Which Outfit For My Interview?
Jobs & Education0 min ago
What's Yr Opinion About Mr Greenwood ?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by piggynose. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
If despite not being found guilty through the formal legal system if the club has additional info not in the public domain maybe they should hand it over to the police. Keep him sidelined until that additional evidence is reviewed
The FA have in the past banned players despite no guilty verdict in the courts for lesser offences.
The FA have in the past banned players despite no guilty verdict in the courts for lesser offences.
United have access to evidence not made public and their investigation is quite extensive. Greenwood has been at the club since he was 7 years old and they obviously value him - otherwise they would have already terminated his contract.
If they decide to keep him, many female supporters will most likely desert the club. But their 'waiting list' for season tickets is such that any numbers lost will soon be replaced.
Greenwood is not the most sensible of guys - remember he was sent home from the England squad for his behaviour - but the charges against him were dropped due to key witnesses "withdrew their involvement and new material came to light."
If they decide to keep him, many female supporters will most likely desert the club. But their 'waiting list' for season tickets is such that any numbers lost will soon be replaced.
Greenwood is not the most sensible of guys - remember he was sent home from the England squad for his behaviour - but the charges against him were dropped due to key witnesses "withdrew their involvement and new material came to light."
//He’s obviously innocent until proven guilty.//
A court would not pronounce his innocence. He's "Not Guilty" until he's proven guilty, Zacs. Slightly different.
As soon as an offence is committed the perpetrator is guilty of it. Whether that can be proved to the satisfaction of a court is another matter. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a legal convention, not a fact. But I've an idea we've discussed this principle once or twice before.
Professional footballers must be held to a high standard of behaviour because of the unfathomable levels of interest that there is in the game in this country - particularly among the young. I think MUFC is entitled to investigate the matter as they think fit and arrive at conclusions without requiring the high burden of proof required by the criminal courts. If they decide to dispense with Mr Greenwood's services he can always take them to court. He may like to consider this carefully as the burden of proof is far lower in the civil courts.
A court would not pronounce his innocence. He's "Not Guilty" until he's proven guilty, Zacs. Slightly different.
As soon as an offence is committed the perpetrator is guilty of it. Whether that can be proved to the satisfaction of a court is another matter. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a legal convention, not a fact. But I've an idea we've discussed this principle once or twice before.
Professional footballers must be held to a high standard of behaviour because of the unfathomable levels of interest that there is in the game in this country - particularly among the young. I think MUFC is entitled to investigate the matter as they think fit and arrive at conclusions without requiring the high burden of proof required by the criminal courts. If they decide to dispense with Mr Greenwood's services he can always take them to court. He may like to consider this carefully as the burden of proof is far lower in the civil courts.
I never said a court would pronounce his innocence but It still remains a fact that presumption of innocence is a legal principle and under the presumption of innocence, the legal burden of proof is on the prosecution.
‘ As soon as an offence is committed the perpetrator is guilty of it’
Do you know that in this particular case, MG has committed an offence?
‘ As soon as an offence is committed the perpetrator is guilty of it’
Do you know that in this particular case, MG has committed an offence?
I have no opinion on Mr Greenwood, I do however on the principle at stake here.
Once again we are in a situation of being tried by Media with a TV presenter thinking they can direct Justice rather than the law.
All charges have been dropped, i.e. NFA. That should be the end of the case and the person reinstated as they were before.
If we go down the route of high profile personalities abusing their position to override the law then that is an a extremely perilous route and needs nipping in the bud.
If there is further evidence then it should be Plod looking into it not any company.
Once again we are in a situation of being tried by Media with a TV presenter thinking they can direct Justice rather than the law.
All charges have been dropped, i.e. NFA. That should be the end of the case and the person reinstated as they were before.
If we go down the route of high profile personalities abusing their position to override the law then that is an a extremely perilous route and needs nipping in the bud.
If there is further evidence then it should be Plod looking into it not any company.
//…but It still remains a fact that presumption of innocence is a legal principle//
Indeed it is, as I said, Zacs.
But it isn’t a fact that the perpetrator did not commit the crime (unless he didn’t). It doesn’t suddenly become a fact only when he is convicted by a court. It is a fact from the moment the deed is done.
//and under the presumption of innocence, the legal burden of proof is on the prosecution.//
Indeed it is. But once again we’re talking about legal principles, not fact.
//Do you know that in this particular case, MG has committed an offence?//
Nope. I don’t even know who he is. The first I'd ever heard of him was this morning when reading the BBC article linked to the OP.
//Would you not agree that if someone is charged with an offence, that person is innocent unless proven otherwise?//
No I wouldn’t agree, Corby. They remain “Not Guilty” until proved otherwise. Only if they did not commit the offence are they innocent. Otherwise they are guilty; if they are convicted by a court they are found guilty.
The point I’m trying to make (and I’ve tried so many times before on here and obviously failed miserably ) is to differentiate between fact and legal convention. If I take a bottle of vodka from the shelf in Sainsbury’s, put it under my coat and walk out without paying, (and for the pedants, with no permission to do so and with no intention of making payment) I am guilty of theft. There may be no evidence to charge me: nobody may have seen me and there may be no CCTV footage. But I am guilty as soon as I walk out of the shop. The goods have been taken, a theft has occurred and I committed it. That is a fact and even though I’m never going to be charged with the offence, that fact remains. Of course if there is evidence to show that I did steal the goods, I may be prosecuted and it is for the prosecution to prove their case to the court’s satisfaction. When the proceedings begin I enjoy the “presumption of innocence” until the prosecution prove otherwise. If they don’t I am declared not guilty of the offence. But I’m still guilty of theft – it’s just that haven’t been found guilty by a court.
To secure a criminal conviction the court (quite rightly) places a very high burden of proof on the prosecution and the defendant (equally quite rightly) enjoys the benefit of any reasonable doubt there is. But life is not solely about criminal convictions. Civil courts insist on a much lower burden of proof (“on the balance of probabilities” – or more likely than not). It is open to individuals who have been harmed by criminal action to seek redress through the civil courts. This happens quite often. But particularly pertinent to this case, in 2018 Stephen Coxon, who had been acquitted of rape (the case was in Scotland and the jury found the case “Not Proven”), was sued by his victim. The judge found that he had committed the rape and ordered him to pay £80,000 in damages.
It is open to any employer to take a view on their employees' behaviour, regardless of any verdict in the criminal courts associated with it. That’s what I suggested they do and either side can then seek remedy through the civil courts if necessary.
Indeed it is, as I said, Zacs.
But it isn’t a fact that the perpetrator did not commit the crime (unless he didn’t). It doesn’t suddenly become a fact only when he is convicted by a court. It is a fact from the moment the deed is done.
//and under the presumption of innocence, the legal burden of proof is on the prosecution.//
Indeed it is. But once again we’re talking about legal principles, not fact.
//Do you know that in this particular case, MG has committed an offence?//
Nope. I don’t even know who he is. The first I'd ever heard of him was this morning when reading the BBC article linked to the OP.
//Would you not agree that if someone is charged with an offence, that person is innocent unless proven otherwise?//
No I wouldn’t agree, Corby. They remain “Not Guilty” until proved otherwise. Only if they did not commit the offence are they innocent. Otherwise they are guilty; if they are convicted by a court they are found guilty.
The point I’m trying to make (and I’ve tried so many times before on here and obviously failed miserably ) is to differentiate between fact and legal convention. If I take a bottle of vodka from the shelf in Sainsbury’s, put it under my coat and walk out without paying, (and for the pedants, with no permission to do so and with no intention of making payment) I am guilty of theft. There may be no evidence to charge me: nobody may have seen me and there may be no CCTV footage. But I am guilty as soon as I walk out of the shop. The goods have been taken, a theft has occurred and I committed it. That is a fact and even though I’m never going to be charged with the offence, that fact remains. Of course if there is evidence to show that I did steal the goods, I may be prosecuted and it is for the prosecution to prove their case to the court’s satisfaction. When the proceedings begin I enjoy the “presumption of innocence” until the prosecution prove otherwise. If they don’t I am declared not guilty of the offence. But I’m still guilty of theft – it’s just that haven’t been found guilty by a court.
To secure a criminal conviction the court (quite rightly) places a very high burden of proof on the prosecution and the defendant (equally quite rightly) enjoys the benefit of any reasonable doubt there is. But life is not solely about criminal convictions. Civil courts insist on a much lower burden of proof (“on the balance of probabilities” – or more likely than not). It is open to individuals who have been harmed by criminal action to seek redress through the civil courts. This happens quite often. But particularly pertinent to this case, in 2018 Stephen Coxon, who had been acquitted of rape (the case was in Scotland and the jury found the case “Not Proven”), was sued by his victim. The judge found that he had committed the rape and ordered him to pay £80,000 in damages.
It is open to any employer to take a view on their employees' behaviour, regardless of any verdict in the criminal courts associated with it. That’s what I suggested they do and either side can then seek remedy through the civil courts if necessary.
NJ, "They remain “Not Guilty” until proved otherwise. Only if they did not commit the offence are they innocent."
The Human Rights Act 1998 states otherwise. That Act relates to certain Articles of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Schedule 1 of the Act contains the Articles of the Convention it relates to, including Article 6.
Article 6(2) states, "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law."
The Human Rights Act 1998 states otherwise. That Act relates to certain Articles of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Schedule 1 of the Act contains the Articles of the Convention it relates to, including Article 6.
Article 6(2) states, "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law."
//Article 6(2) states, "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law."//
It's another statement of the legal presumption of innocence, Corby. I'm not disputing that presumption exists, or that it is wrong. I'm simply trying to separate it from fact.
Simple question which may help: in my scenario where I steal from Sainsbury's but not detected, am I guilty of theft or not? To help you along the way.
Guilty: "Culpable of or responsible for a specified wrongdoing."
I was responsible for the theft from Sainsbury's. No court case will alter that fact. It doesn't matter whether or not I was charged or convicted - and if I wasn't charged the legal presumption is irrelevant..
You can be guilty of actions which are nothing to do with criminal behaviour (e.g. I was guilty of a serious error of judgement, or guilty of a breach of club rules). The term "guilty" has a specific meaning which is not necessarily linked to criminal proceedings.
It's another statement of the legal presumption of innocence, Corby. I'm not disputing that presumption exists, or that it is wrong. I'm simply trying to separate it from fact.
Simple question which may help: in my scenario where I steal from Sainsbury's but not detected, am I guilty of theft or not? To help you along the way.
Guilty: "Culpable of or responsible for a specified wrongdoing."
I was responsible for the theft from Sainsbury's. No court case will alter that fact. It doesn't matter whether or not I was charged or convicted - and if I wasn't charged the legal presumption is irrelevant..
You can be guilty of actions which are nothing to do with criminal behaviour (e.g. I was guilty of a serious error of judgement, or guilty of a breach of club rules). The term "guilty" has a specific meaning which is not necessarily linked to criminal proceedings.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank1 min ago
News8 mins ago
Can The Council Remove A Medically...
Law19 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.