So is it ok to speak about Giggs the footballer again?
Giggs trial
- Thread starter AshRK
- Start date
The little boy inside me is pleased that his childhood idol isn’t a total scumbag, merely a partial scumbag.
Good news.
Can he now be pulled into the PL Hall of Fame?
If they include him now hopefully he responds with “Feck off, who needs this! 13 PL medals speak for themselves.”
Just your everyday antics and nothing more
Another not guilty - caf guilty
Thanks mate,
These situations affect both sides of the case, not a nice situation for everyone concerned, and I think someone like Giggs will get a harder deal than most due to the fact he is wealthy and in the public eye.
Flawed genius?He’s definitely total mate
I appreciate the point you're trying to make here, but just because you weren't convicted doesn't mean that you didn't do anything. Are you suggesting that every mafioso who ever got off a murder charge because the witnesses suddenly disappeared was completely innocent of the original charges? Plainly not. There is a clear difference between not being convicted, and not having done anything wrong. You cannot infer one from the other. If you've looked at the situation and evidence and concluded personally that Giggs did nothing wrong, great, I'm not trying to dissuade you of that. My point is just that the process proves neither his guilt nor innocence and instead leaves it open to interpretation.
Every single time
This was my first thought.
But when these things take so long to actually get anywhere near a court. Some people would rather just try to move on and put it behind them, than continue with the long drawn out process of raking over the same stories and events over and over in front of a room full of people. Maybe even more so in this case where it's been quite public.
caf conviction rate higher than china
So should we take your word for it, or the professional judge?
the judge didn't have to make a decision, she chose not to go through the process a second time - that's the reason he was acquitted. not sure why this is such a struggle for people.
Balancing act. Must be wary of how hard it is to convict on domestic abuse/sexual assault cases due to the setting in which they often occur - in private.
Also there must be weight put on the function of the law. To me, having guilt effectively determined by public opinion isn’t right either. If someone isn’t charged and convicted they are innocent in the eyes of the law.
In the alternative why not have a properly conducted twitter poll to decide peoples fate rather than the law and judicial system? Very dystopian, almost black mirror vibes which surely cannot be seen as fair and just.
Another not guilty - caf not innocent
No, he is innocent,
And yes doesn't mean he didn't do anything, and I have never insinuated that he didn't do anything like the allegations.
But he is, as I have stated, by the letter of the law, innocent.
No one knows, other than Giggs and the two women involved, whether he actually did the alleged crimes, so we only have the judges verdict to go upon.
And that judges verdict was....not guilty.
How that result came about can be debated and is obviously not the best outcome if the alleged crimes did in fact happen but that doesn't change the fact Giggs is now in society as an innocent man.
Here we go again arguing the exact same thing in Mendy, Greenwood and Giggs case.
You will find 50% still find them guilty/not innocent regardless of what the court/judge verdict.
You will find 50% still find them guilty/not innocent regardless of what the court/judge verdict.
To be fair, Antony has not yet been pronounced as guilty by the caf. Or has he
Im not sure how you can post this obvious contradiction and not notice - innocent would by definition mean he didn't do anything. But anyway, this conversation is going circular at this point, so.
there's a reason courts don't declare innocence. Not guilty means that the prosecution could not prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that a person committed the crime. in this case, this was because the accuser didn't want to go back to court.
how you can then declare Giggs is 'innocent' as a result is beyond me. no one can declare that, not even the courts.
True as far as Giggs is concerned, but as a general observation of the system I think it's a fair point to make
It's the CAF way, some things are just black or white with no elements of grey
Guilty of having one leg
Shagging his brothers wife was a classless act, but not a criminal one, and frankly I have often heard of as bad or worse among my circle of acquaintances. The moral outrage over it given how rife infidelity is was overdone.
This would have been infinitely worse.
This would have been infinitely worse.
Shagging your brothers wife is as disgusting as it gets but at least he’s not a criminal.
Anyway, why are all these cases falling flat. Are the CPS doing their job properly or just chasing these high profile people because it’s glamours.
Anyway, why are all these cases falling flat. Are the CPS doing their job properly or just chasing these high profile people because it’s glamours.
In the eyes of the law he is innocent. It's very simple, depending on where you live. I live in an area where you are innocent until proven guilty. He was not proven guilty therefore, he is innocent. He probably still did do it mind, but these cases are very hard to prove and when the defendant has money they very rarely get busted. It's not a contradiction to say in the eyes of the law he's innocent but that he probably did it. All it means is he's got enough money to get away with it.
People don't know he was shagging his brothers wife before his brother knew her, he just kept shagging her
Either way there’s no excuse
Does that make it any better?!
Well, when you put it like that….
What's a fair point to make? I probably won't agree with you, as, I never do. Which makes me wonder why you keep quoting my posts?
The literal definition of 'Not Guilty' is..... innocent!
There's no contradiction, if you actually read what I posted.
We don't know what he did or didn't do.
But by the letter of the law he is an innocent man. Hence forth is innocent.
Anyone that thinks otherwise is in essence casting aspersions.
It really isn't. For example, if someone is not convicted because of insanity, despite having done the deed, they aren't innocent of the crime - the justice system simply decided they cannot be held legally responsible for it because of lack of sufficient mental capacity. The verdict is still "not guilty", even if the person actually did commit the crime.
The key witness, i.e. the one that accused Giggs of beating him, stepped away and didn't testify. Very similar to Greenwood's case. Not much of a case left when the people who were supposedly done wrong don't co-operate. Witnesses to the crime are kind of the key to convictions.
How? Another almost certainly guilty rich man walks away scot-free from horrible crimes against women. I see nothing good about this.