Court case from derby

[johnmc]

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).

Ha ha this gets better - you spent half an hour with him so now you know better than a jury who sat through all the evidence and watched the CCTV footage. If only you were the jury for Phil Spectors case you would have acquitted him after a cup of tea and a few buscuits with him. His story was ecactly that, a story, and he hoped it took a judge and a jury in like like it did you, but it seems they were educated enough not to take one side as gospel.

You are being hypocritical as you have said that the two stewards pushed this guy down the stairs, without knowing whether they did or not. Therefore you have decided they were guilty. I have said, that the city fan was guilty of lying, if you like to put it like that. But you had a problem with that. So you have a problem that I have called the City fan guilty before it was decided in court but you havent got a problem with deciding the stewards are guilty before this was proven otherwise. If you cant see how thats hypocritical then not much more I can say to you.

And yes I admit, i looked at the guy at face value and took him as a sterotypical fraud. I am not always right and wont pretend I am, but in this case it seems I was.

 

[ssg2]

Thank god johnmc posted that and not me, exactly my thoughts and not because he is a blue.

 

[SWP's back]

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).

Ha ha this gets better - you spent half an hour with him so now you know better than a jury who sat through all the evidence and watched the CCTV footage. If only you were the jury for Phil Spectors case you would have acquitted him after a cup of tea and a few buscuits with him. His story was ecactly that, a story, and he hoped it took a judge and a jury in like like it did you, but it seems they were educated enough not to take one side as gospel.

You are being hypocritical as you have said that the two stewards pushed this guy down the stairs, without knowing whether they did or not. Therefore you have decided they were guilty. I have said, that the city fan was guilty of lying, if you like to put it like that. But you had a problem with that. So you have a problem that I have called the City fan guilty before it was decided in court but you havent got a problem with deciding the stewards are guilty before this was proven otherwise. If you cant see how thats hypocritical then not much more I can say to you.

And yes I admit, i looked at the guy at face value and took him as a sterotypical fraud. I am not always right and wont pretend I am, but in this case it seems I was.

You are something special. I NEVER said I knew better than the jury. I said I believed his story from 1/2 and hour with him which was better than YOUR judging of him from a photo and statement that he takes methodone.

I also never stated the stewards were guilty. I only stated that if he wins comp, then he should be entitled to it without giving it to charity!!!

I am very sorry but your mental capacity to understand an argument is severely lacking.

The subject of him being guilty of lying is coved above by allblack when he states that just because the two have been aquitted does not mean that he wasn't telling the truth. Just that there was insufficient evidence to prove guilt.

I think I may as well give up here and you are only going to continue to confuse yourself and I don't want you worrying, it wouldn't be fair of me.

 

[johnmc]

You are something special. I NEVER said I knew better than the jury. I said I believed his story from 1/2 and hour with him which was better than YOUR judging of him from a photo and statement that he takes methodone.

I also never stated the stewards were guilty. I only stated that if he wins comp, then he should be entitled to it without giving it to charity!!!

I am very sorry but your mental capacity to understand an argument is severely lacking.

The subject of him being guilty of lying is coved above by allblack when he states that just because the two have been aquitted does not mean that he wasn't telling the truth. Just that there was insufficient evidence to prove guilt.

I think I may as well give up here and you are only going to continue to confuse yourself and I don't want you worrying, it wouldn't be fair of me.

Sorry but not just the photo and the fact that he takes methodone. The fact he was smoking cannibis, he was drinking and was already turfed out and came back in, the fact he was on benefits and from what Ive heard in general I decided he was on the make. Do you know how drinking affects people on methodone? Do you know the effects of smoking cannibis mixed with alcohol and methodone have on someone? Im surprised he got up the stairs to fall fdown them to be honest. But if you have spoken to him on a train for half an hour you will know him as the ideal citizen who would never persue compensation where it wasnt due.

And the whole he wasnt lying, guilt just wasnt proven argument is a lot of sh!t and you know it. Its on camera. He was pushed or he wasnt. And you could argue the legalities and phrasing of things all day. I look at it like this - he accused someone of something, a judge and jury using all the evidence, decided they didnt do something. So in my eyes he was accusing someonme of something they didnt do, or, another way of putting it, he was lying.

And read your posts back - you do say the stewards were guilty. Your words "they pushed him down the stairs"

 

[glen quagmire]

You are something special. I NEVER said I knew better than the jury. I said I believed his story from 1/2 and hour with him which was better than YOUR judging of him from a photo and statement that he takes methodone.

I also never stated the stewards were guilty. I only stated that if he wins comp, then he should be entitled to it without giving it to charity!!!

I am very sorry but your mental capacity to understand an argument is severely lacking.

The subject of him being guilty of lying is coved above by allblack when he states that just because the two have been aquitted does not mean that he wasn't telling the truth. Just that there was insufficient evidence to prove guilt.

I think I may as well give up here and you are only going to continue to confuse yourself and I don't want you worrying, it wouldn't be fair of me.

Sorry but not just the photo and the fact that he takes methodone. The fact he was smoking cannibis, he was drinking and was already turfed out and came back in, the fact he was on benefits and from what Ive heard in general I decided he was on the make. Do you know how drinking affects people on methodone? Do you know the effects of smoking cannibis mixed with alcohol and methodone have on someone? Im surprised he got up the stairs to fall fdown them to be honest. But if you have spoken to him on a train for half an hour you will know him as the ideal citizen who would never persue compensation where it wasnt due.

And the whole he wasnt lying, guilt just wasnt proven argument is a lot of sh!t and you know it. Its on camera. He was pushed or he wasnt. And you could argue the legalities and phrasing of things all day. I look at it like this - he accused someone of something, a judge and jury using all the evidence, decided they didnt do something. So in my eyes he was accusing someonme of something they didnt do, or, another way of putting it, he was lying.

And read your posts back - you do say the stewards were guilty. Your words "they pushed him down the stairs"

Shit, ive just nearly burst a blood vessel in my eye laughing!

 

[daveduke67]

Shit, ive just nearly burst a blood vessel in my eye laughing!

Could you claim benefits if you had?

 

[glen quagmire]

Shit, ive just nearly burst a blood vessel in my eye laughing!

Could you claim benefits if you had?

Don't know mate, never have, hopefully never will.

*runs off to check the benefits website*

 

[levets]

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.

tattoos,
==========
You have mentioned this a few times... are you prejudiced against people with tattoo's? You are aware that both the Duke of Edinburgh and our future King have one?

 

[johnmc]

tattoos,
==========
You have mentioned this a few times... are you prejudiced against people with tattoo's? You are aware that both the Duke of Edinburgh and our future King have one?

I dont understand why people get them really but in isolation I wouldnt make my mind up about someone who had one no. If they had tattoos along with other unsavory aspects then yeah I take that into account.

I would be willing to bet you that the proportion of people in prison with tattoos is much much higher than the proportion of of people on the outside without them. They are associated with gangs sometimes for starters.

But anyway in isolation Ive no issue with them even if I dont understand why people have them.

 

[DJOuk]

Gooner in peace. (Should declare this in case someone finds it relevant!)

First of all the fact that the stewards have been found not guilty means that there was not enough evidence to persuade a Jury that these bouncers intended to harm Peter, or that they were at fault for the incident as a consequences of their actions. I have seen a couple of posts previously which imply they got off (i.e they were guilty really) and questioning into why the CPS brought the case if the CCTV footage was not convincing. Frankly it is not relevant. Our system only works if it's innocent to proven guilty. I wouldn't want to live in a society were to be accused of a crime means that, even if you are ultimately not found guilty in court, you are still presumed guilty.

I also do not think the status or personal issues of the claimant should be held against him. We do not know of his personal issues, we have no evidence at all that it had any baring on the case. So to presume he is a chancer or something else negative is also deeply unfair.