This isn’t the Greenwood thread. Wtf are you all doing.
Benjamin Mendy - Not guilty on re-trial | NOT a thread about MG
- Thread starter Chief123
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Jamie (@Vault Dweller) are here to talk about United's dreadful home defeat at the hands of Big Ange's Tottenham Hotspur. Should this have been the end of Ten Hag? How long does he actually have left? And does Nik finally want ETH out?!
Stopped reading after the first line, chief.
A truly pathetic effort. He's not saying they didn't lie, he's saying the verdict isn't proof they did. 0/10, thanks for trying.
It’s not actually, it’s the very foundation of our criminal Justice system.
We don’t know if they lied or not.
Good thing were not bound by the justice system and are allowed to form our own opinions then.
And yet we have retrials and appeals and civil cases after criminal cases and professional standards departments that can investigate you within your job even after a criminal acquittal.
Why I wonder do these things exist when they are so at odds with our so simple and inalienable criminal justice foundation.
Don't see what any of these discussions bring to a football forum, regardless of verdict / innocent etc..
Some of the takes on here, whether it be Greenwood, Mendy or whoever else, are horrible and discussions should be monitored more closely in my honest opinion.
Threads like these add zero value.
Some of the takes on here, whether it be Greenwood, Mendy or whoever else, are horrible and discussions should be monitored more closely in my honest opinion.
Threads like these add zero value.
Well done first thing that you seem to understand in this discussion. I’m certain then you’re also aware that coming to sweeping conclusions on criminal charges and a person’s guilt when they’ve been acquitted are not absolutely protected, as claims for defamation inform us.
Defamation can be a crime, and people are presumed innocent until found guilty by a court of law, remember? No one here has been found guilty of defamation, and that should be the end of discussion.
Perfect then perhaps those who slam the system they have the privilege of living under may finally appreciate the importance of innocent until proven guilty.
No, normal people can of course look at the evidence and judge if they think something might be defamatory. You can't.
There's not a lot you seem to understand, though. Such as what I'm arguing.
Yeah, because the court of public opinion is obviously more important that a real court
Where has anyone ever said that? A bunch of you seem to be trying to shut down discussion on the basis of "he was found not guilty, so is therefor innocent end of!" and we're saying that it's a bit more complex than that.Yeah, because the court of public opinion is obviously more important that a real court
But if you believe in the presumption of innocence and based on the decision of the court, it would be unfair to assume that he is not innocent. Remember he has been tried twice and acquitted twice.
Presumption of innocence means that the law treats the defendant as if they’re innocent.
And with the exception of redcafe_reader’s frankly baffling take, no one is assuming that he’s not innocent. They’re just stating that being found not guilty is not the same as being innocent. Which it isn’t.
Stop discussing players not named Benjamin Mendy.
Don't he silly. If this was about promiscuity there would never have even been charges.
Of course not and what an incredibly odd take from what I posted.
I'd prefer a system where so few sexual crimes result in convictions.
Waiting for the 12 angry men movie Reloaded RedCafe version to drop anytime soon
And if he was guilty he would have to "pay for his behaviour" but as it stands he was found not guilty so there is nothing for him "pay for". He doesn't have to pay for a promiscuous lifestyle.
The reason why there were charges wasn’t because of rape either. It was because a couple of women decided to make false allegations.
Truly awful take.
You can still change your mind in the midst of the activity. A woman can withdraw consent at any time (as she should be able to) so I'm not sure how strong a consent signature would hold weight
The odd thing I find about all of this is... Say if Mendy had been convicted/found guilty, would you have loads of people lining up to suggest he still might be innocent?
Probably not.
But then you consider the conviction rate of sexual assault cases and it all gets a bit murky. Still, to my mind, he's been found not guilty in the eyes of the law and so should be treated as such.
Probably not.
But then you consider the conviction rate of sexual assault cases and it all gets a bit murky. Still, to my mind, he's been found not guilty in the eyes of the law and so should be treated as such.
I don't know the ins and outs of the Mendy case, it's obviously complex.
One thing it reminded me of though was a serial fboy that I used to work with (a late 40 y/o company director). Because he was getting with so many different women he said he said he was always wary that one might be scorned after realising it was just a 1 night stand. He said he always text them in the morning saying "how great last night was, did you have fun, and can't wait to see you again" just to get his "consent message"
What a life...
One thing it reminded me of though was a serial fboy that I used to work with (a late 40 y/o company director). Because he was getting with so many different women he said he said he was always wary that one might be scorned after realising it was just a 1 night stand. He said he always text them in the morning saying "how great last night was, did you have fun, and can't wait to see you again" just to get his "consent message"
What a life...
extremely strong, clearly
it's hard enough to convict without that
there'd have to be a witness or video evidence or something extraordinary for anything to come of it
it doesn't prove innocence.
As if you'd know that.
nothing really does
Whatever happened to the presumption of innocence?
Should we have presumed Emmett Til's accuser was telling until she confessed to lying?
The Scottsborough Boys?
Central Park Five?
He was cleared of charges and destroyed his life over a crime he most likely did not do. Have a bit of compassion.
It’s equally terrifying and tragic that if the Emmett Til accusation happened now, he’d again be completely persecuted for doing absolutely nothing.
It’s also really scary how quickly people are willing to basically rubbish the British judicial system and resort to Mob rule logic because a verdict / case about a footballer didn’t go the way they for some reason wanted it to go.
I'm not sure I follow.
Obviously the ideal society would be one in which sex crimes never happen. However, given that they do happen, the justice system is hamstrung by the fact that many (if not most) cases are "he said, she said" incidents lacking direct evidence.
Which goes back to the point of the post you originally quoted and took issue with. Unless you lower the burden of proof or implement more intrusive surveillance in everyone's lives, there's no realistic way to get conviction rates up to your ideal level.
If you think that's a tradeoff society should make in order to convict more accused sex criminals, then fair enough, but at least be honest about it.
Personally, as a classical liberal, it's not something I'd be comfortable with.
If you want to use the presumption of innocence like that, then you cannot say that Carolyn Bryant lied about Emmett Till. You also can't say that Roy Bryant and J. W. Milan killed him.
These things are crimes. No charges were brought against Carolyn Bryant, while the other two were found not guilty of both murder and kidnapping. They are therefore presumed innocent, and treated as such, in the eyes of the law.
The court of public opinion: don't worry about the facts, we'll lynch ya!
The court of law: no one knows who lynched Emmett Till, Carolyn Bryant didn't lie.
OOD
Last edited:
Conviction rate of sexual assault cases that goes to court are much higher than any other cases. The problem is that so few goes to court.
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2023/feb/juries-convict-defendants-rape-more-often-acquit
So what you're saying is factually incorrect
They all confessed, so I'm not sure what your point is.
What about Emmett Till? Should he have been presumed to be guilty?