If the police are going to mention his age they may aswell name him. There's only two 31 year olds in Everton's squad
+ Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
It's been confirmed he plays for Everton.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/footb...=breaking-news
If the police are going to mention his age they may aswell name him. There's only two 31 year olds in Everton's squad
His name's been on Twitter a lot apparently and, if it's right, he's no stranger to south Wales - I think what happened was that the police did not name his club, but Everton have subsequently confirmed he plays for them.
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-s...-idUKKBN2EQ071
It’ll all come out in the wash.
Be careful though…Jimmy Tarbuck/Bill Cosby to name a few
- innocent 😇
Time will tell Bob
We’ve got to remember that whoever it is should be treated innocent until proven Gylfi
The more money you’ve got determines how guilty you are it seems?
OJ got off - best lawyers money could buy
Oscar Pistorious not so lucky
Prince Andrew never met the girl in question
Harry Rednapp’s dog was guilty 😂
.?
31 and a regular international.
Gilfy is the only one at that age that plays international football, other one at that age is Delph who obviously doesn't play.
Can hear the chants now, when we finally play the Jack's.
Innocent until proven guilty!!
I’m not sure how the Police can actually police what’s said online?
Especially after my dealings with ActionFraud
Complete waste of fecking time
Look what happened a few years back with the Ryan Giggs super injunction trying to gag the press.
Social media won.
If the authorities can only prosecute one solitary racist for the hate crimes directed at Rashford and Co after they’re unlucky penalty misses ( and that was after the retard posted online under his own name pmsl) then what chance of successful prosecutions over speculation?
Good luck with that.
We don’t even know if it’s true or what he’s actually accused of?
There is hope however….a serial shagger and adulterer (proven) with assault charges thrown in to spice up proceedings and you could still manage your country 🤔
No. The law stops the name from being reported as he hasn't been charged, but they are free to use other details to describe who it is.
Like how the mail said a 31 year old married Everton player who regularly plays for his international team was arrested by North Manchester police. I don't know why you or the other guy is trying to pretend otherwise, there's no legal ramifications for any of us by saying it's quite obviously Gylfi that's been arrested. No-one is saying he's guilty.
https://davidbanksmedialaw.com/2011/...w-to-avoid-it/
The Contempt of Court Act 1981 swept this aside and created the concept of ‘active’ proceedings. Proceedings are active when someone has been arrested; a warrant has been issued; they have been orally charged or an information has been laid. If none of these things has happened then contempt evaporates as a problem – publish whatever you like.
3. OK, proceedings ARE active, what should I avoid
Publishing something which creates a substantial risk of serious prejudice or serious impediment to those proceedings.
4. What does that mean?
Well, that’s a little subjective, but case law has shown the following to be a problem:
*Photos or descriptions where identity is at issue – ie the defendant claims it was not him who committed the crime and the prosecution has eyewitnesses whose testimony has to be tested by way of an ID parade. They must rely on their memory of the offence, not a photo helpfully published by the media. This action cause the record fine for contempt (so far) £80,000 for the Sun and £20,000 for Kelvin MacKenzie as editor.
*Assumptions of guilt – in crime reports, police have arrested A man, not THE man.
*Previous convictions – not normally allowed in as evidence, so don’t go informing the jury of them.
*Blackening a defendant’s character – if the prosecution do it in front of the jury, that’s fine. Just don’t do it yourself as they await trial.
5. Does this mean a media blackout about a crime if proceedings are active?
No. The CCA 1981 was drafted in response to the Sunday Times coverage of the Thalidomide scandal, which had been found in contempt under the old common law. The ST took an appeal all the way to the European Court of Human Rights, which ruled that the common law contempt, as applied, was in breach of the ST’s right to freedom of speech. So the CCA 1981 includes a Section 5 defence of ‘discussion of public affairs’. So, for example, a euthanasia trial does not shut down all mention or discussion in the media of the issues of euthanasia. But such discussion should avoid direct commentary on the trial.