If a person commits a crime knowingfully, they are guilty are they not?
You still have to treat them as innocent until they are convicted, but once again they are actually guilty of a crime convicted or otherwise.
All the court process does is confirm that their peers believe they are either innocent or guilty so a judge can pass sentence.
Almost as if by stoner law we've somehow gone off on a tangent that involves quite a lot of bollocks from myself and others so bringing it back to Bergdich...
I like the look of his record and stats and more so that a Serie A player has agreed terms. Let's hope he puts pen to paper and worry about the rest later.
I haven't admitted anything lol, someone would have to accuse me of the crime obviously!?
So we shouldn't sign anyone, just in case they have committed a crime but noone has reported it yet
Where have you got that from?
I have said: I like the look of his record and stats and more so that a Serie A player has agreed terms. Let's hope he puts pen to paper and worry about the rest later.
in Katrien and Rolland we trust.
Not once have I said don't sign him.
I just think it's funny that so many people think someone can be innocent of a crime just because they have not been convicted of it.
If you domestically abuse a woman, steal a car, cause criminal damage etc you are guilty.
I know people who were 100% guilty of a crime, because they admitted it to me afterwards, that were found not guilty in court. Both were minor assault charges and neither are now friends.
So because they were found not guilty you are saying the crime never happened and they are innocent?
They were 100% guilty but found not guilty because of their ability and their legal teams ability to turn a jury... Is it really that difficult to get?
p.s I know the point you are making relates solely to law, but my argument comes from the moral side also.
Being charged and convicted are not the same thing.
don't be silly mate, some on here have him convicted already based on a media report
It's quite shocking how little some people seem to know about the legal system of the country they live in, I just couldn't feel safe living like that.
Probably why you're in China.
Not quite sure where that connection came from, I have a pretty good understanding of UK and Chinese law.
Being charged and convicted are not the same thing.
don't be silly mate, some on here have him convicted already based on a media report
It's quite shocking how little some people seem to know about the legal system of the country they live in, I just couldn't feel safe living like that.
Probably why you're in China.
Guilty in who's eyes? Certainly not the laws or publics.
I don't think anyone on this thread is saying he is guilty, some of us would just feel more comfortable if someone was able to produce a link to a news report showing it was all a misunderstanding, i don't see why some have an issue with that logic.
A happy picture of them is not evidence that it was nothing, as all the happy family photos of a family member of mine with her ex husband could show.
I don't think anyone on this thread is saying he is guilty, some of us would just feel more comfortable if someone was able to produce a link to a news report showing it was all a misunderstanding, i don't see why some have an issue with that logic.
yes, that would be nice, but there isn't one but then there was only one news report in the first place which i find odd in itself
If this fella was signing for Millwank, pretty much everyone on this site would have him guilty as charged. Because he's signing for us, a lot are starting to put their knives away. Typical of people who run with the hare and chase with the hounds!
I don't think this either the time nor the place to be discussing this Tom. More interesting for me is this thread is now probably number 1 on the moderators watch list for today. It has the potential to really explode.......
It's not just about innocent or guilty , it's about levels in seriousness of crime
If in a court of law your found guilty of murder child abuse, rape
Thats not a mistake it's a wrong un
If you drink drive ( even if you kill someone) That's a mistake anyone can make
If you have given someone a dig man or woman
And it's not something that you have done regularly or still do regularly
It's a crime that does warrant a second chance and an opportunity to continue in life as a normal person If it was my daughter he slapped I'd deal with him myself so it's not that my morales have changed or my tune
But there's no reason someone can't make a mistake can't choose the wrong option and make the wrong decision,
I don't think anyone on this thread is saying he is guilty, some of us would just feel more comfortable if someone was able to produce a link to a news report showing it was all a misunderstanding, i don't see why some have an issue with that logic.
yes, that would be nice, but there isn't one but then there was only one news report in the first place which i find odd in itself
There is only one report in English, but I wouldn't expect many English reports of a Moroccan footballer playing in Italy to be honest. What coverage there was in Italian, Moroccan or Spanish press, I don't know
I don't think anyone on this thread is saying he is guilty, some of us would just feel more comfortable if someone was able to produce a link to a news report showing it was all a misunderstanding, i don't see why some have an issue with that logic.
yes, that would be nice, but there isn't one but then there was only one news report in the first place which i find odd in itself
There is only one report in English, but I wouldn't expect many English reports of a Moroccan footballer playing in Italy to be honest. What coverage there was in Italian, Moroccan or Spanish press, I don't know
well, if you use Google all that comes up is the one report on an Italian website which was from the Italian News Agency and translated from English. If you do a search on the News Agency all i got was the two items I have already posted, the above report and the one the next day from Zak and his wife saying all was ok and don't believe what you read.
Of course they weren't but you don't have to be paralytic drunk to be charged with DD , it's also probably the one crime more people have committed than any other across the world, and even if you wasn't to blame in a collision,
For example, your travelling at 30 mph, you cross a junction, a car is travelling at 70 mph in a 30 and jumps the lights , you survive the driver in the other doesn't, you have had two pints only and blow just over
Then what ? Life finished your a dd who killed someone,
What If they were you, your partner , dad, mum, nan grandad, brother ,
Not the person who died but the one who was the dd
Would you think they deserved to have their life ruined even more than the consequences of that night will ruin anu way
The sanctimonious on here would rather a supporter with a criminal record is banned from the stands - a player has no chance.
Just for the sake of clarity, the plod can only apply for a banning order for a "football-related offence".
It's a civil rather than criminal matter. That makes them quite easy to get if, say someone has been violent or there has been other disorder caught on CCTV at or near (both in time and place) a football match. It is not necessary for the individual to have been convicted of a criminal offence if there are reasonable grounds to believe that imposing an order will prevent violence or disorder in the future. The burden of proof is lower - which is why the Chelsea 4 had no chance. (But that doesn't explain why the police didn't seek to have Roy Keane banned from attending football matches....)
Breach of the civil order becomes a criminal offence - rather like contempt of court I suppose.
So, a random criminal offence would not and cannot lead to a banning order. Although the recent belting incident probably (almost certainly?) will.
BTW, the list of banning orders is much as you'd expect. As at September last year, the average number for each Championship club is 25. Charlton, of course are below average on 21. Whereas Millwall have a depressing 72 but still trail Cardiff by 21. The massive have a massive 35 but are only in fourth place courtesy of Huddersfield with 42. So, really the numbers are pretty small with only Premier League Newcastle hitting three figures.
I don't think anyone on this thread is saying he is guilty, some of us would just feel more comfortable if someone was able to produce a link to a news report showing it was all a misunderstanding, i don't see why some have an issue with that logic.
yes, that would be nice, but there isn't one but then there was only one news report in the first place which i find odd in itself
There is only one report in English, but I wouldn't expect many English reports of a Moroccan footballer playing in Italy to be honest. What coverage there was in Italian, Moroccan or Spanish press, I don't know
There was that other article, in Italian, which someone posted which was written at the start of June which claimed that a whole host of additional - extremely unpleasant (think Ched Evans) - charges were being considered against this chap on the strength of a tape that the prosecution had come across.
I can only imagine, if we really are signing him, that the whole thing has been dropped and Charlton are aware of the allegations and that the selling club and/or player aren't pulling the wool over our eyes. If it has been dropped, or if it was never a case in the first place, then we have to treat him as though he is innocent because in the eyes of the law he is and we don't really have much evidence to the contrary. Logically there can be no situation where we treat someone as guilty despite their legal innocence - we may as well not have bothered spending the past 1,000 years building a legal system in this country if we do that.
we're fast becoming the 'South bank Arsenal' with all our new foreigners .. this lad looks very decent and will strengthen a very weak position for us https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MLrj-TFrFI
Comments
I have said:
I like the look of his record and stats and more so that a Serie A player has agreed terms. Let's hope he puts pen to paper and worry about the rest later.
in Katrien and Rolland we trust.
Not once have I said don't sign him.
I just think it's funny that so many people think someone can be innocent of a crime just because they have not been convicted of it.
If you domestically abuse a woman, steal a car, cause criminal damage etc you are guilty.
I know people who were 100% guilty of a crime, because they admitted it to me afterwards, that were found not guilty in court. Both were minor assault charges and neither are now friends.
So because they were found not guilty you are saying the crime never happened and they are innocent?
They were 100% guilty but found not guilty because of their ability and their legal teams ability to turn a jury... Is it really that difficult to get?
p.s I know the point you are making relates solely to law, but my argument comes from the moral side also.
Sign him up. In Kat and Rol we trust...
A happy picture of them is not evidence that it was nothing, as all the happy family photos of a family member of mine with her ex husband could show.
If in a court of law your found guilty of murder child abuse, rape
Thats not a mistake it's a wrong un
If you drink drive ( even if you kill someone)
That's a mistake anyone can make
If you have given someone a dig man or woman
And it's not something that you have done regularly or still do regularly
It's a crime that does warrant a second chance and an opportunity to continue in life as a normal person
If it was my daughter he slapped I'd deal with him myself so it's not that my morales have changed or my tune
But there's no reason someone can't make a mistake can't choose the wrong option and make the wrong decision,
And be given the chance to move on
hookfootAggression set at 20...
For example, your travelling at 30 mph, you cross a junction, a car is travelling at 70 mph in a 30 and jumps the lights , you survive the driver in the other doesn't, you have had two pints only and blow just over
Then what ? Life finished your a dd who killed someone,
What If they were you, your partner , dad, mum, nan grandad, brother ,
Not the person who died but the one who was the dd
Would you think they deserved to have their life ruined even more than the consequences of that night will ruin anu way
It's a civil rather than criminal matter. That makes them quite easy to get if, say someone has been violent or there has been other disorder caught on CCTV at or near (both in time and place) a football match. It is not necessary for the individual to have been convicted of a criminal offence if there are reasonable grounds to believe that imposing an order will prevent violence or disorder in the future. The burden of proof is lower - which is why the Chelsea 4 had no chance. (But that doesn't explain why the police didn't seek to have Roy Keane banned from attending football matches....)
Breach of the civil order becomes a criminal offence - rather like contempt of court I suppose.
So, a random criminal offence would not and cannot lead to a banning order. Although the recent belting incident probably (almost certainly?) will.
BTW, the list of banning orders is much as you'd expect. As at September last year, the average number for each Championship club is 25. Charlton, of course are below average on 21. Whereas Millwall have a depressing 72 but still trail Cardiff by 21. The massive have a massive 35 but are only in fourth place courtesy of Huddersfield with 42. So, really the numbers are pretty small with only Premier League Newcastle hitting three figures.
I can only imagine, if we really are signing him, that the whole thing has been dropped and Charlton are aware of the allegations and that the selling club and/or player aren't pulling the wool over our eyes. If it has been dropped, or if it was never a case in the first place, then we have to treat him as though he is innocent because in the eyes of the law he is and we don't really have much evidence to the contrary. Logically there can be no situation where we treat someone as guilty despite their legal innocence - we may as well not have bothered spending the past 1,000 years building a legal system in this country if we do that.
Oh, is he actually any good at football ?