'I've never said he's guilty'
'He's not been proven innocent'
And yet it's mean that you suggest shouldn't comment.
Are you really too stupid to know the difference?
'I've never said he's guilty'
'He's not been proven innocent'
And yet it's mean that you suggest shouldn't comment.
I can see why you might think that, but the higher burden of proof is better for the defendant, as it makes it harder to convict someone. The onus is on the prosecution to prove their guilty.So once you have been on trial you can never be seen as innocent, just case not proven. That seems a fair system.
In the first trial a video was shown of Mendys co accussed having sex with his accuser. It was obvious and in case it wasn't, the judge stated it was obvious to all that the so called victim was fully consenting and fully partaking in sexual intercourse. Another instance was after a so called victim claimed she had been raped she sent texts to Mendy wanting to meet up, texts to others about how she had hit gold etc. Clearly it was totally opposite to the evidence she gave to the police.Can you show me where the courts showed they were liars? Genuine question. Maybe I missed it.
Scotland have scrapped it and rightly so.I have to smile, purely in good taste but..... is this "not been proven innocent" stance going to apply to Huw Edwards?
Seriously, no offence intended.
Maybe we need a third verdict a la Scotland.... Case unproven?
Ooops didn't know that.Scotland have scrapped it and rightly so.
He's possibly (probably) guilty of being stupid but that doesn't make him guilty of anything else, in which case he's innocent of the charges.I’ve never said he’s guilty at all, let alone tried to “prove the juries were wrong”
I said he’s not been proven innocent - which is a fact, and objected to the idea the events of the last 3 years happened to him “through no fault of his own”.
If you can’t reply to what a comment says, don’t reply to it. Don’t invent what you wish a comment had said and then respond to that because it just wastes all our time.
Are you really too stupid to know the difference?
Mendy will now rightly be paid tens of millions of pounds in loss of earnings (wages), missed commercial opportunities and severe reputational damage.
This will all be funded by the CPS which is funded by yours truly (the tax payer).
This is on top of the hundreds of thousands the trial will have cost.
What a shambles.
.... not unlike Ched Evans?In the first trial a video was shown of Mendys co accussed having sex with his accuser. It was obvious and in case it wasn't, the judge stated it was obvious to all that the so called victim was fully consenting and fully partaking in sexual interiors. Another instance was after a so called victim claimed she had been raped she sent texts to Mendy wanting to meet up, texts to others about how she had hit gold etc. Clearly it was totally opposite to the evidence she gave to the police.