Footballer jailed 5 years for Rape

[Al B Sure]

Nigerians and posturing

[Vincent.]

CIC, unbeknownst to you, you've been sucked into an endless debate even though you said several times on this thread that you weren't interested.

I had a friend like that - he would always find a way to argue with you whether you wanted to argue with him or not

[cic old boy]

Nope, you still haven't got it.

If this is going over your head, you won't be able to understand basic principles of law.

The CCRC considered the new evidence relevant. The appeal court does not rule that the evidence is relevant. It rules that the test for relevance is for a jury.

Had the appeal court ruled that the evidence is relevant, the judge would not have asked the jury to consider what, IF ANY, relevance the new evidence has.

Wait...cic old clown has no idea that this is what the judge asked, because he has only read a couple of paragraphs in the Daily Mail.

The CCRC ruled the evidence was relevant enough for it to be referred to the Appeal Court and based on that evidence, which was the grounds for appeal, the Appeal Court quashed the conviction, and then based on that evidence the retrial acquitted the man. But the evidence for you was not relevant!!

What you display are the basic principles of madness.

[cic old boy]

What a hypocrite! This is why you have no idea that I have already read the full transcript of the appeal judgment and the every single newspaper report that you think you are providing.

You don't know the details, so you have no idea what I am referring to.

Care to share?

I'm still waiting!

Still waiting oooh!!!

[sinequanon]

Nope, you still haven't got it.

If this is going over your head, you won't be able to understand basic principles of law.

The CCRC considered the new evidence relevant. The appeal court does not rule that the evidence is relevant. It rules that the test for relevance is for a jury.

Had the appeal court ruled that the evidence is relevant, the judge would not have asked the jury to consider what, IF ANY, relevance the new evidence has.

Wait...cic old clown has no idea that this is what the judge asked, because he has only read a couple of paragraphs in the Daily Mail.

The CCRC ruled the evidence was relevant enough for it to be referred to the Appeal Court and based on that evidence, which was the grounds for appeal, the Appeal Court quashed the conviction, and then based on that evidence the retrial acquitted the man. But the evidence for you was not relevant!!

What you display are the basic principles of madness.

You are a sad case, going through life unable to admit when you are wrong.

[cic old boy]

You are a sad case, going through life unable to admit when you are wrong.

Thanks for the endorsement, but it is sad that you are unable to provide evidence of a judgment that you claimed you read!

[sinequanon]

Nigerians and posturing

I think it is important to have an opinion, and not be apathetic.

Equally, don't let your ego prevent you from learning, and changing your opinion.

Maybe it is just CE, but I haven't come across that many folk here who strike a balance.

The issue in this thread appears to me to be that some people APPLAUD the acquittal of the footballer SIMPLY out of gender loyalty and because they are "sick and tired IN GENERAL" of the antics of a certain TYPE OF WOMAN. As long as it sends out a message to SUCH WOMEN IN GENERAL, they are apathetic about the details of this particular case and whether the legal system was abused.

When you permit and support the abuse of a system, you let it gain corrupt infrastructure and personnel. Then you become powerless when the system turns against you. That is the problem with apathy.

That is not an invitation for you to debate. It is just my opinion.

[sinequanon]

The CCRC ruled the evidence was relevant enough for it to be referred to the Appeal Court and based on that evidence, which was the grounds for appeal, the Appeal Court quashed the conviction, and then based on that evidence the retrial acquitted the man. But the evidence for you was not relevant!!

What you display are the basic principles of madness.

It is OK, I can see that you have backed down from saying that it was the Appeal Court who ruled that the evidence was relevant.

(Of course your ego is too huge to allow you to admit it.)

What you have not understood is that the jury could have decided the new evidence is irrelevant. They did not, and I disagree with the jury.

What you are saying is that disagreeing with a jury or with a court is "the basic principles of madness". All you are demonstrating is your basic apathy and ignorance, and lack of principle.

[sinequanon]

cic old boy, maybe this is your level..

Rizzle Kicks blast Ched Evans rape case as 'f***ing vile' during epic Twitter rant

[cic old boy]

It is OK, I can see that you have backed down from saying that it was the Appeal Court who ruled that the evidence was relevant.

(Of course your ego is too huge to allow you to admit it.)

What you have not understood is that the jury could have decided the new evidence is irrelevant. They did not, and I disagree with the jury.

What you are saying is that disagreeing with a jury or with a court is "the basic principles of madness". All you are demonstrating is your basic apathy and ignorance, and lack of principle.

If the evidence was not relevant would the appeal have been allowed?

If the evidence was not relevant (as you ignorantly declared), would the CCRC have put it to the appeal court?

If the evidence was not relevant, would the jury have acquitted the man?

The only thing irrelevant here is you.

Can you share the full transcript of the appeal judgment that you claimed you read????

[sinequanon]

It is OK, I can see that you have backed down from saying that it was the Appeal Court who ruled that the evidence was relevant.

(Of course your ego is too huge to allow you to admit it.)

What you have not understood is that the jury could have decided the new evidence is irrelevant. They did not, and I disagree with the jury.

What you are saying is that disagreeing with a jury or with a court is "the basic principles of madness". All you are demonstrating is your basic apathy and ignorance, and lack of principle.

If the evidence was not relevant would the appeal have been allowed?

If the evidence was not relevant (as you ignorantly declared), would the CCRC have put it to the appeal court?

If the evidence was not relevant, would the jury have acquitted the man?

The more you repeat yourself, the more foolish and illiterate you look.

The jury was told that they may consider what relevance, IF ANY, the new evidence had.

So, Mr. illiterate, the CCRC can refer a case to the Court of Appeal, the Court of Appeal can order a retrial and admit the evidence, and the jury can then decide the evidence is IRRELEVANT.

Asking if the CCRC "would have" referred the case and if the Appeal Court "would have" allowed the appeal is DUMB, as neither could have predicted the decision of the jury.

The only thing irrelevant here is you.

Can you share the full transcript of the appeal judgment that you claimed you read????

Dumbo.

[cic old boy]

If the CCRC didn't consider the new evidence relevant, they wouldn't have referred it to appeal.

If the Appeal Court didn't consider the new evidence relevant, they wouldn't have overturned the verdict of the 1st trial.

If the jury didn't consider the new evidence relevant, they wouldn't have acquitted.

But you said the new evidence is irrelevant and it is your opinion that matters and you have engaged in this exercise in pointlessness to convince yourself of your relevance.

Would you kindly tell the court if you were lying when you claimed that you read the full transcripts of the Appeal Court judgment, considering your inability to produce it, despite several requests over 2 days?

[Al B Sure]

Nigerians and posturing

I think it is important to have an opinion, and not be apathetic.

Equally, don't let your ego prevent you from learning, and changing your opinion.

Maybe it is just CE, but I haven't come across that many folk here who strike a balance.

The issue in this thread appears to me to be that some people APPLAUD the acquittal of the footballer SIMPLY out of gender loyalty and because they are "sick and tired IN GENERAL" of the antics of a certain TYPE OF WOMAN. As long as it sends out a message to SUCH WOMEN IN GENERAL, they are apathetic about the details of this particular case and whether the legal system was abused.

When you permit and support the abuse of a system, you let it gain corrupt infrastructure and personnel. Then you become powerless when the system turns against you. That is the problem with apathy.

That is not an invitation for you to debate. It is just my opinion.

Nigerians and posturing

[sinequanon]

If the CCRC didn't consider the new evidence relevant, they wouldn't have referred it to appeal.

If the Appeal Court didn't consider the new evidence relevant, they wouldn't have overturned the verdict of the 1st trial.

Wrong on both counts.

What they determine is that the test for relevance is for a jury.

If the jury didn't consider the new evidence relevant, they wouldn't have acquitted.

How the jury reached their verdict is not actually disclosed. They may not have used the new evidence.

But you said the new evidence is irrelevant and it is your opinion that matters and you have engaged in this exercise in pointlessness to convince yourself of your relevance.

I didn't say it. You obviously think it.

You've just let slip how convinced you are.

Would you kindly tell the court if you were lying when you claimed that you read the full transcripts of the Appeal Court judgment, considering your inability to produce it, despite several requests over 2 days?

So, two days after you told everybody that you know the facts of the case, you can't find the central document you were shrieking at everybody to "go and read".

I have a draft dated 21/04/2016. It says,

"Judgment Approved by court for handing down (subject to editorial corrections)"

"If this Judgment has been emailed to you, it is to be treated as 'read-only'. You should send any suggested amendments as a separate Word Document."

Good luck finding it on the internet.

[cic old boy]

More irrelavance.

If the new evidence wasn't relevant, nobody at the CCRC would waste their time with it. It was referred to appeal b/c it included stuff that made the conviction shaky.

If the new evidence wasn't relevant, the Appeal Court would not have quashed the conviction.

The report I posted claimed the new evidence was relevant in the jury's decision.

You said it was not relevant. An idiotic opinion.

I asked you to read the judgments - appeal and retrial - b/c it would explain the reasoning. At no point did I suggest those judgments were yet available.

You claimed you have read a transcript of the appeal judgment. It has now become a draft, for your eyes only, etc, after you've searched the internet without success for a judgment that you lied that you read!!

[sinequanon]

blah blah blah <repeating same old nonsense>

You claimed you have read a transcript of the appeal judgment. It has now become a draft, for your eyes only, etc, after you've searched the internet without success for a judgment that you lied that you read!!

The draft is listed under full transcript and is a 19 page document in PDF copied from a ? page document in Word.

I know that you are now dying to see the document, but I don't think it is meant for clowns.

You can't even follow the stuff in the 2 Daily Mail paragraphs that you tried to read.

[cic old boy]

The draft is listed under full transcript and is a 19 page document in PDF copied from a ? page document in Word.

I know that you are now dying to see the document, but I don't think it is meant for clowns.

You can't even follow the stuff in the 2 Daily Mail paragraphs that you tried to read.

Mr Attention to Detail, where did I post stuff from the Daily Mail?

Mr Lying about full transcript, you can copy and paste the relevant extracts of the doc here.

PS: I'm not "dying" to read the judgment. Just exposing your lies for the fun of it.

[sinequanon]

The draft is listed under full transcript and is a 19 page document in PDF copied from a ? page document in Word.

I know that you are now dying to see the document, but I don't think it is meant for clowns.

You can't even follow the stuff in the 2 Daily Mail paragraphs that you tried to read.

Mr Attention to Detail, where did I post stuff from the Daily Mail?

Mr Lying about full transcript, you can copy and paste the relevant extracts of the doc here.

PS: I'm not "dying" to read the judgment. Just exposing your lies for the fun of it.

Actually, it won't even allow me to select text from the document with the mouse. (did I say 19 pages? I meant 16)

It's irrelevant, anyway. I could simply post the link, I can't see any paywall (but I won't).

I am happy to leave you to your "fun" and "clowning".

[cic old boy]

Actually, it won't even allow me to select text from the document with the mouse. (did I say 19 pages? I meant 16)

It's irrelevant, anyway. I could simply post the link, I can't see any paywall (but I won't).

I am happy to leave you to your "fun" and "clowning".

Irrelevant lies.

[sinequanon]

Actually, it won't even allow me to select text from the document with the mouse. (did I say 19 pages? I meant 16)

It's irrelevant, anyway. I could simply post the link, I can't see any paywall (but I won't).

I am happy to leave you to your "fun" and "clowning".

Irrelevant lies.

I know that you are dying to see the transcript. Next time, instead of clowning around, be serious.

"You yourself know from everyday life, whether you live in the west or the east, you're young or cic old, you often realize things intellectually you don't want to accept emotionally."

You may be interested in the words of this German poet/singer song writer, a reformed die-hard socialist

Don't get to his age before you are honest with yourself.

"Then comes the moment that your heart accepts what your head realized long ago. And that happened to me in 1983. So, it was very late."

9:10

[/video]

[cic old boy]

This Sillyclown should be jailed for irrelevance.

[sinequanon]

This Sillyclown should be jailed for irrelevance.

You can appeal your sentence by telling the court that you were drunk when you said it.

[cic old boy]

You can appeal your sentence by telling the court that you were drunk when you said it.

Your evidence is not relevant.