Lennon assailant cleared.

[Spike Mandela]

Numpty who attacked Neil Lennon has been CLEARED of assault. WTF!

[Mikey]

Jings!

Open season for the Tynecastle numpties!

[Bayern Bru]

Well to be fair, he was tackled to the ground before he got near Lennon. :wink:

[Golden Bear]

Not proven verdict on the religious hatred charge but hopefully he'll still get done on the assault charge.

[.Sean.]

It's all part of the big, fat, Anti-Sellick conspiracy :agree:

[Bayern Bru]

Not proven verdict on the religious hatred charge but hopefully he'll still get done on the assault charge.

I am by no means intending to start a 12 pager on the ins and outs of religious hatred but if we're being accurate...Fenian, although associated with sectarian abuse and mentioned in a certain Rangers song, isn't strictly a sectarian term of abuse. I wonder if this was the defence.

[greenlex]

I am by no means intending to start a 12 pager on the ins and outs of religious hatred but if we're being accurate...Fenian, although associated with sectarian abuse and mentioned in a certain Rangers song, isn't strictly a sectarian term of abuse. I wonder if this was the defence.
Was Donald Finlay defending him? He would certainly argue that. :greengrin

[The_Famous_HFC]

I am by no means intending to start a 12 pager on the ins and outs of religious hatred but if we're being accurate...Fenian, although associated with sectarian abuse and mentioned in a certain Rangers song, isn't strictly a sectarian term of abuse. I wonder if this was the defence. I think the defence may have been more along the lines of the fact there was no evidence to suggest he said anything about religion and instead went to clobber him for being a fud. Not that I'm condoning his actions.

[Bayern Bru]

Was Donald Finlay defending him? He would certainly argue that. :greengrin

:greengrin


I think the defence may have been more along the lines of the fact there was no evidence to suggest he said anything about religion and instead went to clobber him for being a fud. Not that I'm condoning his actions.

This is very true. I'm surprised he wasn't done for assault, but then again I suppose there is a conspiracy against Celtc so it's perhaps understandable. :wink: Suspect you may be right though.

[hibiedude]

It appears smacking Neil Lennon is not a criminal offence :greengrin

[iwasthere1972]

Not proven verdict on the religious hatred charge but hopefully he'll still get done on the assault charge.

Or for his dress sense. A life sentence with no chance of parole sounds about right.

[Bostonhibby]

Or for his dress sense. A life sentence with no chance of parole sounds about right.

:greengrin:agree: Drunk in charge of a pair of counterfeit trackies and a chav hat is a far more serious offence, repatriation west of Govan seems to be the only sentence.

[Lofarl]

The poor wee Jambo has suffered enough IMO. Imagine having Lennon and his big yellow teeth breathing right on ye.

[Dinkydoo]

The charge was religiously aggravated assault - or something similar - and the prosecution couldn't prove that the "attack" was fuelled by bigotry.

However, he shouldn't have went for him - no matter how much he dislikes the guy - and deserves to be punished for it.

Pretty stupid to charge him on religious grounds IMO.

[NYHibby]

Why has STV censored his face out in this video? Everyone else is running his picture today.
http://news.stv.tv/scotland/268432-hearts-fan-cleared-of-sectarian-attack-on-neil-lennon/

[Bayern Bru]

Why has STV censored his face out in this video? Everyone else is running his picture today.
http://news.stv.tv/scotland/268432-hearts-fan-cleared-of-sectarian-attack-on-neil-lennon/

Have you seen his picture before?

:sofa:

[CropleyWasGod]

Why has STV censored his face out in this video? Everyone else is running his picture today.
http://news.stv.tv/scotland/268432-hearts-fan-cleared-of-sectarian-attack-on-neil-lennon/

Probably because he wasn't found guilty of the main charge.

The question might be "why did other media show his face, when he was only convicted of a breach of the peace?"

[HNA6]

Why has STV censored his face out in this video? Everyone else is running his picture today.
http://news.stv.tv/scotland/268432-hearts-fan-cleared-of-sectarian-attack-on-neil-lennon/Cos its tea time ..:agree:

[clerriehibs]

The charge was religiously aggravated assault - or something similar - and the prosecution couldn't prove that the "attack" was fuelled by bigotry.

However, he shouldn't have went for him - no matter how much he dislikes the guy - and deserves to be punished for it.

Pretty stupid to charge him on religious grounds IMO.

:agree:
Assaulting Neil Lennon isn't a "religiously aggravated" crime in itself. I'd have hoped that the PF and the police would have thought they had sufficient evidence for this charge, rather than thinking "we'll get him no bother on whatever we want, because it was on the telly".

Whatever the PF and the police thought they could nail him for, the jury thought differently.

You'd also have to hope the jury were entirely neutral on the issue of Neil Lennon, the man. But that's probably unlikely in Scotland, because most people who have heard of him, can't stand him. And that's not a religiously aggravated opinion.

The guy obviously deserved to get hammered for this - but it's not his fault the charges were over-done.

[Killiehibbie]

Somebody thought he'd make a name for himself getting a high profile case proven on the religious aspect rather than getting him on what was obvious to anyone watching the telly.

[Kaiser1962]

:agree:
Assaulting Neil Lennon isn't a "religiously aggravated" crime in itself. I'd have hoped that the PF and the police would have thought they had sufficient evidence for this charge, rather than thinking "we'll get him no bother on whatever we want, because it was on the telly".

Whatever the PF and the police thought they could nail him for, the jury thought differently.

You'd also have to hope the jury were entirely neutral on the issue of Neil Lennon, the man. But that's probably unlikely in Scotland, because most people who have heard of him, can't stand him. And that's not a religiously aggravated opinion.

The guy obviously deserved to get hammered for this - but it's not his fault the charges were over-done.

It would appear that only one person heard the use of the word "fenian" and the Yam denied it. Stupid to go for the religious angle when the muppet was going to plead guilty to assault in the first place.

However its upset both Celtic and Hearts so every cloud and all that. :greengrin

[Hibs Class]

Celtic have put a statement abut the verdict on their website:
CELTIC Football Club have released the following statement regarding the verdict at today's court case in Edinburgh.

"It is for the Jury to decide on this case, however, we find the accused's acquittal of the charge of assault difficult to comprehend bearing in mind our knowledge of the incident.

"One thing is clear - this was a disgraceful incident involving Neil Lennon, seen by the world - the sort of incident which should not have happened in any football stadium and one which embarrassed Scottish football.

"Regardless of the verdict reached, we hope that people will learn from the events of last season and realise these cannot be repeated.

“As always we will give Neil Lennon our full support and hope that this season he can be given the opportunity to be allowed to do his job without the kind of threats, attacks and intimidation which have marred much of his time in Scotland."

[CropleyWasGod]

Celtic have put a statement abut the verdict on their website:
CELTIC Football Club have released the following statement regarding the verdict at today's court case in Edinburgh.

"It is for the Jury to decide on this case, however, we find the accused's acquittal of the charge of assault difficult to comprehend bearing in mind our knowledge of the incident.

"One thing is clear - this was a disgraceful incident involving Neil Lennon, seen by the world - the sort of incident which should not have happened in any football stadium and one which embarrassed Scottish football.

"Regardless of the verdict reached, we hope that people will learn from the events of last season and realise these cannot be repeated.

“As always we will give Neil Lennon our full support and hope that this season he can be given the opportunity to be allowed to do his job without the kind of threats, attacks and intimidation which have marred much of his time in Scotland."

Do they realise he wasn't acquitted?

And....given their "knowledge of the incident".... shouldn't they have made this "knowledge" available to the Court?

[Hibernia Na Eir]

It would appear that only one person heard the use of the word "fenian" and the Yam denied it. Stupid to go for the religious angle when the muppet was going to plead guilty to assault in the first place. However its upset both Celtic and Hearts so every cloud and all that. :greengrin his brief said he called NL a Fenian W.the security bloke said he heard him call him a Fenian B.The word Fenian may not be termed sectarian on its own but when cojoined with the word "B" aftet it then it becomes wholly different. But nor judge nor jury thought that anyway.Guess you can decided what you want if you are a judge!

[CropleyWasGod]

his brief said he called NL a Fenian W.the security bloke said he heard him call him a Fenian B.The word Fenian may not be termed sectarian on its own but when cojoined with the word "B" aftet it then it becomes wholly different. But nor judge nor jury thought that anyway.Guess you can decided what you want if you are a judge!

No, the reports I read said the phrase was "F..king w..k.r"

[Hibs Class]

Do they realise he wasn't acquitted?

And....given their "knowledge of the incident".... shouldn't they have made this "knowledge" available to the Court?

I thought he was acquitted of aggravated assault (assuming a not proven is effectively an acquittal) and convicted of breach of the peace? Didn't think he was charged with "standard" non-aggravated assault.

[Kaiser1962]

his brief said he called NL a Fenian W.the security bloke said he heard him call him a Fenian B.The word Fenian may not be termed sectarian on its own but when cojoined with the word "B" aftet it then it becomes wholly different. But nor judge nor jury thought that anyway.Guess you can decided what you want if you are a judge!

That'll upset the soapdodgers even more then :greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

I thought he was acquitted of aggravated assault (assuming a not proven is effectively an acquittal) and convicted of breach of the peace? Didn't think he was charged with "standard" non-aggravated assault.

Not proven is not the same as not guilty.

Not proven is effectively "we think you did it, but we don't have the proof".

So, no, he wasn't acquitted, on either charge.

[Hibs Class]

Not proven is not the same as not guilty.

Not proven is effectively "we think you did it, but we don't have the proof".

So, no, he wasn't acquitted, on either charge.

I agree with your first two paragraphs. Strictly speaking, though, I think the verdict is regarded as an acquittal, albeit the accused carries a greater stigma than with a not guilty verdict. That view seems to be supported by this paper from the House of Commons library.

www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN02710.pdf

[madabouthibs]

I always thought a Not proven verdict in Scotland mean't he could be re-tried for the same offence at a later date?
I think his defence was that he said "fu**ing wa**er" and not Fenian Bas***d. Only one Yam steward said he heard the fenian phrase.
He's still to be sentenced on the Breach charge, which could be quite severe I'd imagine given the circumstances.

[Sir David Gray]

I'm not surprised that he's been let off with the religiously aggravated charge as there was never going to be any mileage in that.

I think that shows how daft it is to have a separate charge of religiously aggravated assault. As far as I'm concerned, assault should be assault, regardless of who you have a go at.

If he had been charged with a basic assault charge, I don't think there would have been any way out for him because it was seen clearly on television.

[Cabbage East]

Utter vermin.

[Fantic]

It didn't take long for the so called hard line to falter. The Hearts were 'up to their knees in fenian blood' on Saturday.

[Bayern Bru]

It didn't take long for the so called hard line to falter. The Hearts were 'up to their knees in fenian blood' on Saturday.

And on Sunday as well. :wink:

[Fantic]

And on Sunday as well. :wink:


:greengrin Aye Sunday as well.

[silverhibee]

Celtic have put a statement abut the verdict on their website:
CELTIC Football Club have released the following statement regarding the verdict at today's court case in Edinburgh.

"It is for the Jury to decide on this case, however, we find the accused's acquittal of the charge of assault difficult to comprehend bearing in mind our knowledge of the incident.

"One thing is clear - this was a disgraceful incident involving Neil Lennon, seen by the world - the sort of incident which should not have happened in any football stadium and one which embarrassed Scottish football.

"Regardless of the verdict reached, we hope that people will learn from the events of last season and realise these cannot be repeated.

“As always we will give Neil Lennon our full support and hope that this season he can be given the opportunity to be allowed to do his job without the kind of threats, attacks and intimidation which have marred much of his time in Scotland."


Give it some time and they will be making a statement regarding boycotting the PBS if the yams cant garuntee the safety of there players and coaching staff there.

Lennon must be raging at the verdict. :na na:

[Bayern Bru]

Give it some time and they will be making a statement regarding boycotting the PBS if the yams cant garuntee the safety of there players and coaching staff there.

Lennon must be raging at the verdict. :na na:

It's a conspiracy I tell you!!

[silverhibee]

It's a conspiracy I tell you!!


Yep, Jack Regan will fill us in with the conspiracy details tomorrow no doubt. :greengrin

[Bayern Bru]

Yep, Jack Regan will fill us in with the conspiracy details tomorrow no doubt. :greengrin

I can't wait. :greengrin

[silverhibee]

I can't wait. :greengrin


Neither can i, remember and keep a straight face when reading it, :greengrin, it will be the truth and nothing but the truth. :thumbsup:

[yeezus.]

Have to feel for Lennon. The fact that he couldn't even play for the Northern Ireland international team without receiving death threats is mad.

Hopefully things calm down a wee bit this season and maybe when the BBC or SKY talk about Scottish football they will actually mention non-old firm teams.

[Phil MaGlass]

Yi couldnae ****ing make it up eh, if that piece of **** had tried to attack lennon in Tottenham during the riots he would be doing serious time, but instead, in Scotland, with a jury FFS, the cock goes free I despair I really ****ing do.
Wheres the justice, again Scotland will be the Butt of all jokes for its justice system.
I also dont think its a bloody laughing matter either, wether you like Lennon or not.

[H18sry]

How many yam fuds on the jury?

[Backto my roots]

Aye methinks it was Hun jury instead of a hung jury! :wink:

[Argylehibby]

On early evening news last night it said that on the breach charge the jury had the "aggravated" bit removed and found him guilty of that lesser charge. It went on to say that they then removed the same "aggravated" bit for the assault but went on to find the charge not proven.

Is it right the jury can do that or was that just poor reporting? If that is the case and they still found him not proven on the assault charge which he admitted in court, then it is just a ridiculous verdict.

[Killiehibbie]

Yi couldnae ****ing make it up eh, if that piece of **** had tried to attack lennon in Tottenham during the riots he would be doing serious time, but instead, in Scotland, with a jury FFS, the cock goes free I despair I really ****ing do.
Wheres the justice, again Scotland will be the Butt of all jokes for its justice system.
I also dont think its a bloody laughing matter either, wether you like Lennon or not.The jury would have to consider if this was an assault aggravated by religious prejudice. Could anyone say for sure that it wasn't an assault because Lennon is something else be it ginger, a tosser, an obnoxious wee prick or whatever but not because of his religion? That is where the case for the prosecution fails to prove beyond reasonable doubt the motive for the assault. If some clown hadn't tried to get Wilson convicted and send a message out to all the bigots he would be facing jail for simple assault even if he didn't make contact.

[Killiehibbie]

On early evening news last night it said that on the breach charge the jury had the "aggravated" bit removed and found him guilty of that lesser charge. It went on to say that they then removed the same "aggravated" bit for the assault but went on to find the charge not proven.

Is it right the jury can do that or was that just poor reporting? If that is the case and they still found him not proven on the assault charge which he admitted in court, then it is just a ridiculous verdict.I think it would be on direction from the Sheriff. Ridiculous if this is what happened.

[Mary Hinge]

The word of this moron's acquittal has travelled far and wide......

Gadaffi has now offered to surrender, but only if he can be tried in the Edinburgh Sheriff Court :agree:

[Hibernia Na Eir]

I think certain individuals may make Mr Wilson's life pretty rubbish from now on though....

[Dashing Bob S]

I think certain individuals may make Mr Wilson's life pretty rubbish from now on though....

He's a Jambo. Any sort of attention can only improve his quality of life.

[CabbageBoy]

I'm not surprised that he's been let off with the religiously aggravated charge as there was never going to be any mileage in that.

I think that shows how daft it is to have a separate charge of religiously aggravated assault. As far as I'm concerned, assault should be assault, regardless of who you have a go at.

If he had been charged with a basic assault charge, I don't think there would have been any way out for him because it was seen clearly on television.

You have it the wrong way round; it is an assault, with a religious aggravator. There's lots of them that can be used by the police/fiscal. What was unusual here was that it was the jury that deleted the aggrovator. Someone must have briefed them to do that, unless there were 15 Donald Findlay's on the jury (current theory in my office). If you want to see all the aggravators that can be used, see http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/925/0117224.pdf page 85

[Dinkydoo]

Yi couldnae ****ing make it up eh, if that piece of **** had tried to attack lennon in Tottenham during the riots he would be doing serious time, but instead, in Scotland, with a jury FFS, the cock goes free I despair I really ****ing do.
Wheres the justice, again Scotland will be the Butt of all jokes for its justice system.
I also dont think its a bloody laughing matter either, wether you like Lennon or not.

I take it that you've just ignored the fact that he was tried on religious grounds and he never even managed to touch him? :greengrin

Edit: just had a look at the footage again and he did kind of cuddle him - I'd forgotten about that.

Fwiw he probably should have been done for something, i'm just not sure that religiously aggravated assault is an appropriate charge.

[CabbageBoy]

I think it would be on direction from the Sheriff. Ridiculous if this is what happened.

No, the jury can do that. Unusual, but it happens.

[jacomo]

Yi couldnae ****ing make it up eh, if that piece of **** had tried to attack lennon in Tottenham during the riots he would be doing serious time, but instead, in Scotland, with a jury FFS, the cock goes free I despair I really ****ing do.
Wheres the justice, again Scotland will be the Butt of all jokes for its justice system.
I also dont think its a bloody laughing matter either, wether you like Lennon or not.

This is a valid point. In England the rioters/looters are being given tougher sentences because of the context - had they committed the same offence at another time they would have been treated more leniently.

Lennon's assault happened soon after he'd received death threats.

I'm not sure I agree with this but it seems to be a fact of life in England that the punishment doesn't just fit the crime, but what else was happening at the time.

Still, trying to prove an assault is aggravated by sectarianism seems mighty difficult to me - why not just charge him with assault? That would surely be an easy charge to prove.

[Hibercelona]

I take it that you've just ignored the fact that he was tried on religious grounds and he never even managed to touch him? :greengrin

Edit: just had a look at the footage again and he did kind of cuddle him - I'd forgotten about that.

Fwiw he probably should have been done for something, i'm just not sure that religiously aggravated assault is an appropriate charge.

Not seen the footage myself. But from what you describe there, it sounds like he should have been done for sexual assault.... not that its anything new around there. :wink:

[Dinkydoo]

Not seen the footage myself. But from what you describe there, it sounds like he should have been done for sexual assault.... not that its anything new around there. :wink:

:top marks:faf:

[Jim44]

They tell me Gadaffi has agreed to surrender as long as his trial takes place in at Edinburgh Sherrif Court.:greengrin

[hibsbollah]

Still, trying to prove an assault is aggravated by sectarianism seems mighty difficult to me - why not just charge him with assault? That would surely be an easy charge to prove.

Really? I would have thought it was pretty easy to prove, especially as the guy was allegedly screaming 'Fenian' while the attack was taking place.

Famously the Stephen Lawrence case's racial element was predicated on the attackers using the N word while stabbing him.

[Malthibby]

No time for either of the OldFirm but Scotland comes out of this looking pretty shady & it's
just going to encourage other morons in thinking this stuff isn't taken seriously by the courts.
Hopefully the fat Jambo will find life less than comfortable whenever he tries leaving his pond.

[ancient hibee]

Really? I would have thought it was pretty easy to prove, especially as the guy was allegedly screaming 'Fenian' while the attack was taking place.

Famously the Stephen Lawrence case's racial element was predicated on the attackers using the N word while stabbing him.

Just because one witness claimed to hear Fenian doesn't make it true.Fortunately in this country the prosecution still has to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt.If the Crown hadn't been so keen to sook up to the politicos by adding the sectarian element the case would have been a doddle.

[Kaiser1962]

Just because one witness claimed to hear Fenian doesn't make it true.Fortunately in this country the prosecution still has to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt.If the Crown hadn't been so keen to sook up to the politicos by adding the sectarian element the case would have been a doddle.

Absolutely. In Scotland all evidence needs to be corroborated and in this case the religious aspect wasn't. If they'd charged him with bog standard assault he would even have admitted it and saved a fortune.

[Hibs Class]

Absolutely. In Scotland all evidence needs to be corroborated and in this case the religious aspect wasn't. If they'd charged him with bog standard assault he would even have admitted it and saved a fortune. My understanding is he sought to plead guilty to just assault and that was rejected, presumably as the crown wanted the kudos of a successful religious/sectarian prosecution. As far as I can see this was incompetence and someone should be properly held to account.

[clerriehibs]

Really? I would have thought it was pretty easy to prove, especially as the guy was allegedly screaming 'Fenian' while the attack was taking place.

Famously the Stephen Lawrence case's racial element was predicated on the attackers using the N word while stabbing him.

You've fallen into the same trap as the polis and the procurator fiscal in this case ... you think allegedly means easy to prove.

:top marksto the jury for doing their job. Now, who's going to hold the idiots that went for the sectarian charge on the back of one person claiming he heard it to account?

[modsquad]

I assume the burden of proof in Scotland is the same as in England.

Down here, the crux of Racially Aggrivated offences are that immediately before, during or immediately after an incident, in this case assault, the motivation for the assault must be racial or perceived by the victim that he was assaulted because of his race.

It doesn't necessarily mean he has to walk up to him call him, then punch him. It could be in the preceeding 5 or 10 minutes in the build up to the incident.

Due to the high profile of the case, I'm sure its why the PF pushed for the religiously aggrivating factor. Under any other circumstances the PF would have accepted the guilty plea for assault. However, they have to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the assault was religiously aggrivated and in this case they couldn't.

I'm not condoning what has happened, but as someone has said earlier the decision to prosecute with the religiously aggrivating factor is more down to politics than anything else.

As for Celtics response, I'm not surprised they're trying to portray themselves as victims. Its par for the course with them. The NP verdict is down to the fact the PF went 'A Bridge Too Far' instead of going for the guaranteed victory and lost.

[--------]

Celtic have put a statement abut the verdict on their website:
CELTIC Football Club have released the following statement regarding the verdict at today's court case in Edinburgh.

"It is for the Jury to decide on this case, however, we find the accused's acquittal of the charge of assault difficult to comprehend bearing in mind our knowledge of the incident.

"One thing is clear - this was a disgraceful incident involving Neil Lennon, seen by the world - the sort of incident which should not have happened in any football stadium and one which embarrassed Scottish football.

"Regardless of the verdict reached, we hope that people will learn from the events of last season and realise these cannot be repeated.

“As always we will give Neil Lennon our full support and hope that this season he can be given the opportunity to be allowed to do his job without the kind of threats, attacks and intimidation which have marred much of his time in Scotland."

In their statement, at least Celtic managed to get one bit right - it's for the jury and the jury alone to decide on the case after having weighed up ALL the evidence, including the demeanour and credibility of each and every witness. Not Celtic Football Club - not even if they have special 'knowledge' of the case which, as someone else has pointed out, they apparently didn't communicate to the court. Or maybe they did, but the court after mature reflection considered it to be worthless? After all Celtic Football Club aren't exactly impartial in the affair?

Maybe they're trying to put the hems on the High Court the same way they put the hems on the referees?

It was entirely foreseeable from Day One that if this idiot wasn't banged up for years for his assault on the dignity of Celtic Football Club, Celtic would start their customary whinge - "It's no fair - naebody like us - it's aw because we're Cafflick..."




I thought he was acquitted of aggravated assault (assuming a not proven is effectively an acquittal) and convicted of breach of the peace? Didn't think he was charged with "standard" non-aggravated assault.

A 'not proven' verdict means that the jury have decided that the prosecution have failed to prove their case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The accused is therefore discharged, but he isn't declared 'not guilty'. In this instance I would have thought he was clearly guilty of a breach of the peace, and of attempted assault.

But since he didn't get near Lennon and since what he said to him was open to doubt (witnesses disagreeing about him being a Fenian '*******' or '******'), the assault aggravated by religious hatred wasn't actually proven beyond reasonable doubt, which is what the jury said.

As ancient points out, of the Procurator Fiscal hadn't added on the religious bit (sookin up to the politicos brown-nosing Celtic) the guy would probably be in Saughton right now.

Of course, what they should have done is let the Chief Constable and the impartially-minded individuals of the Celtic FC Board view the video and then come to a gentlemen's agreement to lock the guy up and throw away the key. Much more legal and even-handed than a jury trial. :rolleyes:

[BryanV]

It was a poor decision from the jury, they were able to reject the religious aggravation and still find him guilty of assault. Considering the assault was live on TV the Crown would have felt there was little to gain by accepting the guilty plea of a charge in which he was seemingly 'banged to rights'. With regard to religious aggravation corroboration is not required in Scots Law, however the fact that only one person claimed to hear it weakens the Crown's case.

[Dinkydoo]

It was a poor decision from the jury, they were able to reject the religious aggravation and still find him guilty of assault. Considering the assault was live on TV the Crown would have felt there was little to gain by accepting the guilty plea of a charge in which he was seemingly 'banged to rights'. With regard to religious aggravation corroboration is not required in Scots Law, however the fact that only one person claimed to hear it weakens the Crown's case.

Not having a go at you but how would putting your arm around someone - albeit, in a fairly non friendly manner - be "assault". The physical contact was less than that of a push............

The jury were correct in their verdict IMO. The incident was neither assault nor a proven religiously aggravated incident.

[stokesmessiah]

You've fallen into the same trap as the polis and the procurator fiscal in this case ... you think allegedly means easy to prove.

:top marksto the jury for doing their job. Now, who's going to hold the idiots that went for the sectarian charge on the back of one person claiming he heard it to account?

Wow strange logic and a very strange view of how the justice system works !

[BryanV]

Not having a go at you but how would putting your arm around someone - albeit, in a fairly non friendly manner - be "assault". The physical contact was less than that of a push............

The jury were correct in their verdict IMO. The incident was neither assault nor a proven religiously aggravated incident.

You don't even need to touch someone to be guilty of assault. I would not have described the incident as someone putting their arm around someone in a non friendly manner. In terms of supporting the jury's verdict, you are very much in the minority.

[Dinkydoo]

You don't even need to touch someone to be guilty of assault. I would not have described the incident as someone putting their arm around someone in a non friendly manner.

Have a look at the footage again. He didn't punch Lennon, he didn't push him; how would you describe the incident?


In terms of supporting the jury's verdict, you are very much in the minority.

The implication being that the minority is always wrong.

[BryanV]

Have a look at the footage again. He didn't punch Lennon, he didn't push him; how would you describe the incident?



The implication being that the minority is always wrong.

No, I don't believe that was the implication. I would describe the incident as the Jambo going for Lennon, laying hands on him and then being wrestled to the ground, sufficient for assault. The defendant was willing to admit assault, that much was conceded by his advocate.

[Dinkydoo]

No, I don't believe that was the implication.

What was the point in mentioning it then?

If any.


No
I would describe the incident as the Jambo going for Lennon, laying hands on him and then being wrestled to the ground, sufficient for assault. The defendant was willing to admit assault, that much was conceded by his advocate.

Or in other words, some guy placing his arm on or around Lennon. :greengrin

[Kaiser1962]

No, I don't believe that was the implication. I would describe the incident as the Jambo going for Lennon, laying hands on him and then being wrestled to the ground, sufficient for assault. The defendant was willing to admit assault, that much was conceded by his advocate.

That appears to be the case. However the powers that be decided to suggest that there was some sort of religious motive, perhaps anticipating negative comments from Celtic if they didnt, and the jury was forced to decide if he was a zealot, based on what one person claims he heard, or just an arse, based on the evidence of their own eyes. Clearly being a Yam didnt help as they obviously decided he was the latter.

[clerriehibs]

Wow strange logic and a very strange view of how the justice system works !

Sorry, but you'll have to explain :rolleyes: ... do you mean I was wrong, and that allegedly does mean something is easy to prove? Or do you mean I was wrong, and in fact the jury didn't do their job properly? Or do you mean that whoever colluded together to think they had a good case for the sectarian charge (by all accounts, the evidence was one guy "heard Fenian" ) doesn't need to be pulled up and asked to explain themselves?