Reply With Quotegive him back his job now then
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
give him back his job now then
That's how bad Page has been.Originally Posted by TheGoose
Ryan Giggs is a odius oddball and clearly a total ****, but i'd still consider him taking his job back.
hes not the first and wont be the last morally vacuous **** in football. being a scumbag isnt a crime though
But being in sport is a privilege and we can all say no.
Will he get compo? Look what he’s missed out on? Just like Mendy……
Compo for what? The FAW continued to pay him until his contract ended.
He had much more ideas than Page, I had my doubts about him but he did well and sent us in the right direction.
He'll get a job somewhere I'm sure.
How many more going to be found innocent ??
I don't think he is odious he is a typical footballer whose background was not great , faced racism as a kid , played football in the streets , education was secondary , mum move to Salford form Ely ( ouch ) rocked up at Fergie's house aged 14 , changed his surname .
CPS decided not to prosecute Saville at the time of exposure , what Gigg's did pales into insignificance , named in Parliament because of a gagging order ( didn't happen to Huw of the BBC ) ..
Been vilified by the press MP's for some time .. now that's odious .
Must be a book there somewhere bring him back for Wales asap
Will he now be recognised into the PL hall of fame (who cares I know)
Regardless of the scandal he should have been the first name admitted as the most decorated.
Halls of Fame seem a very crass and American idea. Sports people (and indeed musicians) leave their own record of achievements and there's no need for a team of people deciding who is worth of entry into such institutions.
Really? Did he miss out on a euros and World Cup though? Harsh even if he is a knob
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...drawn-CPS.html
In other words he was found not guilty on all counts due to the prosecution's failure to offer further evidence. The trial lasted 10 minutes.
It wasn't a trial. The CPS went to court and asked for the trial to be cancelled because the women involved did not want to give evidence against him in court. They said it would have been unfair to compel them to give evidence given their obvious reluctance.
That doesn't sound quite like being found innocent given all the evidence to me.
Or they didn’t want to be cross examined maybe…..what a massive waste of money again…..
To be precise it was a court hearing. He wasn't found innocent he was found to be not guilty which are entirely different matters.
Is anyone really surprised by this outcome?
The law and the system is massively flawed and favours the defendent in these cases where it's basically one word against another and little "proper" evidence presented to get a conviction.
Seems like the women involved had enough and who can blame them.
They were probably told from the get go that it would be an open and shut case.
Of course there is the defendant's fame and fortune to factor in.
The little man might agree to a lesser charge early in procedings whereas someone of Giggs stature would in most cases not.
The law is the law and there are are no charges so it follows that RG should be allowed to get on with his life.
Whether that is within football is for potential employers to decide though I'm sure that in this day and age, he will still be viewed as damaged goods.
Exactly, not guilty by default. There must have been compelling evidence for CPS to take it to Crown court in the first place.
you dont get found innocent, thats not how it works
Or the lady in question could be exposed to a different set of events and arguments , that the jury would not then apply a guilty plea that is called justice and we have one of the better justice systems ..
The CPS state " Our decisions will be independent of bias or discrimination but we will always consider the interests of others. We will act with integrity and objectivity and will exercise sound judgement with confidence. In our dealings with each other and the public we will be open and honest. "
Before the CPS the police just arrested you either charged or realised and potentially took you to court they are independent to the police .. whether they are efficient is another thing , like everything else in life it can go wrong wrong i.e. the Saville decision and Sir Kiers involvement , sadly only John Lydon of the Pistols had the balls to call Saville out in public
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esKnWAIgpLY ( BBC banned Johnny Rotten in 1978 for telling the truth about Jimmy Savile ) bloody BBC again , CPS should have listened to John the truth
I always thought there was a presumption of innocence unless guilt could be proved, therefore he is innocent!
Is it because the trial process has started?
Based on evidence he'll either be found guilty or not guilty. As the prosecution is not going to offer any evidence then he's been found not guilty.
If only the law was that simple. In short, "not guilty" is not the same as "innocent." Innocent means that a person did not commit the crime. Not guilty means that the prosecution could not prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that a person committed the crime. Therefore, the court does not pronounce someone as “innocent” but rather “not guilty”. So says Google.
Jumpers For Goalposts, Hmm Isn't it?
Small boys in the park. Rush goalie. Hmm.
Dark around 9. Mum calling you in.
Come on Timmy, teas ready. Isn't it. Hmm.
Huw good, Giggs bad.
Posting Permissions