So I guess if we just follow the legal rulings, he's not an abuser but just the guy who slept with his brother's wife for 8 years. What a win.
Giggs trial
- Thread starter AshRK
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
Everyone deserves a vigorous and world class legal defense.
Regarding Mendy/Giggs it seems your mind is made up already regarding what they have done (feck the legal system), and view their lawyers as deniers of justice instead of defenders of the rights of the accused.
If a member of the public gets convicted where a rich person gets off due to quality lawyers, that is an indictment on public defenders and the average lawyer. Not "the rich getting away with it" when "it" can't be proven in court.
Just out of interest, what's behind you arguing this so vociferously? It seems like you're mostly arguing semantics at this point and it just seems a strange hill to die on.
You're on a strange hill as well
I mean it is literally rich getting away with it because they can afford those lawyers. You can't expect the average lawyer that a regular person can afford to be at the same level as a celebrity lawyer, otherwise they would just charge more.
Yeah, ongoing trials shouldn’t be discussed on here. Legally we are now completely free to discuss greenwood - football related or not.
While I certainly understand the direction you are coming from and that more ressources obviously will help to get support from more capable lawyers and better funded lawfirms, the notion seems a bit problematic to me. I mean, lets face it, how many cases do you know that were comparable to say Greenwood where the accused got a harder punishment or whatever. Don't get me wrong, I understand the notion, but this feels pretty unsubstantial, feels as if you want to point out a general disliking towards "rich people" because the "bend the rules". This might be a legitimate standpoint in itself, but when you connect it in this specific case, it feels very shallow.
edit: to be more precise - while it certainly helps to employ the most capable lawyers to fight for you, it doesn't automatically mean that a different lawyer couldn't produce the same outcome in a similar case. If that would be the case, it would be extremely problematic and I think, things like that shouldn't be insinuated without anything to back it up.
Well said.
Good news for Giggs.
Mainly because I have had a family member have rape charges against their name and nearly had their life ruined, the charges got dropped due to 'lack of evidence',
They have always protested their innocence and by the letter of the law they are innocent and I believe them that they are 100% innocent, but many others wouldn't and don't accept it.
yes, good news that gigg's lawyers have made the process so utterly grueling for the accuser that she can't face going through it all again. yay
You're missing the point.
What are these rich lawyers doing in court? They're not twisting facts, they're not falsifying evidence... They are simply challenging the prosecution's story of events. They have more resources so can do more legal research and call more experts and can lean on their past experience... But they are operating within the confines of the law. What is the injustice there?
I believe that the same way prosecutors are funded by the government purse, defense lawyers should be funded by the public purse as well, and be just as competent as the celebrity lawyers who do their job well. No one deserves a shoddy legal defense regardless of their pockets.
And it's not like celebrity lawyers are superheroes. If there is evidence beyond reasonable doubt no celebrity lawyer will save you.
My ultimate point: poor people going to jail on these charges that rich people "get off on" is not a victory for justice. It's a travesty. Because their defense was shoddy and lacking.
They cannot go beyond standard cross-examination procedures of court. And the judge can tell any nasty defense lawyer to feck off.
If you are accusing me of doing something, it is my right to face you in court and ask questions of you, in an attempt to show the jury my account is true instead of yours.
It can definitely be traumatizing for some to get in the court and I'm all for means to soften the impact of cross examination but any defense lawyer worth his salt will/should maximize the time with the accuser to poke holes in their testimony.
He's an idiot in his personal life clearly but he's been found not guilty in this case so you have to accept that at the very least. I think people are still fine to question the man's moral compass based on other non-law-breaking events he's been through.
Great player in his pomp, mind. And a full chest of hair to boot.
Great player in his pomp, mind. And a full chest of hair to boot.
Last edited:
Wow that’s now three potential violence against women cases taking up forum space on the caf and you’ve got the same people arguing that they’re guilty and should be burned when charged, and maintaining that stance even when case is dropped.
Obviously just rich folks getting away with murder, and an excuse to lambast our legal system. Refusing to even acknowledge that maybe just maybe they are not guilty.
If some of you had your way there’d be no court trials (obviously skewed in favour of rich). Just a public execution with a thumbs up or thumbs down greeted with the biggest cheer and sealing their fate. Hint history tells us that in such cases the baying crowd usually get their man.
People cleared in court should be allowed to get on with their lives. Is this so hard to understand?
Obviously just rich folks getting away with murder, and an excuse to lambast our legal system. Refusing to even acknowledge that maybe just maybe they are not guilty.
If some of you had your way there’d be no court trials (obviously skewed in favour of rich). Just a public execution with a thumbs up or thumbs down greeted with the biggest cheer and sealing their fate. Hint history tells us that in such cases the baying crowd usually get their man.
People cleared in court should be allowed to get on with their lives. Is this so hard to understand?
You need a varioDrawer. Revolutionary!
Nice strawman there.
Nobody on the internet ever backs down from their opinion, particularly if they've spent time trying to one-up other posters about it. It happens on both sides and is extremely tiring most of the time.
Last edited:
once again: he was acquitted because she didn't want to go through the ordeal of court a second time, not because of anything proven to be false in what she said.
Utter nonsense, it's just an acknowledgement of decades of data concerning these cases and how the processes often fall through because of the trauma experienced by victims in the court procedure.
I'm not making the case for either side but the amount of people who are absolutely clueless as to what a 'not guilty' verdict stands for and its practical implications, especially in these cases, is absolutely astounding.
It might be good to do some basic law studies in schools, since so many are happy to swing for either side without really knowing what they're on about.
The owner has asked us not too so don’t
Bingo.
Whilst this is all correct, it doesn't change the impact it has on the person who has to go through it to be heard.
I'm very wary of anyone celebrating this as some sort of victory for Giggs.
Equally nothing was proven to be true either.
I assume you have decided he is guilty no matter what?
He's innocent. The end. Also not a very nice person but we knew that.
Last edited:
The alleged victim has given up and didn't want to give evidence in the retrial due to the toll it had taken on herself and her sister. Huge win for Justice.
I think you also have to be open to the opposite of this too and accept that he could actually be innocent. However unlikely it may seem to the bystander with all of their conscious/unconscious biases, imagine you are in his shoes and you haven’t actually done it.
Same for all the other cases too.
What about the first trial though? The jury failed reach a verdict after more than 20 hours deliberations.
That a retrial was needed suggests there was some doubt at least. It's difficult to judge these things unless you're in the court room and hear all the details, the bits that get reported on are only a brief summary.
He deserves to be seen as innocent of this offence but at the same time we know from previous stuff he's also not a particularly nice bloke.
He deserves to be seen as innocent of this offence but at the same time we know from previous stuff he's also not a particularly nice bloke.
Yeah, I figured you may have some skin in the game...sorry to hear, sounds like an awful situation.
What hill am I on? Not sure I've said anything particularly controversial but you seem pretty quick to trigger on this topic
Yes, exactly this.
That's just what they're saying is the reason for not continuing. It may be true, it may not. How does anyone know that's true any more than they know that any other statement made by either party is true or otherwise? You don't. None of us do. It might be the case that they know full well they don't have a real case, or that the accused isn't actually guilty in the first place, and this the best way to exit the process without calling your allegations into question. Dismissing this as a possibility is basically saying no man accused in this way could ever be accused wrongfully or maliciously, which is a really dangerous stance to take.
I'm willing to bet 100% of the people who are saying he's guilty despite being cleared would never entertain the reverse argument that he was innocent had he been found guilty in the trial.
Now I'm not saying the above is what's happened here. I have no way of knowing and nor does anyone else on here. Just trying to provide some balance, because as usual everything's so binary on here.
I've had this type of thing happen in my capacity as a former union rep dealing with sexist bullying. The victim of it often decides to cut their losses when it comes to the stress of the situation and walk away. Sadly, this leaves the perpetrators/management of a high profile sports museum based in Manchester free to continue their abhorrent behaviour.
Agreed. I have my own opinion on the matter based on how he acted with his brothers wife, but past form isn’t a reliable indicator of future performance in most things in life. It’s the reason why, where possible, the court will seal a defendants past criminal history in a trial.
If you can’t be certain on something it’s pretty unfair to tarr somebody with the brush and make a social outcast of them, regardless of your own feelings re “all likelihood”.
Last edited:
That’s the left wing sorted! Welcome back giggsy.
As another poster said, this is not a good day for victims of domestic abuse. In fact the past few months have probably been very disheartening for many victims, if they follow football.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Case dropped or not, we've all heard the poems now Ryan, and you're guilty of shit rhyming.
While it may be news to football fans, most women already knew this.
Now seems the easier choice to pick between him and the other #11.
Looks like there was due process and a potential retrial after the first jury couldn't reach a verdict, but with the main witnesses withdrawing the case was thrown out.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-66230391.amp
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-66230391.amp
find the post where i said he was guilty. my point was to counter those proclaiming his innocence merely on the basis of an alleged victim of domestic abuse not wanting to face another ordeal of court hearings.