Course he was.
He’ll get away with it though because there’s no absolute proof that’s what he was referring to.
I agree with all of that but first we have to change how we treat women. Giggs forced his sister in law to have an abortion. He had an affair with her for 7 years. He was a serial adulterer. He was the manager of a national team.A quick Google brings up that someone found guilty of contempt of court can be sent to prison for up to 4 years and can be ordered to pay court costs. Oh dear how sad. Think the toytown shittache revolutionary will get his comeuppance.
Can't help but think this really seems to plonk domestic violence as being somehow acceptable. Does this case send out any positive message for would be abused to come forward and have their day in court? Look at our pathetically low rape conviction rates, sickening.
Everyone deserves their day in court, Giggs, Mendy, Greenwood. They deserve to be treated as innocent till proven guilty. Equally if found guilty the full weight of the law should be brought to bare on them and examples made.
The timing and content of his Instagram post leaves it beyond doubt what he was referring to in my mind. How could it possibly refer to the Glazers? If the burden of proof is "beyond reasonable doubt", he's guilty as charged.I wouldn’t quite be so certain if the timing of it fits in exactly, as has been suggested on here, with the woman taking the stand to give her evidence. Virtually nothing can ever be proved 100% but that doesn’t have to be case to be guilty.
The burden of proof is with the prosecution. The standard of proof is that the jury are ‘sure’ of the defendant’s guilt. ‘Beyond reasonable doubt’ is a relic, although it amounts to the same thing as being sure.The timing and content of his Instagram post leaves it beyond doubt what he was referring to in my mind. How could it possibly refer to the Glazers? If the burden of proof is "beyond reasonable doubt", he's guilty as charged.
It would be great if he got sent down for a few years whilst Giggs walked free.
Unless Neville admits it, there’s no chance of proving his intentions.The burden of proof is with the prosecution. The standard of proof is that the jury are ‘sure’ of the defendant’s guilt. Beyond reasonable doubt’ is a relic, although it amounts to the same thing as being sure.
Wouldn't any drink driver say he didn't mean to kill the pedestrian though?Unless Neville admits it, there’s no chance of proving his intentions.
Just need to alter that last line to:The timing and content of his Instagram post leaves it beyond doubt what he was referring to in my mind. How could it possibly refer to the Glazers? If the burden of proof is "beyond reasonable doubt", he's guilty as charged.
It would be great if he got sent down for a few years whilst Giggs walked free.
Not sure that works as a metaphor.Wouldn't any drink driver say he didn't mean to kill the pedestrian though?