PDA

View Full Version : NHC Allan McGregor accused



Caversham Green
15-01-2010, 02:07 PM
Sorry if already posted, but haven't seen it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8460453.stm

lapsedhibee
15-01-2010, 02:10 PM
Sorry if already posted, but haven't seen it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8460453.stm

I'm sure I speak for a whole brigade when I wonder out loud why the accused is named and the accuser isn't.

Caversham Green
15-01-2010, 02:12 PM
I'm sure I speak for a whole brigade when I wonder out loud why the accused is named and the accuser isn't.

Ann O'Nymis.

matty_f
15-01-2010, 02:14 PM
I'm sure I speak for a whole brigade when I wonder out loud why the accused is named and the accuser isn't.

I don't think either of them should be named.

Stuff like that sticks, and if McGregor is found innocent then it will still be a story that follows him round.

sambajustice
15-01-2010, 02:16 PM
I'm sure I speak for a whole brigade when I wonder out loud why the accused is named and the accuser isn't.

Thought you said "Old" there for a second... :devil:

Seriously though you're right and its shocking!

oconnors_strip
15-01-2010, 02:18 PM
on the stv news at lunch time they mentioned a reality tv star was also involved in the enquiry as they have been accussed along with alan.

i remember when a girl came out of the big brother house last summer she was pictured with alan and her boyfriend who also went into the house. will be interesting to see what is in the tabloids this weekend, especially sunday as the news of the world normally pay big money for exclusives and the girl is apparently trying to blackmail alan:hmmm:

sorry admins if this is breaking legal stuff, edit away if you need to.

Caversham Green
15-01-2010, 02:18 PM
Being serious, I agree. Both should be unnamed until the court hearing is concluded. Apart from anything else it would kill off any chance of blackmail, which is what McGregor is claiming.

ancient hibee
15-01-2010, 02:21 PM
I don't believe in secret trials.In this type of accusation publicity can often lead to other victims coming along.

Caversham Green
15-01-2010, 02:25 PM
on the stv news at lunch time they mentioned a reality tv star was also involved in the enquiry as they have been accussed along with alan.

i remember when a girl came out of the big brother house last summer she was pictured with alan and her boyfriend who also went into the house. will be interesting to see what is in the tabloids this weekend, especially sunday as the news of the world normally pay big money for exclusives and the girl is apparently trying to blackmail alan:hmmm:

sorry admins if this is breaking legal stuff, edit away if you need to.

There was a story in the Sun yesterday.

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/2807402/Old-Firm-star-in-sex-probe.html

Pretty Boy
15-01-2010, 02:28 PM
I don't believe in secret trials.In this type of accusation publicity can often lead to other victims coming along.

The problem is it can also lead to a hell of a lot of blackmailers and money grabbers trying to make a quick buck.

John Leslie would be a case in point, if you believed all the girls in The Sun for the few weeks after the Ulrika Johnson story broke then he would have been a serial rapist. As it was he was never convicted of anything but mud sticks and his career never recovered.

There was also the case of a taxi driver in Bradford who was named, his wife left him, friends disowned him etc. The accuser later admitted lying about the whole story, guys life was ruined though.

The accused could be named after they are found guilty and this would still allow other victims to come forward. They could then be charged for any subsequent accusations.

MacBean
15-01-2010, 02:29 PM
Im sure someone on the PM board mentioned this last week... IIRC it was TQM!?:confused:

KerPlunk
15-01-2010, 02:30 PM
According to the ever-accurate Sun, the woman had "a full examination and samples were taken...."

No hiding place from the DNA profile.........................:devil:

Caversham Green
15-01-2010, 02:32 PM
Im sure someone on the PM board mentioned this last week... IIRC it was TQM!?:confused:

TQM probably mentioned it before it happened.

TornadoHibby
15-01-2010, 02:42 PM
I don't think either of them should be named.

Stuff like that sticks, and if McGregor is found innocent then it will still be a story that follows him round.


:top marks

Spot on Matty and although McGregor does have a well known and well publicised liking for attractive, young, blonde ladies, I haven't read anything about him to date that would suggest that he didn't have enough in his locker to be "successful" with such ladies without resorting to what the alleged "victim" is suggesting here! :agree:

Problem is though that these footballers have huge salaries relative to most people and might be viewed as easy (blackmail) targets in these kind of situations by some people. A by product of this, of course, as you suggest is that even if the allegation is unfounded, McGregor will still have to carry the "stigma" that "something must have happened" for the rest of his life in the way that these things just don't ever go away! :agree:

Neither party should be named (preferably) or both parties until the position is clarified and determined IMO! :grr:

MacBean
15-01-2010, 03:04 PM
:top marks

although McGregor does have a well known and well publicised liking for attractive, young, blonde ladies,


who can honestly say they dont :wink:

bighairyfaeleith
15-01-2010, 03:08 PM
who can honestly say they dont :wink:

ahem

oh the hibees are gay :singing:

--------
15-01-2010, 03:23 PM
I don't believe in secret trials.In this type of accusation publicity can often lead to other victims coming along.


Indeed. In police circles it's sometimes known as 'trawling'. Someone's accused of a sexual offence, and somehow the case gets all over the tabloids, with the reporters having no trouble at all getting information from police sources, official and unofficial. Then you get other accusers coming along to add their tuppenceworth. the possibility of their being awarded compensation for injuries received has nothing to do with it, of course.

And the police get evidence to flesh out what may well have been a very weak case indeed. The argument goes along the lines of, "We may not have conclusive evidence beyond reasonable doubt on any one of these charges, but look how many people we have accusing the accused. He must be guilty."

As David Jones the Cardiff manager; ask Craig Charles; ask Graham Stack.

They were all accused, and their accusers were all allowed to remain anonymous. David Jones was accused of abusing teenagers in his care when he had been working for social services. Craig Charles was accused of date rape. Graham Stack was accused of date rape. All three cases were front-page tabloid news - and David Jones is convinced that the lurid publicity hastened his father's death.

Jones arrived at court with his counsel ready to defend himself, only to be told that the Crown had abandoned the case - they'd realised that with the evidence they had, and the witnesses they had, they had no chance of winning. A pity they hadn't thought of that a few months earlier, before Jones's dad's death. Or before accusing him in public.

Charles was remanded in custody for several months. While in prison he was the victim of a knife attack. The case never got to court. The Crown abandoned it, again for lack of evidence and a credible witness. Charles isn't the most attractive of individuals, IMO, but he didn't deserve a prison remand and an attempt on his life for womething he still hasn't been proved guilty of.

GS was accused of date-rape by a law-student. His case actually went to court, and he was cleared, as was his co-accused. IIRC the jury took less than an hour to clear two defendants on four charges in all. Not a lot of doubt in their minds who they believed. But Graham and his family had to suffer the headlines and innuendo. He still does.

Because you may remember that when he came to ER in the summer, low-lives on Keechback raised the issue, and at the Aberdeen game in the autumn he had a bunch of guys (dressed as sheep! :rolleyes: ) down behind his goal chanting 'Graham Stack - paedophile' for most of the second half. Yet the courts had cleared him - NOT GUILTY.

The publicity is generated by cash-journalism. The more lurid the details, the more papers get sold. Even if this case doesn't reach the courts, McGregor's life has been seriously damaged. People will already have made good money out of supplying journos with dirty details. Some of those people will be police officers. Some of them will be 'friends' of McGregor, some will be 'friends' of the accused. And I would be very surprised if the lassie herself hasn't a deal done or pending with the tabloids.

I don't particularly like McGregor, but he should be allowed public anonymity until the case has been proven one way or the other.

Danderhall Hibs
15-01-2010, 03:25 PM
Indeed. In police circles it's sometimes known as 'trawling'. Someone's accused of a sexual offence, and somehow the case gets all over the tabloids, with the reporters having no trouble at all getting information from police sources, official and unofficial. Then you get other accusers coming along to add their tuppenceworth. the possibility of their being awarded compensation for injuries received has nothing to do with it, of course.

And the police get evidence to flesh out what may well have been a very weak case indeed. The argument goes along the lines of, "We may not have conclusive evidence beyond reasonable doubt on any one of these charges, but look how many people we have accusing the accused. He must be guilty."

As David Jones the Cardiff manager; ask Craig Charles; ask Graham Stack.

They were all accused, and their accusers were all allowed to remain anonymous. David Jones was accused of abusing teenagers in his care when he had been working for social services. Craig Charles was accused of date rape. Graham Stack was accused of date rape. All three cases were front-page tabloid news - and David Jones is convinced that the lurid publicity hastened his father's death.

Jones arrived at court with his counsel ready to defend himself, only to be told that the Crown had abandoned the case - they'd realised that with the evidence they had, and the witnesses they had, they had no chance of winning. A pity they hadn't thought of that a few months earlier, before Jone's dad's death.

Charles was remanded in custody for several months. While in prison he was the victim of a knife attack. The case never got to court. The Crown abandoned it, again for lack of evidence and a credible witness.

GS was accused of date-rape by a law-student. His case actually went to court, and he was cleared, as was his co-accused. IIRC the jury took less than an hour to clear two defendants on four charges in all. Not a lot of doubt in their minds who they believed.

But you may remember that when he came to ER in the summer, low-life on Keechback raised the issue, and at the Aberdeen game in the autumn he had a bunch of guys (dressed as sheep! :rolleyes: ) down behind his goal chanting 'Graham Stack - paedophile' for most of the second half.

The publicity is generated by cash-journalism. The more lurid the details, the more papers get sold. Even if this case doesn't reach the courts, McGregor's life has been seriously damaged. People will already have made good money out of supplying journos with dirty details. Some of those people will be police officers. Some of them will be 'friends' of McGregor, some will be 'friends' of the accused. And I would be very surprised if the lassie herself hasn't a deal done or pending with the tabloids.

I don't particularly like McGregor, but he should be allowed public anonymity until the case has been proven one way or the other.

Great post Doddie.

weonlywon6-2
15-01-2010, 03:30 PM
Thought you said "Old" there for a second... :devil:

Seriously though you're right and its shocking!

to protect the innocent ???

hibiedude
15-01-2010, 03:36 PM
If the guy is innocent then the law should come down hard on the accuser.

MacBean
15-01-2010, 03:41 PM
If the guy is innocent then the law should come down hard on the accuser.


Slander is a chargeable offence.

H18sry
15-01-2010, 03:42 PM
TRANSFER NEWS

Alan McGregor on the verge of being transfered to Peterhead :greengrin




:music::singing: Oh the cry was sex offender :music::singing:









Allegedly :devil:

NORTHERNHIBBY
15-01-2010, 03:49 PM
To be brutally honest, if him and Rangers were visiting ER this weekend, innocent or guilty, he would be getting dog's abuse from the terraces. I suppose it could be the circles that he moves in but IIRC the last time he was on the front pages of the Bogroll of the World, when he was dipping someone he wasn't meant to, it was all a tissue of lies and he was loved up with some blondie. If that was the case, then none of this could have happened and when he is found innocent, he will have his turn.

Sergey
15-01-2010, 04:02 PM
Indeed. In police circles it's sometimes known as 'trawling'. Someone's accused of a sexual offence, and somehow the case gets all over the tabloids, with the reporters having no trouble at all getting information from police sources, official and unofficial. Then you get other accusers coming along to add their tuppenceworth. the possibility of their being awarded compensation for injuries received has nothing to do with it, of course.

And the police get evidence to flesh out what may well have been a very weak case indeed. The argument goes along the lines of, "We may not have conclusive evidence beyond reasonable doubt on any one of these charges, but look how many people we have accusing the accused. He must be guilty."

As David Jones the Cardiff manager; ask Craig Charles; ask Graham Stack.

They were all accused, and their accusers were all allowed to remain anonymous. David Jones was accused of abusing teenagers in his care when he had been working for social services. Craig Charles was accused of date rape. Graham Stack was accused of date rape. All three cases were front-page tabloid news - and David Jones is convinced that the lurid publicity hastened his father's death.

Jones arrived at court with his counsel ready to defend himself, only to be told that the Crown had abandoned the case - they'd realised that with the evidence they had, and the witnesses they had, they had no chance of winning. A pity they hadn't thought of that a few months earlier, before Jones's dad's death. Or before accusing him in public.

Charles was remanded in custody for several months. While in prison he was the victim of a knife attack. The case never got to court. The Crown abandoned it, again for lack of evidence and a credible witness. Charles isn't the most attractive of individuals, IMO, but he didn't deserve a prison remand and an attempt on his life for womething he still hasn't been proved guilty of.

GS was accused of date-rape by a law-student. His case actually went to court, and he was cleared, as was his co-accused. IIRC the jury took less than an hour to clear two defendants on four charges in all. Not a lot of doubt in their minds who they believed. But Graham and his family had to suffer the headlines and innuendo. He still does.

Because you may remember that when he came to ER in the summer, low-lives on Keechback raised the issue, and at the Aberdeen game in the autumn he had a bunch of guys (dressed as sheep! :rolleyes: ) down behind his goal chanting 'Graham Stack - paedophile' for most of the second half. Yet the courts had cleared him - NOT GUILTY.

The publicity is generated by cash-journalism. The more lurid the details, the more papers get sold. Even if this case doesn't reach the courts, McGregor's life has been seriously damaged. People will already have made good money out of supplying journos with dirty details. Some of those people will be police officers. Some of them will be 'friends' of McGregor, some will be 'friends' of the accused. And I would be very surprised if the lassie herself hasn't a deal done or pending with the tabloids.

I don't particularly like McGregor, but he should be allowed public anonymity until the case has been proven one way or the other.

Good post, but.....

....just because the folks mentioned were found not-guilty (or not proven) doesn't actually mean that they were innocent. It just means that the evidence presented didn't warrant a conviction.

Sergy Pie
15-01-2010, 04:11 PM
Good post, but.....

....just because the folks mentioned were found not-guilty (or not proven) doesn't actually mean that they were innocent. It just means that the evidence presented didn't warrant a conviction.

Maybe we should just throw everyone in jail if they make it to court, only way to be sure then. If the evidence presented didn't warrant a conviction, there's probably a good case that they didn't actually do it.

sambajustice
15-01-2010, 04:14 PM
to protect the innocent ???

I'm not sure what you mean there.

CropleyWasGod
15-01-2010, 04:17 PM
Indeed. In police circles it's sometimes known as 'trawling'. Someone's accused of a sexual offence, and somehow the case gets all over the tabloids, with the reporters having no trouble at all getting information from police sources, official and unofficial. Then you get other accusers coming along to add their tuppenceworth. the possibility of their being awarded compensation for injuries received has nothing to do with it, of course.

And the police get evidence to flesh out what may well have been a very weak case indeed. The argument goes along the lines of, "We may not have conclusive evidence beyond reasonable doubt on any one of these charges, but look how many people we have accusing the accused. He must be guilty."

As David Jones the Cardiff manager; ask Craig Charles; ask Graham Stack.

They were all accused, and their accusers were all allowed to remain anonymous. David Jones was accused of abusing teenagers in his care when he had been working for social services. Craig Charles was accused of date rape. Graham Stack was accused of date rape. All three cases were front-page tabloid news - and David Jones is convinced that the lurid publicity hastened his father's death.

Jones arrived at court with his counsel ready to defend himself, only to be told that the Crown had abandoned the case - they'd realised that with the evidence they had, and the witnesses they had, they had no chance of winning. A pity they hadn't thought of that a few months earlier, before Jones's dad's death. Or before accusing him in public.

Charles was remanded in custody for several months. While in prison he was the victim of a knife attack. The case never got to court. The Crown abandoned it, again for lack of evidence and a credible witness. Charles isn't the most attractive of individuals, IMO, but he didn't deserve a prison remand and an attempt on his life for womething he still hasn't been proved guilty of.

GS was accused of date-rape by a law-student. His case actually went to court, and he was cleared, as was his co-accused. IIRC the jury took less than an hour to clear two defendants on four charges in all. Not a lot of doubt in their minds who they believed. But Graham and his family had to suffer the headlines and innuendo. He still does.

Because you may remember that when he came to ER in the summer, low-lives on Keechback raised the issue, and at the Aberdeen game in the autumn he had a bunch of guys (dressed as sheep! :rolleyes: ) down behind his goal chanting 'Graham Stack - paedophile' for most of the second half. Yet the courts had cleared him - NOT GUILTY.

The publicity is generated by cash-journalism. The more lurid the details, the more papers get sold. Even if this case doesn't reach the courts, McGregor's life has been seriously damaged. People will already have made good money out of supplying journos with dirty details. Some of those people will be police officers. Some of them will be 'friends' of McGregor, some will be 'friends' of the accused. And I would be very surprised if the lassie herself hasn't a deal done or pending with the tabloids.

I don't particularly like McGregor, but he should be allowed public anonymity until the case has been proven one way or the other.

Agree with almost all of what you say, Doddie, except to say that Craig Charles has the best smegging programme on the radio. :agree:

However, that's a hijack. It was his case, whenever it was, that first got me thinking about the whole anonymity thing. Even now, there will still be people out there (often through discussions like this very one) who will be thinking "did he do it?".

Sergey
15-01-2010, 04:25 PM
Maybe we should just throw everyone in jail if they make it to court, only way to be sure then. If the evidence presented didn't warrant a conviction, there's probably a good case that they didn't actually do it.

That's not true as far as alleged rape and sex crime is concerned. The conviction rates for these crimes are ridiculously low (around 5%). Proving guilt in a court of law is where the problem arises.

Woody1985
15-01-2010, 04:33 PM
The problem is it can also lead to a hell of a lot of blackmailers and money grabbers trying to make a quick buck.

John Leslie would be a case in point, if you believed all the girls in The Sun for the few weeks after the Ulrika Johnson story broke then he would have been a serial rapist. As it was he was never convicted of anything but mud sticks and his career never recovered.

There was also the case of a taxi driver in Bradford who was named, his wife left him, friends disowned him etc. The accuser later admitted lying about the whole story, guys life was ruined though.

The accused could be named after they are found guilty and this would still allow other victims to come forward. They could then be charged for any subsequent accusations.

Excellent post.

Speedy
15-01-2010, 05:03 PM
The problem is it can also lead to a hell of a lot of blackmailers and money grabbers trying to make a quick buck.

John Leslie would be a case in point, if you believed all the girls in The Sun for the few weeks after the Ulrika Johnson story broke then he would have been a serial rapist. As it was he was never convicted of anything but mud sticks and his career never recovered.

There was also the case of a taxi driver in Bradford who was named, his wife left him, friends disowned him etc. The accuser later admitted lying about the whole story, guys life was ruined though.

The accused could be named after they are found guilty and this would still allow other victims to come forward. They could then be charged for any subsequent accusations.

Good idea imo


If the guy is innocent then the law should come down hard on the accuser.

I'm not sure I agree with this as it may discourage genuine victims from pressing charges and I don't think it would be necessary in the above suggestion.

blackpoolhibs
15-01-2010, 05:26 PM
Am i the only one who really hopes these accusations are true? And he's found guilty, and serves a long time in the pokey with some big strapping men.

LamontHFC©
15-01-2010, 06:01 PM
Am i the only one who really hopes these accusations are true? And he's found guilty, and serves a long time in the pokey with some big strapping men.

:whistle:

KerPlunk
15-01-2010, 06:07 PM
Am i the only one who really hopes these accusations are true? And he's found guilty, and serves a long time in the pokey with some big strapping men.

.........errm, is that not what he's been doing at the Deathstar ?:dizzy:

Spike Mandela
15-01-2010, 06:32 PM
The problem is it can also lead to a hell of a lot of blackmailers and money grabbers trying to make a quick buck.

John Leslie would be a case in point, if you believed all the girls in The Sun for the few weeks after the Ulrika Johnson story broke then he would have been a serial rapist. As it was he was never convicted of anything but mud sticks and his career never recovered.

There was also the case of a taxi driver in Bradford who was named, his wife left him, friends disowned him etc. The accuser later admitted lying about the whole story, guys life was ruined though.

The accused could be named after they are found guilty and this would still allow other victims to come forward. They could then be charged for any subsequent accusations.

Unfortunately there are far more rapists who get off for lack of evidence than people who are falsely accused IMO.

Hakim Sar
15-01-2010, 06:34 PM
I'm sure macgregor jones leslie et al could, once proven innocent, pursue a counter allegation of slander against the accuser and libel from the press that hounded them.

But I am sure that as it is a counter claim and not done through traditional police investigation leading to court case methods that it is lengthy, invasive and very very costly as you effectively have to pay to get it taken to court a second time. Hence nobody really does it. only ones I can think of doing it and winng is catherine zebra jones and katie price and possibly max Moseley (all super rich).

...WentToMowAnSPL
15-01-2010, 06:55 PM
Am i the only one who really hopes these accusations are true? And he's found guilty, and serves a long time in the pokey with some big strapping men.

Not sure about that.. but I don't like the look of the jury (http://i49.tinypic.com/juffk4.jpg) :worried:

IWasThere2016
15-01-2010, 07:06 PM
Not sure about that.. but I don't like the look of the jury (http://i49.tinypic.com/juffk4.jpg) :worried:

:greengrin

Don't know if its a transfer rumour, but I heard McGregor could be on his way to Peterhead :wink:

sahib
15-01-2010, 07:10 PM
I'm sure macgregor jones leslie et al could, once proven innocent, pursue a counter allegation of slander against the accuser and libel from the press that hounded them.

But I am sure that as it is a counter claim and not done through traditional police investigation leading to court case methods that it is lengthy, invasive and very very costly as you effectively have to pay to get it taken to court a second time. Hence nobody really does it. only ones I can think of doing it and winng is catherine zebra jones and katie price and possibly max Moseley (all super rich).

I don't think slander and libel exist in scotland.

CropleyWasGod
15-01-2010, 07:11 PM
I don't think slander and libel exist in scotland.

They don't. Defamation does, though, which is essentially the same thing.

--------
15-01-2010, 07:15 PM
Good post, but.....

....just because the folks mentioned were found not-guilty (or not proven) doesn't actually mean that they were innocent. It just means that the evidence presented didn't warrant a conviction.


Jones was the victim of a trawling operation on the part of the police. They were doing everything bar advertising in the 'wanted' ads for people to come forward to make allegations of abuse in the home where he was working. These operations has since been discontinued because of public and judicial disquiet about the way they were conducted.

And as I've already said - the Crown abandoned the case without having the courtesy to inform Jones or his counsel - so no evidence was presented, and Jones didn't even have to plead.

Charles and his mate were publicly accused and remanded, and only after months - during which he was attacked in prison - did the CPS finally get round to acknowledging that they didn't have a fightable case. During which time the papers had a field day with him.

Graham Stack stood his trial and was acquitted. IIRC the jury was unanimous in their verdict, a verdict at which they arrived very quickly.

So in two cases there WS no evidence presented to a jury. In the one case where there was, the accused was acquitted decisively.

But if I get your drift, mate, there's no smoke without fire? :cool2:

ArabHibee
15-01-2010, 07:15 PM
The thing that puzzles me with this is the fact that there have been 2 other people reported to the police regarding the same incident. Another professional footballer and a minor celebrity. Why have neither of these 2 been named by the papers?

McD
15-01-2010, 07:22 PM
Indeed. In police circles it's sometimes known as 'trawling'. Someone's accused of a sexual offence, and somehow the case gets all over the tabloids, with the reporters having no trouble at all getting information from police sources, official and unofficial. Then you get other accusers coming along to add their tuppenceworth. the possibility of their being awarded compensation for injuries received has nothing to do with it, of course.

And the police get evidence to flesh out what may well have been a very weak case indeed. The argument goes along the lines of, "We may not have conclusive evidence beyond reasonable doubt on any one of these charges, but look how many people we have accusing the accused. He must be guilty."

As David Jones the Cardiff manager; ask Craig Charles; ask Graham Stack.

They were all accused, and their accusers were all allowed to remain anonymous. David Jones was accused of abusing teenagers in his care when he had been working for social services. Craig Charles was accused of date rape. Graham Stack was accused of date rape. All three cases were front-page tabloid news - and David Jones is convinced that the lurid publicity hastened his father's death.

Jones arrived at court with his counsel ready to defend himself, only to be told that the Crown had abandoned the case - they'd realised that with the evidence they had, and the witnesses they had, they had no chance of winning. A pity they hadn't thought of that a few months earlier, before Jones's dad's death. Or before accusing him in public.

Charles was remanded in custody for several months. While in prison he was the victim of a knife attack. The case never got to court. The Crown abandoned it, again for lack of evidence and a credible witness. Charles isn't the most attractive of individuals, IMO, but he didn't deserve a prison remand and an attempt on his life for womething he still hasn't been proved guilty of.

GS was accused of date-rape by a law-student. His case actually went to court, and he was cleared, as was his co-accused. IIRC the jury took less than an hour to clear two defendants on four charges in all. Not a lot of doubt in their minds who they believed. But Graham and his family had to suffer the headlines and innuendo. He still does.

Because you may remember that when he came to ER in the summer, low-lives on Keechback raised the issue, and at the Aberdeen game in the autumn he had a bunch of guys (dressed as sheep! :rolleyes: ) down behind his goal chanting 'Graham Stack - paedophile' for most of the second half. Yet the courts had cleared him - NOT GUILTY.

The publicity is generated by cash-journalism. The more lurid the details, the more papers get sold. Even if this case doesn't reach the courts, McGregor's life has been seriously damaged. People will already have made good money out of supplying journos with dirty details. Some of those people will be police officers. Some of them will be 'friends' of McGregor, some will be 'friends' of the accused. And I would be very surprised if the lassie herself hasn't a deal done or pending with the tabloids.

I don't particularly like McGregor, but he should be allowed public anonymity until the case has been proven one way or the other.


Excellent post mate.

Rapists are the ****, only marginally above child abusers and killers, and only then by a fagpapers width.

However, the law in this country states innocent until proven guilty, but recently, and in particular with 'celebrity' accused, its almost trial by media. As stated earlier by someone, the way the sun was churning out women who had slept with John Leslie, all cutely worded articles abt 'games' he liked to play in the bedroom, you'd think he must spend every waking moment getting some. And at the end of the day, found not guilty, but his life and career ruined. Incidentally, Ulrika could have saved him a lot of that pain, coz she refused to confirm or deny if Leslie was the rapist, forcing the whole process to be dragged out. If it was him, surely you'd want to see him convicted, if not, then not clearing him is at best vindictive, worst pure evil.

Going back to your post Doddie, IIRC Dave Jones effectively lost his job during this time. Southampton put him on 'gardening leave' from his position of manager, and quietly binned him at some point down the line.

I'm sure I, like everyone on here, despise rapists and their brethren like nothing else on Earth, but equally, its becoming more and more frequent to see men accused then the case dropped, after the damage of publicly naming has ruined their lives. I'm also sure the PC brigade will say that this is due to lack of evidence, victims too scared etc resulting in the case being dropped, and I know this is very true, however many of these accusations are the product of vindictive women and, Id guess, a few women who wake up in the morning with some regrets, and think the only way out is to claim they werent complicit in the deed.

I think McGregor is a cock, but being a cock isnt illegal, and innocent until proven guilty is one of the foundations of democracy.

monktonharp
15-01-2010, 07:54 PM
hope he's no charged wi' " stoat the ba' "

Hibs On Tour
15-01-2010, 08:33 PM
Good post, but.....

....just because the folks mentioned were found not-guilty (or not proven) doesn't actually mean that they were innocent. It just means that the evidence presented didn't warrant a conviction.

Indeed so, young sir. For example, one of the cases mentioned involved a certain person who for *many* years previously had been effectively persona-non-grata in many establishments in the centre of the city due to his behaviour in said establishments wherein he was *far* too forceful with persons of the opposite sex. Bear in mind these places barred him *a long time* before any headlines appeared regarding this person so they were hardly jumping on any bandwagons regarding them.

I also know that in itself doesn't make someone guilty but it does point to a 'pattern of behaviour' which is something they are moving to include in pre-conviction [or not] evidence in courts [rightly IMHO]

I do agree however that for cases such as this that the accused deserve anonymity just as much as the accusers do, for precisely the reasons noted. Cases of this nature are always going to be a case of even where found not guilty, that there will be an element of doubt... human nature I suppose...

magpie1892
15-01-2010, 08:47 PM
The comments on followfollow are as enlightened as you might expect.

Over there, he can't possibly be guilty as he doesn't 'need' to rape in order to get his hole.

This is a great defence as everyone knows it's only people that can't get it any other way that resort to the crime.

Sergey
15-01-2010, 09:01 PM
Indeed so, young sir. For example, one of the cases mentioned involved a certain person who for *many* years previously had been effectively persona-non-grata in many establishments in the centre of the city due to his behaviour in said establishments wherein he was *far* too forceful with persons of the opposite sex. Bear in mind these places barred him *a long time* before any headlines appeared regarding this person so they were hardly jumping on any bandwagons regarding them.

I also know that in itself doesn't make someone guilty but it does point to a 'pattern of behaviour' which is something they are moving to include in pre-conviction [or not] evidence in courts [rightly IMHO]

I do agree however that for cases such as this that the accused deserve anonymity just as much as the accusers do, for precisely the reasons noted. Cases of this nature are always going to be a case of even where found not guilty, that there will be an element of doubt... human nature I suppose...

Not ignoring Dodder's (or McD's) replies, I'd like to emphasise in no uncertain terms that the courts aren't "courts of justice" but are merely "courts of law".

Some 20 years ago I happened to be roped into jury duty at Snaresbrook. I was selected to sit on a jury for a child abuse case; where it was alleged that an Iranian family had systematically abused their 3 children. A truly awful experience for all involved, given the fact that the children concerned ranged from 6-10 years old.

As it happened, the case was adjourned into it's 3rd day for legal reasons, only for one of the accused to flee the country a few days later and the case collapsed.

Even 20 years on, I still recall almost every word.

This has nothing to do with the McGregor story, but I do appreciate the minutia and legal diktat that is in place in actually getting these cases to the courts in the first place.

H18sry
15-01-2010, 10:00 PM
TRANSFER NEWS

Alan McGregor on the verge of being transfered to Peterhead :greengrin




:music::singing: Oh the cry was sex offender :music::singing:









Allegedly :devil:


:greengrin

Don't know if its a transfer rumour, but I heard McGregor could be on his way to Peterhead :wink:

Oh do keep up :devil:

Hibercelona
15-01-2010, 11:01 PM
There is a lot of horrible men out there who will do these sick acts.

But there is also a lot of horrible women out there who will make up stories that can ruin an innocent persons life.

The media should not be aloud to say anything until a final verdict has been reached IMO.

silverhibee
16-01-2010, 01:35 AM
The thing that puzzles me with this is the fact that there have been 2 other people reported to the police regarding the same incident. Another professional footballer and a minor celebrity. Why have neither of these 2 been named by the papers?

I am sure the NOTW will do that honour on Sunday.:greengrin

copycat
16-01-2010, 09:12 AM
Am i the only one who really hopes these accusations are true? And he's found guilty, and serves a long time in the pokey with some big strapping men.


so you want a girl to have been raped?????

you really dont engage your brain before you type sometimes, do you!!!!

Westie1875
16-01-2010, 09:14 AM
I am sure the NOTW will do that honour on Sunday.:greengrin

Daily Record have beat them to it today

ArabHibee
16-01-2010, 10:33 AM
Daily Record have beat them to it today

That's a bit of a shocker. Glad he's not at Hibs anymore or we'd never hear the end of it.

Bostonhibby
16-01-2010, 10:45 AM
Am i the only one who really hopes these accusations are true? And he's found guilty, and serves a long time in the pokey with some big strapping men.

I am amazed that you think that one of the all time great Scots patriots, who wore his nations jersey with such pride and distinction should come to such an inglorious end, surely he has done nothing wrong in the past to deserve such vitriol.......











Is there any chance that it could be a Turkish Jail?

Bostonhibby
16-01-2010, 10:48 AM
so you want a girl to have been raped?????

you really dont engage your brain before you type sometimes, do you!!!!

If he did do it I'd like to think he will be found guilty

Baw187
16-01-2010, 10:51 AM
so you want a girl to have been raped?????

you really dont engage your brain before you type sometimes, do you!!!!

I must admit, I did think the same when reading Blackpool's post, however, I suspect he was really just trying to articulate that he disnae like McGregor and would like to see him in the big hoose, getting his erse pummled for fun.

I don't think Blackpool was considering the context of the situation.

KerPlunk
16-01-2010, 11:04 AM
****regor's been found out.................

http://www.grapheine.com/bombaytv/movie-uk-a5bb6781754da3f6c81377a847a3f54b.html

ArabHibee
16-01-2010, 11:17 AM
****regor's been found out.................

http://www.grapheine.com/bombaytv/movie-uk-a5bb6781754da3f6c81377a847a3f54b.html

:tsk tsk:

KerPlunk
16-01-2010, 11:26 AM
:tsk tsk:

You have a problem with levity, AH ? :devil:

ArabHibee
16-01-2010, 11:36 AM
You have a problem with levity, AH ? :devil:

Not at all.

Let's just see how long your post stays up for. That's all I'm saying. Family board and all that.

Killiehibbie
16-01-2010, 11:43 AM
****regor's been found out.................

http://www.grapheine.com/bombaytv/movie-uk-a5bb6781754da3f6c81377a847a3f54b.html

Are you sure that's him? Waiting on new glasses so I can't be sure but i don't think she was blonde either.

ancient hibee
16-01-2010, 11:44 AM
Indeed. In police circles it's sometimes known as 'trawling'. Someone's accused of a sexual offence, and somehow the case gets all over the tabloids, with the reporters having no trouble at all getting information from police sources, official and unofficial. Then you get other accusers coming along to add their tuppenceworth. the possibility of their being awarded compensation for injuries received has nothing to do with it, of course.

And the police get evidence to flesh out what may well have been a very weak case indeed. The argument goes along the lines of, "We may not have conclusive evidence beyond reasonable doubt on any one of these charges, but look how many people we have accusing the accused. He must be guilty."

As David Jones the Cardiff manager; ask Craig Charles; ask Graham Stack.

They were all accused, and their accusers were all allowed to remain anonymous. David Jones was accused of abusing teenagers in his care when he had been working for social services. Craig Charles was accused of date rape. Graham Stack was accused of date rape. All three cases were front-page tabloid news - and David Jones is convinced that the lurid publicity hastened his father's death.

Jones arrived at court with his counsel ready to defend himself, only to be told that the Crown had abandoned the case - they'd realised that with the evidence they had, and the witnesses they had, they had no chance of winning. A pity they hadn't thought of that a few months earlier, before Jones's dad's death. Or before accusing him in public.

Charles was remanded in custody for several months. While in prison he was the victim of a knife attack. The case never got to court. The Crown abandoned it, again for lack of evidence and a credible witness. Charles isn't the most attractive of individuals, IMO, but he didn't deserve a prison remand and an attempt on his life for womething he still hasn't been proved guilty of.

GS was accused of date-rape by a law-student. His case actually went to court, and he was cleared, as was his co-accused. IIRC the jury took less than an hour to clear two defendants on four charges in all. Not a lot of doubt in their minds who they believed. But Graham and his family had to suffer the headlines and innuendo. He still does.

Because you may remember that when he came to ER in the summer, low-lives on Keechback raised the issue, and at the Aberdeen game in the autumn he had a bunch of guys (dressed as sheep! :rolleyes: ) down behind his goal chanting 'Graham Stack - paedophile' for most of the second half. Yet the courts had cleared him - NOT GUILTY.

The publicity is generated by cash-journalism. The more lurid the details, the more papers get sold. Even if this case doesn't reach the courts, McGregor's life has been seriously damaged. People will already have made good money out of supplying journos with dirty details. Some of those people will be police officers. Some of them will be 'friends' of McGregor, some will be 'friends' of the accused. And I would be very surprised if the lassie herself hasn't a deal done or pending with the tabloids.

I don't particularly like McGregor, but he should be allowed public anonymity until the case has been proven one way or the other.
Except that in Scotland the conviction rate for rape is a national disgrace-and I don't believe it's because they're all innocent.
I was on a rape jury a few years back -the guy was obviously guilty-there were 6 women on the jury and they all voted for not guilty because the girl was a drug addict and got what she deserved.Eventually some changed their mind although it was still a majority verdict.Needless to say he had a string of convictions(i know that doesn't make him automatically guilty)includig 2 of a sexual nature.One of the women said to me on the way out that even if she'd known about the previous she would still have stuck with not guilty asit would teach the girl a lesson.

If rape trials were held in secret and someone well known was found not guilty there would be an outcry once it got out and many would say that he got away with it.If the evidence is in public people have a chance to make up their own mind.At the moment in England there is an"extremely well known footballer"who took a guy's wife away.The guy went to the papers but an injunction was taken out to stop publicity.In effect this guy has been stopped from talking about his own life.

Whatever happes I reckon McGregor is in trouble-isn't his girlfriend the daughter of a gangster?

ArabHibee
16-01-2010, 11:55 AM
Except that in Scotland the conviction rate for rape is a national disgrace-and I don't believe it's because they're all innocent.
I was on a rape jury a few years back -the guy was obviously guilty-there were 6 women on the jury and they all voted for not guilty because the girl was a drug addict and got what she deserved.Eventually some changed their mind although it was still a majority verdict.Needless to say he had a string of convictions(i know that doesn't make him automatically guilty)includig 2 of a sexual nature.One of the women said to me on the way out that even if she'd known about the previous she would still have stuck with not guilty asit would teach the girl a lesson.

If rape trials were held in secret and someone well known was found not guilty there would be an outcry once it got out and many would say that he got away with it.If the evidence is in public people have a chance to make up their own mind.At the moment in England there is an"extremely well known footballer"who took a guy's wife away.The guy went to the papers but an injunction was taken out to stop publicity.In effect this guy has been stopped from talking about his own life.

Whatever happes I reckon McGregor is in trouble-isn't his girlfriend the daughter of a gangster?

I think that was one of his previous girlfriends. Think he went out with her for 2 days or something like that.