Calis Beach and Fethiye Turkey Discussion Forum
General Topics => Football => Topic started by: Scunner on August 29, 2011, 12:50:25 PM
-
Remember the Hearts fan who made nearly every news bulletin across the UK for a few days, the one filmed running from the stand to attack Celtic manager Neil Lennon? Pinned to the floor with no chance of escape and lead away by the police? Well his court case starts today.
He denies doing it.
-
Schizophrenia ?? ;)
-
Ah, strangely enough it's just been on the news. He doesn't deny it, he's denies what was said during it. The charge is that it was motivated by religion, he claims it wasn't. So it was just non-religious thuggery which is of course much better.
-
What was said was far worse than a religious slur. He apparently called Lennon a carrot top.
-
He only meant he was gold plated John. ;):D
-
I'm glad he eventually admitted to it, I would probably have got the blame,: :) & I'm about 500 miles away !! ;)
I seem to get blamed for every single thing that I do !! 8) :o
-
Chill out Gordy,put yourself in our leaders shoes, poor old Keith gets hammered by all of us, and when he,s quiet for a while they tell us he,s dead. ;) :)
-
Mayhap he finds himself; " Extraordinarily renditioned",on those occasions, Des,I did hear a rumour, ( surely NOT a rumour, :o), that he has a lovely little bolt-hole in Cuba, Gauntanamo something or other, ;) 8).
-
:D
-
Admitted in court the he committed assault, watched first hand by tens of thousands of fans committing assault and filmed and seen numerous times on television committing assault but found not guilty of assault by the jury!!!!
-
The jury found him guilty of breach of the peace but removed the religious hatred element.
The jury found him not proven of assault.
He admitted it in court but the jury chose not to believe !!!!!
-
A longer version of the above ......
The verdict of the jury is particularly perverse as not only did the accused admit common assault in his evidence, his legal counsel invited the jury, in his speech, to convict him of both common law assault and breach of the peace (without the religious rider).
In short, both the prosecution and the defence invited the jury to convict of assault, the only difference being whether it was religiously aggravated.
They chose to ignore both speeches in regard to the assault charge!
They also chose to ignore the very clear video evidence of the attack, shown to them during the trial.
It is hard to comprehend their decision. It is easier to conclude that an element of antipathy towards the victim played a part.