Johanes de Silentio Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Was just on BBC Radio Scotland, and is which is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Italian Lambretta Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 We all know why the Jury decided to clear John Wilson of assault if McBride cannot work out the reason fr himself them he is not as clever ad he likes to make out. He can GTF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spellczech Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 We all know why the Jury decided to clear John Wilson of assault if McBride cannot work out the reason fr himself them he is not as clever ad he likes to make out. He can GTF He's a political animal himself so should understand that the attchment of the sectarian element to the charge was politically motivated rather than legal sense (no corroboration). He's just Celtic's Donald Findlay... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homme Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 If he's then it's happy days! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martinb Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 A lawyer who doesn't understand the law - that's handy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 on newsnight last night he insinuated that the jury must have had "prejudices". the man is a tit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RussAsia Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 As long as this guy is involved with Celtic then Scottish football will never move forward.. He turns everything into an anti Catholic argument.. The blame lies with him for a lot of what went on last season... He is a ****** and should be taken out the public eye for everyones benefit.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keymaster Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Hi To Paul McBride, if you reading this then ====> cheers K Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colonel Kurtz Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 As long as this guy is involved with Celtic then Scottish football will never move forward.. He turns everything into an anti Catholic argument.. The blame lies with him for a lot of what went on last season... He is a ****** and should be taken out the public eye for everyones benefit.. Mcbride is treading a fine line as a QC cannot ctriticise a jury verdict in a case he was involved in or a case he wasnt..a complaint to the faculty is inevitible. The verdict in the assault charge in interesting not proven..speaks volumes. remanding Wilson in custody for a furthur 14 days on an assault charge,albeit with 3 previous is a disgrace,given he has already served a fair propotion of thr maximum avaliable tariff. The jury clearly did not believe the secutity guy..he is now in the same position as Coulson is in the Sheridan trial Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4marsbars Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 The phrase "good article in the Scotsman by Michael Kelly" might press a number of wrong buttons all at the same time, but I'd say that Kelly's criticism of McBride in today's paper is well worth reading. http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/religiousissuesinscotland/Michael-Kelly-Sorry-Mr-McBride.6828659.jp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinmaroon Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 The phrase "good article in the Scotsman by Michael Kelly" might press a number of wrong buttons all at the same time, but I'd say that Kelly's criticism of McBride in today's paper is well worth reading. http://thescotsman.s...ride.6828659.jp Coming from "one of their own", it is a damning indictment of McBride! His contributions last season could arguably be considered as contributory to the so-called "poisonous" atmosphere at Tynecastle that night and the resultant attack on Lennon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gorgie rd eh11 Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Coming from "one of their own", it is a damning indictment of McBride! His contributions last season could arguably be considered as contributory to the so-called "poisonous" atmosphere at Tynecastle that night and the resultant attack on Lennon. Absolutely right, mcbride has stoked the fires with the garbage he spouted after the dougie mcdonald nonsense. He's turned into a rent-a-gob for the dangerously paranoid celtic fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Comedian Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 We all know why the Jury decided to clear John Wilson of assault if McBride cannot work out the reason fr himself them he is not as clever ad he likes to make out. He can GTF Because they are all in the mason's and know a hero when they see one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tasavallan Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Because they are all in the mason's and know a hero when they see one. For some reason the advertisement hoarding made me chuckle... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Treasurer Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 The jury clearly did not believe the secutity guy..he is now in the same position as Coulson is in the Sheridan trial As this guy appears to be the only person that heard any sectarian or religious words it would suggest that he maybe has an "agenda". I would hope therefore that HMFC ensure that he is allowed no where near Tynecastle in an official capacity in the future Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craigieboy Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 The more Celtic people who get upset about it the better. Giruy ya manks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ribble Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 As this guy appears to be the only person that heard any sectarian or religious words it would suggest that he maybe has an "agenda". I would hope therefore that HMFC ensure that he is allowed no where near Tynecastle in an official capacity in the future Christ you sound as bad as the Celtic fans! Maybe he had no agenda but was the only one close enough to hear what was said? Thus resulting in the not proven verdict rather than not guilty! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Treasurer Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Christ you sound as bad as the Celtic fans! Maybe he had no agenda but was the only one close enough to hear what was said? Thus resulting in the not proven verdict rather than not guilty! Just a wee guess here but I'd say lennon and thomson were a bit closer than anyone and they said under oath that they heard nothing of a sectarian nature. Also the police said at the time that he made no sectarian comment. Source of the last part ? The arresting officer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4marsbars Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Christ you sound as bad as the Celtic fans! Maybe he had no agenda but was the only one close enough to hear what was said? Thus resulting in the not proven verdict rather than not guilty! Reasonable poster capable of independent thought alert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 BREAKING NEWS. the scottish transfer deadline has been extended by 24 hours. apparently there were 15 members of the SFA away on jury service yesterday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordy Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 For some reason the advertisement hoarding made me chuckle... That is a classic ! :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ribble Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Just a wee guess here but I'd say lennon and thomson were a bit closer than anyone and they said under oath that they heard nothing of a sectarian nature. Also the police said at the time that he made no sectarian comment. Source of the last part ? The arresting officer. So whilst the steward was lying on top of him, Lennon, Thompson and the arresting officer were closer? Really? I am not saying that a sectarian comment was or was not made, simply that there was an opportunity to make the alleged comment when the steward was the only person close enough to hear it! To suggest that the steward had an 'agenda' is bordering on the paranoia from the likes of messrs McBride and Reid! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amadjambo Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Not proven. Innocent until proven guilty. Therefore innocent. Simple really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berrasbraw Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 So this security guy heard Wilson call Lennon whatever.But in front of him were 2 police men,7 subs,Celtic backroom staff,Lennon,Thomson etc etc and they never heard Wilson say anything.Hence the reason he was found not proven. IMO, had they went for plain assault Wilson would have been found guilty,but as ususal they try to tag the bigotry thing in. If you aint one of them,or don support them,you are sraight away a bigot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoda Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Mcbride is treading a fine line as a QC cannot ctriticise a jury verdict in a case he was involved in or a case he wasnt..a complaint to the faculty is inevitible. The verdict in the assault charge in interesting not proven..speaks volumes. remanding Wilson in custody for a furthur 14 days on an assault charge,albeit with 3 previous is a disgrace,given he has already served a fair propotion of thr maximum avaliable tariff. The jury clearly did not believe the secutity guy..he is now in the same position as Coulson is in the Sheridan trial Didn't McBride have to apologise last season for comments, not befitting a QC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Treasurer Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 So whilst the steward was lying on top of him, Lennon, Thompson and the arresting officer were closer? Really? I am not saying that a sectarian comment was or was not made, simply that there was an opportunity to make the alleged comment when the steward was the only person close enough to hear it! To suggest that the steward had an 'agenda' is bordering on the paranoia from the likes of messrs McBride and Reid! The statments everyone else directly involved, including the jury, has given the impression that this security man has lied. I would therefore suggest that he is, at best, unreliable and untrustworthy so should not be in a position of authority within our stadium. Surely it is not paranoid to ask why he chose to lie in a court of law, unless of course you think everyone else lied and he is a lone beacon of truth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheriff Fatman Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 The statments everyone else directly involved, including the jury, has given the impression that this security man has lied. I would therefore suggest that he is, at best, unreliable and untrustworthy so should not be in a position of authority within our stadium. Surely it is not paranoid to ask why he chose to lie in a court of law, unless of course you think everyone else lied and he is a lone beacon of truth Maybe, just maybe, he genuinely thought he heard Wilson saying that, but because of the noise of the crowd, the stress of the moment and the adrenaline that would be running through his system he misheard. There is a good reason why evidence from human beings needs to be corroborated, and it is not because humans lie. Human beings make exceedingly bad witnesses because often what they genuinely think they see and hear is not what actually happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Gentleman Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 I tried to explain the unique 'Not Proven' verdict to my Oz colleagues today. They all laughed at me - thought I was taking the piss. Personally, I think 'Not Proven' has a legitimate place in law. However, I do think it should be subject to 'double jeopardy', which in Scots Law it isn't. In effect it's a 'Not Guilty' verdict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johanes de Silentio Posted September 1, 2011 Author Share Posted September 1, 2011 I tried to explain the unique 'Not Proven' verdict to my Oz colleagues today. They all laughed at me - thought I was taking the piss. Personally, I think 'Not Proven' has a legitimate place in law. However, I do think it should be subject to 'double jeopardy', which in Scots Law it isn't. In effect it's a 'Not Guilty' verdict. I think so too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ribble Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 The statments everyone else directly involved, including the jury, has given the impression that this security man has lied. I would therefore suggest that he is, at best, unreliable and untrustworthy so should not be in a position of authority within our stadium. Surely it is not paranoid to ask why he chose to lie in a court of law, unless of course you think everyone else lied and he is a lone beacon of truth Who has said that he lied? If he had then he would have been held in contempt of court. All that can be taken from the trial is that one person heard something noone else did, without that corroboration the only verdict could be not proven, had it been decided that the steward was 'at best, unreliable and untrustworthy' or in fact 'chose to lie in a court of law' then the verdict would have been not guilty! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amadjambo Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Just shows how hard it is to find 11 people in Scotland to sit on a jury who don't hate Neil Lennon themselves. This case is baffling, shocking and strangely hilarious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMDV Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 A lawyer who doesn't understand the law - that's handy! Although not unusual Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Treasurer Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Who has said that he lied? If he had then he would have been held in contempt of court. All that can be taken from the trial is that one person heard something noone else did, without that corroboration the only verdict could be not proven, had it been decided that the steward was 'at best, unreliable and untrustworthy' or in fact 'chose to lie in a court of law' then the verdict would have been not guilty! I just hope that any Hearts don't have cause to attract the attentions of this "neutral" official at any future match Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vintage1874 Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 I think so too. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bean counter Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Didn't McBride have to apologise last season for comments, not befitting a QC? Yes he did Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocco_Jambo Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 No corroboration was required for the religious prejudice aggravation. The jury would have been perfectly entitled to find him guilty of the assault with religious aggravation. However they never clearly because they found the one witness unreliable. If corroboration is required and not present the jury would never have the option of considering any verdict and the charge would have been omitted. A jury is never entitled to decide on wheter corroboration is present or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeeToonJambo Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Just shows how hard it is to find 11 people in Scotland to sit on a jury who don't hate Neil Lennon themselves. This case is baffling, shocking and strangely hilarious. 15. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boof Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 All that can be taken from the trial is that one person heard something noone else did, without that corroboration the only verdict could be not proven, had it been decided that the steward was 'at best, unreliable and untrustworthy' or in fact 'chose to lie in a court of law' then the verdict would have been not guilty! That's the crucial point. The steward must have been convinced in his own mind what he thought he'd heard (I presume, otherwise why would he stand up in a court and say so). Whatever reason there is for that is beyond my comprehension - perhaps he expected to hear such a thing being said...? Who knows? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve_Jersey_HMFC Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 This guy is an embarassment,commenting on a case not involving him, and dont forget him waying in with quotes re the bougherra/mcoist bans getting lifted last season. Next time I disagree with a case I have nothing to do with I might just go spouting off to the tabloids criticising juries and judges and see where it gets me. I think the Solicitors Reg Authority and Law Society of Jersey would have something to say to me The defendant and his lawyer were willing to offer a guilty plea to breach of peace and assault without the sectarian aggarvation attached to either. The Prosecution could have taken this and missed out on all the time, effort and tax payers money in going to trial. One persons uncorroborated statement that the def shouted a sectarian remark (in a stadium of 17,000 where quite a lot of such remarks would have been being shouted all around) was really weak to rely on especially when lennon and thompson were not alleging it. Guilt has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt FFS. The Prosecution was politically motivated following all the stuff that went on last season and wanted to make an example. Not only a waste of time and money including the moeny spent on having the guy in custody for a disproportionate time, but a waste of many jurors' time whose identities I really hope are protected properly and not leaked beacuse they would no doubt be subjected to the usual treatment from the self proclaimed GFITW, even though they did their job and did not find guilt where there was reasonable doubt, unlike the prosecution who messed up spectacularly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeeToonJambo Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 I think McBride's close friendship with Lennon is clouding his judgement and he is being less than objective. I was a witness in a case, many years ago, being defended by McBride. It was a particularly nasty rape case and, though there was no doubt of the accused's guilt, McBride and the Advocate Depute concocted a deal where some of the charges were dropped and a guilty plea was accepted, to a lesser crime, by the accused who was released (having been in custody for 3 months awaiting trial). The parents of the poor girl (who was 15 at the time) were devastated, as was the victim. McBride had no thoughts for the victim or her parents (I think he was due on the golf course), and I lost all respect for him. Incidentally, the accused went on to attack and rape another young girl and he received an appropriate punishment for it. I can't help but think that had McBride (along with the AD) done his job properly, the second girl might have been spared her ordeal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinmaroon Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 I think McBride's close friendship with Lennon is clouding his judgement and he is being less than objective. I was a witness in a case, many years ago, being defended by McBride. It was a particularly nasty rape case and, though there was no doubt of the accused's guilt, McBride and the Advocate Depute concocted a deal where some of the charges were dropped and a guilty plea was accepted, to a lesser crime, by the accused who was released (having been in custody for 3 months awaiting trial). The parents of the poor girl (who was 15 at the time) were devastated, as was the victim. McBride had no thoughts for the victim or her parents (I think he was due on the golf course), and I lost all respect for him. Incidentally, the accused went on to attack and rape another young girl and he received an appropriate punishment for it. I can't help but think that had McBride (along with the AD) done his job properly, the second girl might have been spared her ordeal. I think you've just described a real hypocrite! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Italian Lambretta Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 You should send him a letter pointing this out, and see if the scum-bag can justify it. I think McBride's close friendship with Lennon is clouding his judgement and he is being less than objective. I was a witness in a case, many years ago, being defended by McBride. It was a particularly nasty rape case and, though there was no doubt of the accused's guilt, McBride and the Advocate Depute concocted a deal where some of the charges were dropped and a guilty plea was accepted, to a lesser crime, by the accused who was released (having been in custody for 3 months awaiting trial). The parents of the poor girl (who was 15 at the time) were devastated, as was the victim. McBride had no thoughts for the victim or her parents (I think he was due on the golf course), and I lost all respect for him. Incidentally, the accused went on to attack and rape another young girl and he received an appropriate punishment for it. I can't help but think that had McBride (along with the AD) done his job properly, the second girl might have been spared her ordeal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheriff Fatman Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 I think McBride's close friendship with Lennon is clouding his judgement and he is being less than objective. I was a witness in a case, many years ago, being defended by McBride. It was a particularly nasty rape case and, though there was no doubt of the accused's guilt, McBride and the Advocate Depute concocted a deal where some of the charges were dropped and a guilty plea was accepted, to a lesser crime, by the accused who was released (having been in custody for 3 months awaiting trial). The parents of the poor girl (who was 15 at the time) were devastated, as was the victim. McBride had no thoughts for the victim or her parents (I think he was due on the golf course), and I lost all respect for him. Incidentally, the accused went on to attack and rape another young girl and he received an appropriate punishment for it. I can't help but think that had McBride (along with the AD) done his job properly, the second girl might have been spared her ordeal. I think you might find that as the defence attorney McBride did do his job properly in that case, it was the AD that didn't. That said, he is still a hypocritical rent a mouth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Wiseau Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 I think McBride's close friendship with Lennon is clouding his judgement and he is being less than objective. I was a witness in a case, many years ago, being defended by McBride. It was a particularly nasty rape case and, though there was no doubt of the accused's guilt, McBride and the Advocate Depute concocted a deal where some of the charges were dropped and a guilty plea was accepted, to a lesser crime, by the accused who was released (having been in custody for 3 months awaiting trial). The parents of the poor girl (who was 15 at the time) were devastated, as was the victim. McBride had no thoughts for the victim or her parents (I think he was due on the golf course), and I lost all respect for him. Incidentally, the accused went on to attack and rape another young girl and he received an appropriate punishment for it. I can't help but think that had McBride (along with the AD) done his job properly, the second girl might have been spared her ordeal. And the fecker served less time in the nick than Jungle John has. :Vlad-Stupid: Regardless, McBride is a loathsome little creep and I would be ****ing delighted if he were to lose his livelihood over the filth that he spouts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le Chat Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Almost as odious as his client imo. He actually reminds me of Keith Jackson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocco_Jambo Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 I think McBride's close friendship with Lennon is clouding his judgement and he is being less than objective. I was a witness in a case, many years ago, being defended by McBride. It was a particularly nasty rape case and, though there was no doubt of the accused's guilt, McBride and the Advocate Depute concocted a deal where some of the charges were dropped and a guilty plea was accepted, to a lesser crime, by the accused who was released (having been in custody for 3 months awaiting trial). The parents of the poor girl (who was 15 at the time) were devastated, as was the victim. McBride had no thoughts for the victim or her parents (I think he was due on the golf course), and I lost all respect for him. Incidentally, the accused went on to attack and rape another young girl and he received an appropriate punishment for it. I can't help but think that had McBride (along with the AD) done his job properly, the second girl might have been spared her ordeal. McBride is an arse but I'm assuming when you say "there was no doubt of the accused's guilt", this was in your opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J Cheever Loophole Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 I tried to explain the unique 'Not Proven' verdict to my Oz colleagues today. They all laughed at me - thought I was taking the piss. Personally, I think 'Not Proven' has a legitimate place in law. However, I do think it should be subject to 'double jeopardy', which in Scots Law it isn't. In effect it's a 'Not Guilty' verdict. It's still recorded on your previous sheet IIRC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The People's Chimp Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 And the fecker served less time in the nick than Jungle John has. :Vlad-Stupid: Regardless, McBride is a loathsome little creep and I would be ****ing delighted if he were to lose his livelihood over the filth that he spouts. He's clearly trying to create himself a political profile and all this guff he's spouting is proof of that - http://www.scotsman.com/news/Catholic-QC-warns-of-bigotry.6828205.jp - I thought this latest "warning" was really beyond the pale; it was downright offensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geddy Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 To see and hear McBride and Galloway moaning and greeting about this has made me happy. Marvelous. 2 odious bigotted creeps who speak more pish than what I'd read in an entire week of kickback rantings!!! The Tic and their band of followers wanted to make merry over bigotry and pushed for something they couldn't win. Tough luck. To re-iterate what has been said before on here, I cannot stand Lennon due to him having been a sleekit dirty player and now a moaning faced git of a manager. Couldn't care less what church he goes to, his political beliefs or even the colour of his hair. This is true of most so called "Lennon haters". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 i see mcbride has been making more wild insinuations about the jury. pointing to the fact that a scottish jury can comprise of people who can't read, write or count. it doesn't matter what drivel galloway spouts. he's a complete irrelevance and a joke figure. it does matter what dangerous rhetoric is gobbed off by mcbride. his position and closeness to lennon/celtic makes him a champion for many people who are only too willing to climb aboard the persecution bus. i sincerely hope mcbride's runaway mouth is eventually gagged by someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.