[Football] Mason Greenwood charged with attempted rape

[Kinky Gerbil]

There will be but as the article that broke this story said it won’t be in the Premier League. PR is more important in Premier League football than it has ever been and would you really want a player that Man United, a team with famously few morals, deemed too problematic?

Regardless of what you think of the lack of prosecution, it would be a monumental risk for any English club to pick him up with everything that has come out and is part of the public knowledge of him.

There is someone currently playing in the PL with a couple of sexual assault cases against him on going

We have Toney who has admitted he is guilty of breaking betting rules, yet scoring winners

We have the Champions and League leaders with 100 plus charges against them currently

A cat kicker playing week in week out

Not Sure PR is going well !

 

[Beanstalk]

There is someone currently playing in the PL with a couple of sexual assault cases against him on going

We have Toney who has admitted he is guilty of breaking betting rules, yet scoring winners

We have the Champions and League leaders with 100 plus charges against them currently

A cat kicker playing week in week out

Not Sure PR is going well !

I imagine that the unnamed player accused of those sexual assault cases, will likely be dropped if any of it comes to light and he gets prosecuted. I think the club the alleged player plays for have scored a huge own goal by including him throughout the season without any acknowledgement. If anything comes out of it, then they will look crooked and like they've protected an alleged criminal.

I don't think that your other three examples are at all comparable with what was alleged against Greenwood. I also think that in all of those examples Premier League sides are not clubs signing a player after the facts have come out. It would be objectively bad PR for Toney to get banned for 6 months and then for Manchester United to pick him up on the cheap in January.

 

[Springal]

I imagine that the unnamed player accused of those sexual assault cases, will likely be dropped if any of it comes to light and he gets prosecuted. I think the club the alleged player plays for have scored a huge own goal by including him throughout the season without any acknowledgement. If anything comes out of it, then they will look crooked and like they've protected an alleged criminal.

what’s the difference with us and Bissouma out of interest ?

 

[Triggaaar]

for balance , why was she recording

That's for balance? It's clear from the recording that he's a complete wrong'un. I would suggest that wasn't the first time he was forcing himself upon her, and she must have thought 'one time I should record this, because people won't believe me'. I mean, have you bloody heard it?

 

[Triggaaar]

Sorry Tom, if you get pissed in a pub, get in your car and kill someone, most of their family and friends will brand you a murderer.

There are people who will call you a murderer for eating a hamburger. Is 'what a few people will say' really going to be the basis of your argument?

 

[Lenny Rider]

There are people who will call you a murderer for eating a hamburger. Is 'what a few people will say' really going to be the basis of your argument?

We will have to agree to differ Trig.

I just recall a fair few years ago I looked after the funeral of a young girl who been killed in a road accident where the offending driver had tested positive for cocaine.

All her family and many friends were under no illusions she’d be murdered.

But Tom is right with his point of law.

 

[Triggaaar]

We will have to agree to differ Trig.

I just recall a fair few years ago I looked after the funeral of a young girl who been killed in a road accident where the offending driver had tested positive for cocaine.

All her family and many friends were under no illusions she’d be murdered.

I didn't say that family wouldn't think that. It's not relevant though.

But Tom is right with his point of law.

Indeed, which is what matters.

 

[Lenny Rider]

I didn't say that family wouldn't think that. It's not relevant though.


Indeed, which is what matters.

Amongst other things.

At present wins against United, Everton, Southampton and Villa hugely matter ️

 

[Robdinho]

Indeed, which is what matters.

The law is not some immutable property of the universe.

It is set based on societal norms at the time and changes regularly. Today, killing someone by drink driving is not classed as murder. I don't think it's too outlandish to suggest that the act of knowingly doing something that could result in killing someone, and subsequently killing someone by that act, could one day be classed as murder.

All Lenny said is that there is a debate, which clearly there is, since you are having one.

 

[Triggaaar]

The law is not some immutable property of the universe.

It is set based on societal norms at the time and changes regularly. Today, killing someone by drink driving is not classed as murder. I don't think it's too outlandish to suggest that the act of knowingly doing something that could result in killing someone, and subsequently killing someone by that act, could one day be classed as murder.

We're not talking about what could be one day, we're talking about now.

All Lenny said is that there is a debate, which clearly there is, since you are having one.

That's a ridiculous suggestion. So we can make up any shit we like, say that the law might change one day, and if anyone points out that it's shit, that is somehow proof that there's a debate to be had

 

[Robdinho]

We're not talking about what could be one day, we're talking about now.

You were talking about the law now, Lenny was talking about an 'age old debate'. If I say there's an age old debate about whether cannabis should be decriminalised, that doesn't mean I think that cannabis is legal, nor does it mean that I think it should be decriminalised. I would just be acknowledging that other people hold may hold different opinions.

And I'm not going to be drawn into a debate on what constitutes a debate, sorry.

 

[schmunk]

The law is not some immutable property of the universe.

It is set based on societal norms at the time and changes regularly. Today, killing someone by drink driving is not classed as murder. I don't think it's too outlandish to suggest that the act of knowingly doing something that could result in killing someone, and subsequently killing someone by that act, could one day be classed as murder.

The concept of manslaughter, and its distiction from murder is age-old and unlikely to be significantly changed anytime in the near future. There is nothing special about causing death by driving compared to any other way of killing.

The key difference between murder and manslaughter is intent - for it to be a conviction of murder there must have been a demonstrable (by criminal standards, i.e. innocent until proven guilty) intent to kill. It doesn't need to be to kill a specific person, but it does need to be an actual intention to kill. Simple recklessness isn't enough, either of poor driving or impairing oneself through drink/drugs, nor is "I don't care if I kill someone".

In practice, such cases are often introduced as a charge of murder, and then when it is determined that there is insufficient proof of intent, the manslaughter charge is introduced instead to cover the guilty act.

 

[Robdinho]

The concept of manslaughter, and its distiction from murder is age-old and unlikely to be significantly changed anytime in the near future. There is nothing special about causing death by driving compared to any other way of killing.

The key difference between murder and manslaughter is intent - for it to be a conviction of murder there must have been a demonstrable (by criminal standards, i.e. innocent until proven guilty) intent to kill. It doesn't need to be to kill a specific person, but it does need to be an actual intention to kill. Simple recklessness isn't enough, either of poor driving or impairing oneself through drink/drugs, nor is "I don't care if I kill someone".

In practice, such cases are often introduced as a charge of murder, and then when it is determined that there is insufficient proof of intent, the manslaughter charge is introduced instead to cover the guilty act.

Surely though, there is a line somewhere where you could credibly have expected your actions to result in death? To take an extreme example, if I bought a machine gun and just opened fire randomly (without intending to kill anyone, but without checking whether there was anyone to hit), and I shot and killed someone, I would be a bit surprised if that didn't count as murder. Maybe I'm wrong. I fully realise that drink driving is a lot more nuanced (given there is a potential to kill someone while driving, whether intoxicated or not), but that's a discussion on where the line is, not whether the line exists.

Regardless, interesting though it genuinely is, it was never my intention to question what the law actually is. I just thought it odd that people jumped on Lenny's seemingly innocuous comment that some people might disagree with the law as it is currently interpreted. People seem so keen to demonstrate how well they know the laws on death by drunken driver, they didn't really read what he said. But he's old enough and wise enough to defend himself, so I shall say no more on the subject.

 

[Triggaaar]

You were talking about the law now, Lenny was talking about an 'age old debate'. If I say there's an age old debate about whether cannabis should be decriminalised, that doesn't mean I think that cannabis is legal, nor does it mean that I think it should be decriminalised.

To follow your cannabis example, if you said there's an age old debate about whether killing whilst drunk driving should be changed from manslaughter to murder, then that would be fine. But that's not what Lenny said. He said there was a debate as to whether or not they are a murderer. They are not a murderer, and to call them one would be libel.

And I'm not going to be drawn into a debate on what constitutes a debate, sorry.

Good - then don't tell me that whether or not they are murderers is a debate, because it isn't, it is a point of law which has been ruled on, and isn't up for debate.

 

[edna krabappel]

The key difference between murder and manslaughter is intent - for it to be a conviction of murder there must have been a demonstrable (by criminal standards, i.e. innocent until proven guilty) intent to kill. It doesn't need to be to kill a specific person, but it does need to be an actual intention to kill.

Sorry, that's not correct.

To be convicted of murder, the required state of mind is either to kill OR to cause serious (ie grievous bodily) harm. The legal term is "with malice aforethought".

For attempted murder, the intent has to be to kill, so perhaps that's what you're thinking of, but for the substantive offence, ie where the victim actually dies, the mens rea only needs to be to cause serious harm.

 

[Beanstalk]

what’s the difference with us and Bissouma out of interest ?

Very little. He shouldn’t have played for us whilst he was being investigated. And if it had turned out the Bissouma incident had been as serious as many first suspected we’d have been absolutely crucified for it.

 

[Sheebo]

Very little. He shouldn’t have played for us whilst he was being investigated. And if it had turned out the Bissouma incident had been as serious as many first suspected we’d have been absolutely crucified for it.

Nah you just can’t say that on the limited info you know. I’d imagine the club knew all the specifics and were confident he would be fine.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

He said there was a debate as to whether or not they are a murderer. They are not a murderer, and to call them one would be libel.