Try not to thump a player on TV

[bhaexpress]

I bet this bloke goes inside.

From the BBC

 

[watsongooal]

I havnt seen this on TV yet how bad did it look?

 

[Tooting Gull]

While you can't have any sympathy for this idiot, the whole episode does highlight the double standards at work.

Look at the massive fuss and pressure exerted to keep the law out of the Ben Thatcher incident, because he was at a high-profile, Premiership club.

This guy has been properly hit by the FA and the police for sheer thuggery - but don't hold your breath for that happening to any more Prem players any time soon.

 

[Mr Banana]

I used to live with a bloke who played for Barrow. They are a hard bunch.

Video replay here.

 

[smudge]

Jaw broke in 2 places!

 

[surrey jim]

should have been in the boxing ring not the ptch

 

[Seagull over NZ]

To be fair to the Man City one the Pompey player said he didn't want charges being pressed. Therefore not a great deal the police could or would want to do.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

While you can't have any sympathy for this idiot, the whole episode does highlight the double standards at work.

Look at the massive fuss and pressure exerted to keep the law out of the Ben Thatcher incident, because he was at a high-profile, Premiership club.

This guy has been properly hit by the FA and the police for sheer thuggery - but don't hold your breath for that happening to any more Prem players any time soon.

Very true, if Thatcher had been charged by police, the football "experts" would have been up in arms, saying football and the law should stay separate etc.

I doubt the offender in this case will get a significant custodial sentence, however, as it's probably his first offence, he may have no criminal history whatsoever, and he's pleaded guilty at the first opportunity.

 

[Billy the Fish]

Did it from behind as well, what a twat. Would be a bit harsh to send him down though, it didn't look like he was trying to do any serious damage.

 

[Richard Whiteley]

Did it from behind as well, what a twat. Would be a bit harsh to send him down though, it didn't look like he was trying to do any serious damage.

but if you lamp someone on the jaw how do you know what 'damage' you are going to cause?

fuckin hate thugs

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Did it from behind as well, what a twat. Would be a bit harsh to send him down though, it didn't look like he was trying to do any serious damage.

The fact that he's pleaded guilty GBH means that he's accepted there was malicious intent in what he did.

"Malicious" under the law means that the defendant must either intend to cause harm, or realise there is a risk of SOME harm being done to the victim- they don't have to foresee the actual degree of harm that results (ie most people would realise if you belt someone around the face it would cause them some kind of injury, if not a broken jaw).

The technical term, I believe, is "subjective recklessness", which basically means that you foresaw there was a risk of harm to someone by your actions, but went on to do whatever it was anyway.

 

[bristolseagull]

Did it from behind as well, what a twat. Would be a bit harsh to send him down though, it didn't look like he was trying to do any serious damage.

WHAT?


what was he trying to do then?

pull out a stray nose hair?




you throw a punch you know FULL WELL its likely to cause injury- the blokes an utter COCK.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Didn't Mendes decide that he didn't want to pursue it any further

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Didn't Mendes decide that he didn't want to pursue it any further

Probably.

But a victim deciding they don't want any action doesn't necessarily mean the end of a matter. The CPS do sometimes still decide to prosecute without the victim's backing if it's justifiable, usually with serious offences. Or they're racist incidents, for example.

First person to suggest murder...go to the back of the class

 

[Da Man Clay]

Probably.

But a victim deciding they don't want any action doesn't necessarily mean the end of a matter. The CPS do sometimes still decide to prosecute without the victim's backing if it's justifiable, usually with serious offences. Or they're racist incidents, for example.

First person to suggest murder...go to the back of the class

Murder?

 

[Guinness Boy]

Notice also how despite having his JAW broken in TWO places in the you tube footage the Bristol Rovers player does not a) put 2 hands to his face nor does he b) roll around on the floor for 20 yards nor does he c) wink.

Referees take note of this video. THIS is how players react when genuinely injured.

 

[Billy the Fish]

The fact that he's pleaded guilty GBH means that he's accepted there was malicious intent in what he did.

"Malicious" under the law means that the defendant must either intend to cause harm, or realise there is a risk of SOME harm being done to the victim- they don't have to foresee the actual degree of harm that results (ie most people would realise if you belt someone around the face it would cause them some kind of injury, if not a broken jaw).

The technical term, I believe, is "subjective recklessness", which basically means that you foresaw there was a risk of harm to someone by your actions, but went on to do whatever it was anyway.

Sounds fair enough. You're a copper so you obviously know alot more about this stuff than I do, but it seems a bit odd to automatically plead guilty to GBH. Wouldn't they usually plead guilty to a lesser charge like ABH or assualt first. By pleading guilty to GBH he's basically admitting to breaking his jaw on purpose.
My point is that he only hit him once, and on the video it didn't look very hard, it wasn't even powerful enough to knock the bloke down, so to get sent down (if he does get sent down)for just giving someone a sly dig seems a bit harsh. There's a big difference between intending to break a persons jaw and giving them a bruised face, the major factor being the intent.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Sounds fair enough. You're a copper so you obviously know alot more about this stuff than I do, but it seems a bit odd to automatically plead guilty to GBH. Wouldn't they usually plead guilty to a lesser charge like ABH or assualt first. By pleading guilty to GBH he's basically admitting to breaking his jaw on purpose.
My point is that he only hit him once, and on the video it didn't look very hard, it wasn't even powerful enough to knock the bloke down, so to get sent down (if he does get sent down)for just giving someone a sly dig seems a bit harsh. There's a big difference between intending to break a persons jaw and giving them a bruised face, the major factor being the intent.

Ah yes, intent. I can understand your line of thinking, however if they could prove he INTENDED to break the player's jaw, or inflict similarly serious damage, then he'd be charged with causing GBH With Intent (S18 Offences Against the Person Act). As it is, he (I assume) has been charged under S20 of the same act, which is just "standard" GBH. This, in layman's terms, means you caused the injury, but you didn't necessarily mean to cause THAT LEVEL of injury, just SOME injury. To be guilty of GBH With Intent means they have to prove your intent was to cause SERIOUS harm, not just harm.

ABH and GBH simply describe the level of harm actually inflicted, therefore he can't plead to ABH or common assault, as the victim has GBH level injuries. The mens rea (state of mind) and actus reus (criminal conduct) needed to prove the offence is the same for either ABH or GBH, and you get charged according to what damage you inflict. A plea to ABH would be irrelevant in this case, because there is no ABH. It would be as useful as him pleading guilty to theft, or dangerous driving.

Further to that, he's pleaded guilty now because he evidently knows he's screwed (too much evidence against him), and you get credit for an early guilty plea. If he denied doing it and only pleaded guilty at a later stage, there would have to be a trial, at which he's likely to get a harsher sentence if found guilty, because of the time and money it costs the police and court system to put together a full court case (as opposed to simply a sentencing hearing).

Hope that makes sense!

 

[TonyW]

Ah yes, intent. I can understand your line of thinking, however if they could prove he INTENDED to break the player's jaw, or inflict similarly serious damage, then he'd be charged with causing GBH With Intent (S18 Offences Against the Person Act). As it is, he (I assume) has been charged under S20 of the same act, which is just "standard" GBH. This, in layman's terms, means you caused the injury, but you didn't necessarily mean to cause THAT LEVEL of injury, just SOME injury. To be guilty of GBH With Intent means they have to prove your intent was to cause SERIOUS harm, not just harm.

ABH and GBH simply describe the level of harm actually inflicted, therefore he can't plead to ABH or common assault, as the victim has GBH level injuries. The mens rea (state of mind) and actus reus (criminal conduct) needed to prove the offence is the same for either ABH or GBH, and you get charged according to what damage you inflict. A plea to ABH would be irrelevant in this case, because there is no ABH. It would be as useful as him pleading guilty to theft, or dangerous driving.

Further to that, he's pleaded guilty now because he evidently knows he's screwed (too much evidence against him), and you get credit for an early guilty plea. If he denied doing it and only pleaded guilty at a later stage, there would have to be a trial, at which he's likely to get a harsher sentence if found guilty, because of the time and money it costs the police and court system to put together a full court case (as opposed to simply a sentencing hearing).

Hope that makes sense!

Yeah, can never understand why (considering you're innocent until proven guilty) your sentence should be greater for exercising your right to plead not guilty. Its the same offence after all. I know its cost the country money, but you are no more guilty are you?

 

[Billy the Fish]

Hope that makes sense!

crystal clear. Thanks for explaining that