Former City Player George Glendon Rape Case (NOT GUILTY)

[daztrueblue91]

There was a good documentary a while back, I think it was on BBC 3, where they gathered around 20 teenagers (a mix of lads and lasses) and showed them a fictional scenario of a night out.

To cut a long story short, there is a lot of drinking and consensual flirting and kissing between a lad and some women at a house party. However, at night they both go into the same room. The women undresses and then gets into bed with the lad but then within minutes she is dosing off and is only semi-conscious but the lad takes advantage anyway. It was clear as day that what the lad did was wrong but when the teenagers were questioned if the girl had been raped, there was a number of conflicting views. Whilst there were 6 or 7 people who clearly stated that what the lad did was wrong, there were people, both men and women, who defended the lad and did not see anything wrong with his actions.

IMO, people need educating on the affects of alcohol both on how to keep themselves and others safe. There's no question that if the lad in the video was sober then he wouldn't have done what he had to the women. However, that isn't an excuse - he is still a rapist. Likewise, the women in question should not be getting so drunk that she is going to share a bed with a random male. Then, where are the friends in all this? It's can't just be my mates who make sure that everyone is looked after on a night out. If one of the lads gets too pissed we make sure he gets in a taxi. Also, I wouldn't dream of letting a female friend go off with a lad if she was wasted. It's just common sense.

However, it seems more and more people don't want to take responsibility for their actions in today's society and sadly we end up with cases like this which ruins peoples lives.

 

[CityStu]

There was a good documentary a while back, I think it was on BBC 3, where they gathered around 20 teenagers (a mix of lads and lasses) and showed them a fictional scenario of a night out.

To cut a long story short, there is a lot of drinking and consensual flirting and kissing between a lad and some women at a house party. However, at night they both go into the same room. The women undresses and then gets into bed with the lad but then within minutes she is dosing off and is only semi-conscious but the lad takes advantage anyway. It was clear as day that what the lad did was wrong but when the teenagers were questioned if the girl had been raped, there was a number of conflicting views. Whilst there were 6 or 7 people who clearly stated that what the lad did was wrong, there were people, both men and women, who defended the lad and did not see anything wrong with his actions.

IMO, people need educating on the affects of alcohol both on how to keep themselves and others safe. There's no question that if the lad in the video was sober then he wouldn't have done what he had to the women. However, that isn't an excuse - he is still a rapist. Likewise, the women in question should not be getting so drunk that she is going to share a bed with a random male. Then, where are the friends in all this? It's can't just be my mates who make sure that everyone is looked after on a night out. If one of the lads gets too pissed we make sure he gets in a taxi. Also, I wouldn't dream of letting a female friend go off with a lad if she was wasted. It's just common sense.

However, it seems more and more people don't want to take responsibility for their actions in today's society and sadly we end up with cases like this which ruins peoples lives.

Whilst you raise some valid points, they don't represent the apparent events in Glendon's case, so I'm not sure they're relevant to the thread. You risk painting him inadvertently as one of these rapists when the reality is he's done nothing of the sort.

 

[daztrueblue91]

Whilst you raise some valid points, they don't represent the apparent events in Glendon's case, so I'm not sure they're relevant to the thread. You risk painting him inadvertently as one of these rapists when the reality is he's done nothing of the sort.

Didn't the women in question not accuse Glendon of rape, rather just claimed that she could not remember anything? If so, that kind of backs up the point I was aiming for.

However, if it came across that I was calling Glendon a rapist then I apologise, that was not intended.​

 

[Fame Monster]

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.

You've misread my post. I never said that the court found the woman guilty of making a false rape claim. I said (pretty much) that I think her version of events is utter bollocks in the same way that people have (pretty much) said that they think Glendon is a rapist before and even after he was acquitted.

I think you're also confusing the language of law and epistemology. When people have said that Glendon is innocent, they mean it in the context that he is legally innocent on the basis of him being found 'not guilty' because there is a presumption of innocence in this legal system. BTW, the word 'innocent' is used in the English legal system, there are millions of pages of judgments that employ the term, many lawyers also use the term trial after trial to refer to the presumption of innocence that exists in Common Law, and they will continue to use it long after we have died but if you meant to say that the jury are not allowed to find a verdict of 'innocent' then you are right.

 

[without a dream]

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.

Without wanting to find myself in contempt of court I've seen Miss Khan in action on a different case and she is incredible at her job, some of those lines are very familiar to me, she's well practiced.

 

[Leto]

You’re missing the point we are talking semantics here. Priorities and all that.

Being a know it all always takes priority.

 

[cyberblue]

Doesnt sound good for him this just reading through it. Lots of witnesses seeing her fall over etc but nobody can verify what went on when they got back to his mates.

Also hes referred to as Ex Manchester City because that story has come from a Manchester news paper

Dont forget it is the prosecution witness's saying this reserve your judgement till you hear his side of the story .she texted a boy she new at nearly 5am saying she fancied a fu*k .Jury listend to all the case and he was found not guilty within 30 minutes

 

[cyberblue]

I won't lie. After reading the initial article in the link on the first page I thought this looked quite bad for him with her falling over and falling asleep in the taxi and stuff - more damning for me than the Ched Evans case who I always felt had been wrongly convicted, particularly as a rape had never been reported on that occasion - but clearly other stuff has come out since for him to be found not guilty.

Pedantic as it seems, Damocles has a point - not guilty doesn't mean he definitely didn't do it but considering it took a jury only half an hour to acquit him, I think it's fair to say he almost certainly is innocent.

You inocent till proved guilty in this country .he was found not guilty therefore he is inocent or am i missing something

 

[Metalartin]

I really hope(probably not but there were many posts on the Ched Evans thread that seemed to lean that way) some aren't making the mistake of thinking we have innocent until proven guilty backwards... Like if someone alleges a crime, it's up to the defendant to physically prove alleged events didn't take place or they can never fully be considered innocent? If they really thought about how much rarer it must be to find evidence to prove innocence they'd know how backwards that is.

For example(theoretical scenario) finding a piece of evidence that you didn't allegedly steal something from a colleagues house while you were there last month after a night on the piss? How likely would it be that you could outright prove it? Especially since they left it a month and you've slept since then, it amazes me how much people think they remember in some circumstances(or maybe my memory is very bad), especially with what scientists now know about the way our memories are altered every time we recall them, it has me wondering about all sorts of things but I wont get into that here. Since you were there that's an alibi out the window, you're placed at the scene they've set, there were just you two there so your word against theirs, so all you would really be able to point to is the absence of said items in your possession(or am I missing something?). Yet in some peoples eyes you can never be really cleared in those circumstances?

It's true that it can't be a certainty but beyond reasonable doubt should say to the rest of us, they haven't found a good reason to doubt that person's innocence, not "ah but you never know though" as some seem to instinctively go with.