Former City Player George Glendon Rape Case (NOT GUILTY)

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by Tricky Dickys Right Foot Shot, 9 Jan 2018.

  1. Chippy_boy


    11 Aug 2008
    Catching up on this thread, but the post from Karen on page 1 sums it up for me: If someone is shitfaced, don't shag them.

    As I understand it from the Evans case way back, in order to have sex with someone, they need to give consent and as I recall, you cannot be sure they have given consent if they are shitfaced to the point of having lost all control. So you're on very very shaky ground at best, right from the off. If the girl regrets it afterwards and accuses you of rape, odds on you're going to get prosecuted and you're then in the lap of the gods as to whether you're going to prison for a long time. Career over, lose your house, never work again in your industry etc etc. Let alone the fun times you'll "enjoy" being a registered sex offender in prison.

    Just don't go there!
  2. Metalartin


    15 Jul 2015
    At the risk of causing the usual kneejerk reactions, I think the point some people are making is that it shouldn't be like that, young men and women equally make poor choices especially when under the influence.

    We all know to say young men should be treated differently than young women is nothing short of discrimination, so why are males worth less than females in the eyes of modern society? It's seems a hugely disproportionate amount of thought is given to their best interests past a certain age, they are basically fair game for all sorts. It was good advice to be fair given how things are and so is to advise the young women not to get blind drunk or not let each other(their friends they go out with) go home with a guy when they are.

    Blind acceptance though is not the answer either, as I said both sexes do stupid things in equal measure and getting blind drunk and trying to have sex is a common theme for both... what happened to equality? This line of thinking is a pet peeve of mine and it's the same with conservation... too many humans are shallow, they place their empathy on the pretty, the cute and the cuddly and screw the rest... that's not morality.

    I hope George recovers quickly from the ordeal as he's probably been put through the ringer mentally and from the reports it seems like his character references helped him a great deal(shy, warm, lovely) if he'd have been a bit of an arsehole who knows what the outcome would have been?
    Last edited: 12 Jan 2018
  3. Tom_mcfc


    20 Aug 2004
    Hate to say I told you so, now let's have her name in the public eye
  4. WNRH


    22 Oct 2010
    Sounds like it was a sham

    It’s not often that anyone listening to a trial can be completely certain that a defendant in a high-profile case will be cleared but, in the case of footballer George Glendon, there really was very little doubt that the jury would find him not guilty.

    Sometimes in such cases, a jury will deliberate for many hours, often over several days, before coming back with a verdict but, with the Glendon case, the jury went out at 3.21pm and must have deliberated for barely half an hour.
    By 3.53pm, a Tannoy announcement had been made saying that all parties needed to attend Court One at Grimsby Crown Court. It seemed very obvious which way the verdict was going to go. I had no doubt in my mind, by the speed of the decision, that he would be cleared.

    If the jury was going to convict him, it would undoubtedly have spent many hours trawling through the minutiae of the evidence line by line. It seems almost certain to me that the jurors probably came to an instinctive decision based on a gut reaction.

    The only people who did not seem to realise this were Mr Glendon and his family, who were very worried and upset when the announcement was made, but then, because they were from an excellent family of high integrity and he had no previous convictions, they would have had little or no experience of the criminal justice system.

    The case seemed doomed from a very early stage. It seemed very likely at several points that the whole trial would collapse completely. Judge Peter Kelson QC told the trial that he was ”baffled” at how Mr Glendon would even have had the time, given the evidence, to have sex with the woman at the Humberston home of a footballing friend.

    At one key point, he seemed to be inviting defence barrister Judy Khan QC to make an application at the end of the prosecution case that the trial go no further. But when he later said that his inclination would be to leave the matter to the jury to decide, she took the hint and did not, in the end, make an application to throw the case out.

    The overriding feeling that Mr Glendon would be cleared by the jury continued, thanks to the impressive skills of Miss Khan in her calm, under-stated but powerful points to the jury, aided by a soothing and easy-on-the-ear voice and a pleasant, unconfrontational manner.

    There was a time when I thought that the tide might have turned when prosecutor Michael Morley gave Mr Glendon a very hard time during his cross-examination, combining a rigorous and forensic approach to his questions which had the footballer under considerable pressure and looking very nervous and upset.

    It was pure courtroom drama and was compelling to watch and hear. Mr Glendon was even reduced to tears at one point and he needed a short time to recover and compose himself.

    I thought that the odds might have shifted in the prosecution’s favour but Miss Khan made a powerful closing speech, showing just the right balance of persistence, compassion and self-control.

    She did not attempt to score any cheap points or to be unnecessarily hostile or aggressive. She praised the professionalism of the prosecutor and remained courteous, while sowing enough seeds of doubt in the minds of the jury for a conviction to become unlikely.

    It was an impressive performance from her and, in my opinion, it undoubtedly swung the jury in the clear direction of an acquittal.

    Her compelling words towards the end of her closing speech must have resonated with the jury.

    She told the jurors that Mr Glendon’s arrest was "the start of a nightmare for him".

    She concluded: "You can end the nightmare for him now by finding him not guilty."

    And the jury did just that. Very quickly. And to cheers and sobbing from his family supporters and tears from him.
  5. Tricky Dickys Right Foot Shot

    Tricky Dickys Right Foot Shot

    30 Nov 2008
    Should do. I don't like how much the term rape gets used without very little thought in the matter. From what I can gather from the case hearings he's stopped it, rang her a taxi and asked her to leave, shes felt embarrassed and refused to get dressed, so out of shame has claimed he raped her.

    Women will always be the victim in a rape case and once a man has been cleared we're suppose to just brush it under the carpet. Until punishment is dished for false rape claims, then they'll never go away.
  6. Fame Monster

    Fame Monster

    28 Jun 2009
    Watching The Centurions

    The number of cases prosecuted by the CPS for false rape claims are a national disgrace. There have been countless cases recently of patently false claims that were never prosecuted yet cases like this, where the jury pretty much laughed it out of court straight away, gets brought with worrying regularity. You pretty much have to bring a private prosecution these days in order to get a conviction.
  7. hilts


    29 Oct 2008
    Sally Lapper?
  8. Damocles


    14 Jan 2009
    False rape claims aren't equivalent to Glendon getting a not guilty verdict.

    Not guilty means that the jury didn't believe that there was enough evidence to convict beyond reasonable doubt.

    Innocent means the event questioned didn't happen.

    These are not the same thing nor should they be confused. This is not how our justice system works and it's why the law system doesn't use the word innocent.
  9. Dave Ewing's Back 'eader

    Dave Ewing's Back 'eader

    9 Mar 2007
    Upwind of the Mangrove Swamp
    Sensible advice, CB!
  10. MillionMilesAway


    14 Sep 2015
    Quite agree, a false claim is something different.

    I do think that there has been a move towards prosecuting more, where the decision point for the CPS has shifted. My impression is that there was a lot of press coverage about not bringing enough to court, and they chose to prosecute more. If the balance point is moved from 60/40 to 50/50, more will fail.

    The trouble is that a lot do tend to be he said/she said, and where there are no witnesses, and thus a lot are found not guilty. The rape trial I was on jury for was one where all the evidence was undisputed and it came down to the two people - 'beyond reasonable doubt' is not easy to get to from there.

    If the writer of that piece from Grimsby above is accurate, it was almost resting on the need for the accused to incriminate himself, and was close to the girl exonerating him with her evidence.

Share This Page