Court case from derby

[johnmc]

Yeah because juries never get a verdict wrong.

Which is why I regularly play golf with OJ Simpson.

Jesus tonight!! What a tool.

Yeah a judged a book by the cover of Methodone, cannibis, alcohol, unemployed, tattoos, attempting to get compo etc.

You dont see many like him who are upsstanding citizens do you.

The guy could wear the full city kit day ion day out - doesnt mean he cant be a bellend.

Next you would be telling me he would be an ideal partner for your daughter

 

[SWP's back]

Yeah because juries never get a verdict wrong.

Which is why I regularly play golf with OJ Simpson.

Jesus tonight!! What a tool.

You still haven't explained what sort of person I am.

I see you totally ignored that post as it showed you up for the little englander that you are.

 

[cibaman]

Two Manchester United stewards accused of breaking a Manchester City fan's legs by pushing him down a stairwell have been cleared of any wrongdoing.

A jury took around an hour to decide that Paul Stringer and Mark Roberts were not guilty of assaulting Blues supporter Peter Sweeney.

Mr Sweeney was being escorted out of Old Trafford stadium during the derby match in September 2009 when he claimed he was shoved down the steps by the two men.

Mr Sweeney, 47, a methadone addict from Macclesfield fractured his left heel and right shin.

Mr Roberts and Mr Stringer denied touching the complainant at all and said he slipped and fell down the eight steps in the ground's east wing.

A jury at Manchester Minshull Street Crown Court today returned not guilty verdicts for each defendant.

There was CCTV footage so I can only assume it clearly showed him falling rather than being pushed, or else was inconclusive and therefore introduced enough doubt to prevent a guilty verdict.

I'm certain the City fan's personal situation and issues didn't help his cause one little bit.

CCTV coverage is often inconclusive. If it was in this case then it just becomes the defendents word against the complainant. Often thats enough to create a reasonable doubt.

 

[johnmc]

You still haven't explained what sort of person I am.

I see you totally ignored that post as it showed you up for the little englander that you are.

Well put it this way, your posts in this thread have said that the two stewards pushed the guy down the stairs. Yet if i insinuate they might not of done gioen the history of the guy, you argue the point. We both didnt know, we both pre judged yet I'm in the wrong as I prejudged against the city fan.

You have judged the two rag stewards guilty before they were proved innocent. You said that they pushed him down the stairs. You believe a City fan is innocent of everything because he is a City fan. Very hypocritical and very narrow minded.

And also wrong.

 

[Boots_]

You still haven't explained what sort of person I am.

I see you totally ignored that post as it showed you up for the little englander that you are.

Well put it this way, your posts in this thread have said that the two stewards pushed the guy down the stairs. Yet if i insinuate they might not of done gioen the history of the guy, you argue the point. We both didnt know, we both pre judged yet I'm in the wrong as I prejudged against the city fan.

You have judged the two rag stewards guilty before they were proved innocent. You said that they pushed him down the stairs. You believe a City fan is innocent of everything because he is a City fan. Very hypocritical and very narrow minded.

And also wrong.

How dare you suggest that the City supporting, drug addled claimant is anything but ace?! I think you should hand your password in at the Bluemoon cyber door and head over to Sad Cafe.

 

[allblackcitizen]

Not much going our way at the moment.

Don't think much of Mr Sweeney if he knew he wasn't pushed and purued this action

Wouldn't have been up to him.

Do you think the police and CPS wouldn't have watched the CCTV until it was shown in Court? Obviously it showed something to persuade them, alongside the victim's testimony, that a crime had been committed and that a prosecution was viable and in the public interest.

Mr Sweeney hasn't been shown to be a liar or to have made it up, but clearly the jury were not convinced beyond reasonable doubt and therefore couldn't convict. Obviously his character and behaviour probably didn't help matters.

What will be interesting is whether Sweeney pursues a civil case against MUFC where there is a much lower standard of proof. Just because there was no conviction doesn't mean he hasn't got a case.

 

[johnmc]

How dare you suggest that the City supporting, drug addled claimant is anything but ace?! I think you should hand your password in at the Bluemoon cyber door and head over to Sad Cafe.

He goes home and away games as well you know, not sure how he affords it, probably through the benefits system so I'm paying towards it, but shows that he is a perfect specimen of the human form.

I apologise to everyone.

 

[SWP's back]

You still haven't explained what sort of person I am.

I see you totally ignored that post as it showed you up for the little englander that you are.

Well put it this way, your posts in this thread have said that the two stewards pushed the guy down the stairs. Yet if i insinuate they might not of done gioen the history of the guy, you argue the point. We both didnt know, we both pre judged yet I'm in the wrong as I prejudged against the city fan.

You have judged the two rag stewards guilty before they were proved innocent. You said that they pushed him down the stairs. You believe a City fan is innocent of everything because he is a City fan. Very hypocritical and very narrow minded.

And also wrong.

I - unlike you, spent half an hour on a train with Peter (first time I met him and is stated on page 2 or 3) on the way back from Wolves so please pardon me for believing his very convincing and believable story (so belieable that the CPS chose to try and prosecute the two stewards after they viewed the CCTV also).

WHat I did not do was try and prejudge everything from a picture and the fact that someone has a problem with addiction.

I am sure if I had spent time with the two stewards then maybe the same thing would have happened. What I was not, was narrow minded (you have done a superb job of doing that yourself).

Can you please state how I have been hypocritical though as I fear you may have some strange definition of it.

Which ever way you dress it up, you don't come out of this as a very compassionate, caring or likeable human being despite the fact that the jury has agreed with your initial judgement (though I do hope they used evidence to judge rather than some right wing moralising).

 

[glen quagmire]

Not much going our way at the moment.

Don't think much of Mr Sweeney if he knew he wasn't pushed and purued this action

Wouldn't have been up to him.

Do you think the police and CPS wouldn't have watched the CCTV until it was shown in Court? Obviously it showed something to persuade them, alongside the victim's testimony, that a crime had been committed and that a prosecution was viable and in the public interest.

Mr Sweeney hasn't been shown to be a liar or to have made it up, but clearly the jury were not convinced beyond reasonable doubt and therefore couldn't convict. Obviously his character and behaviour probably didn't help matters.

What will be interesting is whether Sweeney pursues a civil case against MUFC where there is a much lower standard of proof. Just because there was no conviction doesn't mean he hasn't got a case.

Fantastic well informed post, counsel!

 

[SWP's back]

Not much going our way at the moment.

Don't think much of Mr Sweeney if he knew he wasn't pushed and purued this action

Wouldn't have been up to him.

Do you think the police and CPS wouldn't have watched the CCTV until it was shown in Court? Obviously it showed something to persuade them, alongside the victim's testimony, that a crime had been committed and that a prosecution was viable and in the public interest.

Mr Sweeney hasn't been shown to be a liar or to have made it up, but clearly the jury were not convinced beyond reasonable doubt and therefore couldn't convict. Obviously his character and behaviour probably didn't help matters.

What will be interesting is whether Sweeney pursues a civil case against MUFC where there is a much lower standard of proof. Just because there was no conviction doesn't mean he hasn't got a case.

Very well said however some are too blinded to see and/or understand your point.