ShipOfTheseus
Ruel Fox
The affray for which he was convicted involved a racially aggravated assault. As with the Greenwood case, CPS charging decisions don’t trump the bloody obvious.
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Bigger Legend? Johnson, Woodgate or Nielsen
- Thread starter robp135
- Start date
The affray for which he was convicted involved a racially aggravated assault. As with the Greenwood case, CPS charging decisions don’t trump the bloody obvious.
ShipOfTheseus
Ruel Fox
“He’s a good guy, he paid a very heavy price for what happened”. That definitely references the sexual assault.
if we’re going to be crystal clear, we should probably be honest, too.
demotw
Espen Baardsen
Not at all, if a guy robs a store and goes to prison, he has paid a heavy price. If someone thinks it’s fun to go cliff jumping and end up losing a leg he has paid a heavy price, IF in greenwood’s case he ended up getting sacked from United, had to play football in a different country he has paid a heavy price, nowhere does it say it’s right or wrong. Nowhere does he give an opinion if it’s right or wrong, and saying he’s a good guy is again based on what he sees of the player he is getting to know, not he’s a good guy because he has or hasn’t done this.
Finney Is Back
Paul Stewart
It doesn't do anyone any favours when people call out racism when it doesn't exist. In the Woodgate case the judge explicitly told the jury that there was no evidence that there was a racial motivation behind this fight.
ShipOfTheseus
Ruel Fox
Judges tell juries to ignore the true and bleeding obvious all the time, because their job is to ensure that convictions are only based on admissible evidence. The victim was adamant that he was targeted because of his ethnicity.
Finney Is Back
Paul Stewart
The victim of the assault said that one of the men used a racist slur towards him. However, it was only the victim who said this. There were 4 eye-witnesses in the trial (it was those eye witness accounts that identified Paul Clifford as the main perpetrator which led to him being found guilty of GBH and sentenced to 6 years in prison for GBH). None of those eye witnesses witnessed any evidence of racism (just scumbags beating up another man, with one particular scumbag mostly responsible).
The victims brother's claims of racial motivation are also incredibly tenuous....
"The way they were beating him I could tell it was hatred, racial hatred. I could tell they didn't like us because of our colour."
I've seen some awful fights between people of the same colour and those people doing disgusting things to each other, things that most of us who are decent people simply could not do to another human being. Unfortunately human beings are capable of awful things irrespective of skin colour. If there is an assault with eye-witnesses and yet the only person who claims racism is the victim then I would find it very difficult to believe just that single account.
For you to decide this was definitely a racially aggravated attack shows inherent bias on your part. Of course it may have been racially aggravated but equally it may not have been.
Last edited:
MartyFunkhouser
Terry Dyson
Its a funny old world when people can't even agree on whats going to be contained in the level of Whataboutism
robp135
Luke Young
The charge of racially aggravated assault got dropped.
