don't imagine Chesterfield will be paying him much at all now.
I'm sure read a while ago that it was his girlfriend's dad who was paying his legal fees?
If he is innocent £500,000 wouldn't come close to his losses.
otolith said:
The state.
However, looks to me as if it is capped at £500k, and it would appear that it also reverses the burden of proof. It's not enough that your conviction is quashed because there is reasonable doubt about it, there has to be no reasonable doubt that you were innocent.
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/docum...
If I'm reading it correctly, there is no chance of compensation in this case, or cases like it.
I would think next to nil chance.However, looks to me as if it is capped at £500k, and it would appear that it also reverses the burden of proof. It's not enough that your conviction is quashed because there is reasonable doubt about it, there has to be no reasonable doubt that you were innocent.
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/docum...
If I'm reading it correctly, there is no chance of compensation in this case, or cases like it.
I understand that there is new evidence - so the begs the question why wasn't this evidence available last time?
SpeckledJim said:
Pending a not-guilty verdict, that state of compensatory affairs doesn't seem very fair to me.
Could this sort of career hiatus / damage by covered by professional insurance, like an injury would?
There is insurance out there for things like reputational damage. But it's quite a tricky area as it doesn't cover deliberate acts.Could this sort of career hiatus / damage by covered by professional insurance, like an injury would?
I did a package for someone once who was sponsored by a sports drinks company and he got specific cover in case the company ever used a banned substance and he was dragged in.
Some bigger stars will have companies that "manage the brand" and they could potentially insure themselves against the negative actions of the "Asset" but that is all hi-falutin stuff, way above my technical grade.
Whatever the outcome of this case it will have an element of "if you lie with dogs, you get fleas"
desolate said:
SpeckledJim said:
Pending a not-guilty verdict, that state of compensatory affairs doesn't seem very fair to me.
Could this sort of career hiatus / damage by covered by professional insurance, like an injury would?
There is insurance out there for things like reputational damage. But it's quite a tricky area as it doesn't cover deliberate acts.Could this sort of career hiatus / damage by covered by professional insurance, like an injury would?
I did a package for someone once who was sponsored by a sports drinks company and he got specific cover in case the company ever used a banned substance and he was dragged in.
Some bigger stars will have companies that "manage the brand" and they could potentially insure themselves against the negative actions of the "Asset" but that is all hi-falutin stuff, way above my technical grade.
Whatever the outcome of this case it will have an element of "if you lie with dogs, you get fleas"
If is turns out he isn't a rapist, and so shouldn't have been in jail, then surely he should be returned to the position he would have been in before the injustice (insofar as that is possible).
He certainly accepted a risk to his reputation and his relationship by doing what he did (assuming it wasn't rape) but the punishment doesn't fit the
SpeckledJim said:
Quite agree, but he was sacked for being a rapist who (due to being in prison) wasn't able to fulfil his contract.
If is turns out he isn't a rapist, and so shouldn't have been in jail, then surely he should be returned to the position he would have been in before the injustice (insofar as that is possible).
He certainly accepted a risk to his reputation and his relationship by doing what he did (assuming it wasn't rape) but the punishment doesn't fit thecrime misbehaviour.
On a practical level there is no point pursuing the woman involved as she won't have the resources. (Civil Claim)If is turns out he isn't a rapist, and so shouldn't have been in jail, then surely he should be returned to the position he would have been in before the injustice (insofar as that is possible).
He certainly accepted a risk to his reputation and his relationship by doing what he did (assuming it wasn't rape) but the punishment doesn't fit the
Then I suppose it's a question of whether the authorities have been negligent in bringing the case (can't see how that could be case) or if his defence team have been negligent in their work.
t. But that was never in doubt. Gassing Station | Football | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff