No my point is unrelated to that, it is that people should not be taking such firm positions on the extremes over something this complex and unknown.... I was literally just saying that earlier
Benjamin Mendy - Not guilty on re-trial | NOT a thread about MG
- Thread starter Chief123
- Start date
CAS overturned that did they not? And instead found them guilty of not helping with the investigation?
I am sorry if i remember that wrongly.
You must have them confused with someone else. They believe in "the beauty of law"
No, you asked a fairly direct question which applies to me:No my point is unrelated to that, it is that people should not be taking such firm positions on the extremes over something this complex and unknown.... I was literally just saying that earlier
I gave you my answer and now I don't really know what you are doing. Anyway you have my answer which has nothing to do with your "point" since the position that you referred to isn't extreme.
You just said it's a difficult question to answer, why? Because we don't know enough right? Following that to it's logical conclusion wouldn't you say it's not wise to pick a position and stick to it in light of new information? That has been my point and whether you agree or not you made it for me, and I don't even know what you are on about at this point? You've come into a conversation as though I've been talking to you but haven't bothered to read my prior posts it seems.... let's leave it at that
Oh absolutely. As I said he came across as a right prick from another planet.
I'm a practising Muslim and the person I was visiting is also one. Mendy is also Muslim, hence the conversation with him. My ultimate point to him was with his self admitted shenanigans how can he claim to be Muslim.
The thing is though his shenanigans are a "normal" footballers life. I'd assume famous, prem type player and I'd say celeb in general.
The main thing he was "concerned" with was what his brother, who had been away, would say once he was out. Because he had told him make sure you get the consent recorded.
The thing is, as abhorrent as it is to us "normal" folk, it seemed a way of life for him and the names he dropped. And it's not the first time I've heard it.
I used to know Mark Kennedy (Liverpool at the time) girlfriend . This was in the 90's. Speaking with Kennedy even back then girls would doll themselves up and be waiting outside training grounds hoping to be picked up by a star or future star. Even then the players had to be careful they weren't going to get accused of rape etc. So security etc would get consent
She used to tell stories of how girls would get random invites from music stars and wealthy blokes. Basically 18 year old "fitties" as she said invited on to yachts etc with other wealthy blokes and their entourages. Sign a piece of paper and party with the rich. Basically they were used for sex and happy to go along and taste the millionaire lifestyle of a yacht and expensive champagne.
Sad thing is the girls are getting used but allow it for the lifestyle. Those who have been around look for a pay day and hope they get a Mendy who didn't get consent.
I quoted a post that was alone, not one part of a conversation. I answered the question because the premise matches with a point that I made which isn't a position that I picked but the factual court decision and it was in response to people actually taking a position when they claim that he was declared innocent.
And if your post was specifically aimed at someone then you should have quoted that person, otherwise your post reads like one that is aimed at anyone that fits with its premise.
You still haven't read them, too preoccupied with your own point it seems
How about you leave it, here
Last edited:
Get the point not guilty doesn't mean innocent. But are we to have faith in the judicial process only if we agree with the outcome?
Anyone who hasn't sat through any case and heard evidence themselves taking issue with the verdict is always rather preposterous to me
Anyone who hasn't sat through any case and heard evidence themselves taking issue with the verdict is always rather preposterous to me
Basically that seems to be the case for a lot of people, yes.
The faith comes from all the general rules that lead us to verdicts or to situations like the CPS withdrawing charges.
The system doesn't claim to be totally correct all the time and not being criminally convicted of something doesn't mean you did nothing wrong.
It's just miles more complicated than that.
Probably because it's the correct view, it's totally case by case.
Submitting and saying I have complete blind faith in the courts determination would mean why would we have an appeals process? It's so daft and honestly either grossly simplistic or a bad faith argument.
Leaving aside the fact that once again the court determines if there is enough evidence to convict, not to determine innocence. Meaning there can be quite a lot of evidence that merits consideration and indeed blame/moral guilt, without passing the bar for criminal prosection.
'Moral judgments' about his lifestyle, which involved partying and casual sexual interaction with lots of different women, should be put to one side. He has now been acquitted of eight rapes, one attempted rape, and one sexual assault against seven women following two trials. He was named and shamed and is now proven innocent..... No doubt his accusers will remain anonymous?? Poor man's lost his career and will still have doubters, always tarnished. He should sue for damages. It should be a classic case.
He isn't proven innocent anywhere other than in your mind.
Do you think he is guilty of a crime? If so, what?
Be specific. Not being arsey at this point, I’m just genuinely confused as to what your gripe is with this.
He has been found not guilty of all allegations made against him. He is innocent until proven guilty according to law.
Jesus
Why is this such a sticking point for you? Whether you do have an agenda or not in thinking that he really is guilty its coming across as if you do have one.
And another one
And it gets worse.
Obviously not.
It really seems to vex you that people are capable of using their brains to evaluate available information and form opinions of their own, that don't align with yours.And another one
More disturbing is that a lot want to believe him still being guilty after being found not guilty.
Please say he’s a criminal then you may get a lesson in the civil context of defamation.
Not in England, but you would know that if you've read previous posts explaining this.
Bingo should be the end of the discussion.
No it shouldn't, because it's dumb and simplistic.
No, it's that they've come to that cionclusion on partial evidence and are too stubborn to take into account anything new that comes along.
No I don't. He has been found not guilty and I have no idea what the evidence was in favour or against that, it would be completely ignorant of me to still believe him criminally guilty in that circumstance.
It's just that being found not guilty, for any and every case, rape or otherwise, does not mean you have been found innocent, it may seem like a distinction without a difference to you but there is a difference and it's important and correct to use the right terminology.
It's been explained like 40 times so far in this thread.
Both correct yeah, though missing the word presumed.
Neither of those statements mean he has been FOUND to be innocent. He has been found not guilty and is therefore presumed innocent of the specific legal charges.
My main agenda here is to help people understand how the law works and hopefully temper people's desire to state their feeling as fact or use language in a way that says more than is actually known.
Why would I say that? It's not my opinion and it's not inferred by me correcting people who still can't grasp what the phrases not guilty and presumption of innocence mean despite it being explained over and over.
This.
One of the girls who accused Mendy said she'd had the "best night of my life" when staying over at Mendy's house on the occasion she later claimed she was raped - how could showing a girl the best night of her life be being disrespectful to them?
I get you and I agree, it's always going to be a personal call and you know how it goes on that front... a lot of people are stubborn (me included tbf). One thing with me though is I'm always open, to new info, new ideas, new possibilities....
Again for emphasis.
A not guilty verdict does not mean the girls lied.
A not guilty verdict does not mean the girls lied.
@Rhyme Animal your totally misrepresenting what almost everyone is saying except maybe that one guy that still thinks Mendy is 100% guilty in the eyes of the law.
It also doesn't mean they told the truth.
We don't know what this new evidence was though, as stated before it could just be a written statement from his partner.
All we really know is she decided against testifying, her dropping out makes their case a lot harder to get a conviction for.
I guess we do also kind of know that he was in contact with her during a period of time when he shouldn't have been.
That’s factually inaccurate. How do you know if they lied or not unless they tried in the court?
Takes one to know one, I guess.
Your failure to answer my question says it all.
Exactly this. There are plenty of despicable people in this world like Mendy, doesn’t mean they’re criminals. Many people fail to grasp this or capable of making the distinction.