give him back his job now then
+ Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
Will he get compo? Look what he’s missed out on? Just like Mendy……
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Huw good, Giggs bad.