Paul Gascoigne

  • The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...

    Get involved!

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

Blanchflower

Supporter
He was found not guilty...of sexual assault. Doesn't mean his behaviour wasn't well out of order.

Or, to put it another way, would you be comfortable with a man behaving like this with a female friend/relative of yours?


Behaving like what? You've heard the prosecutions evidence (which the press obviously love to detail), but you haven't heard all of the evidence and accounts that the jury did.

The jury heard everything and decided he's not guilty, you can't just decide he is without all of the information.

This is exactly the reason we have a jury system and don't just let the mob/media decide.
 

HampshireSpur

๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ฆ
Behaving like what? You've heard the prosecutions evidence (which the press obviously love to detail), but you haven't heard all of the evidence and accounts that the jury did.

The jury heard everything and decided he's not guilty, you can't just decide he is without all of the information.

This is exactly the reason we have a jury system and don't just let the mob/media decide.

Whether he is guilty or not wasn't the point I was arguing. The jury need to find him guilty beyond reasonable doubt to cast that verdict - you can still object to his behaviour (e.g., on moral grounds) and respect their verdict. I'm totally comfortable with my judgment about Gazza - I think it's sad but there's simply too much previous to position myself as a cheerleader for him on this one.

Have you looked at accounts of his behaviour? Does it strike you as sound? Honestly?
 

HampshireSpur

๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ฆ
No, he's an alcoholic with mental illness's who needs help - not people on trains trying to set him up to sell their story to a newspaper.

He's clearly troubled and has a lot of issues, but that doesn't excuse his behaviour. Also this is not a one off, there's a long, long list of past transgressions. So many that I'm curious anyone is positioning themselves as a defender, granted it's a nearly all-male Tottenham Hotspur forum where being a 'Spurs legend' could get you off the hook of rather a lot. He is a Spurs legend, no mistake - also a flawed individual who has behaved appallingly at times.
 
No, he's an alcoholic with mental illness's who needs help - not people on trains trying to set him up to sell their story to a newspaper.

Half of HMP the mount are substance abusers with mental health problems they get treated like the scum of the earth, it's ok when historic abusers like Gazza do scummy things tho because he's good at football and his sense of humour sometimes shines through.
 

Borodin55

Carpe Diem
Half of HMP the mount are substance abusers with mental health problems they get treated like the scum of the earth, it's ok when historic abusers like Gazza do scummy things tho because he's good at football and his sense of humour sometimes shines through.
I wonder how we would all react on here if it had been Maradona in the news for the same story instead of Gazza ?? ๐Ÿ˜Ž
 
Not guilty is not the same as innocent. In the US, and Iโ€™m fairly certain the same applies in the UK, a finding of not guilty means the prosecutor didnโ€™t meet the burden of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) that the accused was guilty of the charged crimes.

It is the same, it's not the defendants job to prove themselves innocent it's the prosecutions job to prove they are guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
 
It is the same, it's not the defendants job to prove themselves innocent it's the prosecutions job to prove they are guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
I didnโ€™t say itโ€™s the defendants duty to prove themselves innocent. The posts I quoted stated that the judge/jury declared someone innocent. That is incorrect.

Itโ€™s entirely possible that OJ killed his wife. By declaring him not guilty the jury is just stating that based on the facts presented that canโ€™t say that he committed the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. If the burden of proof was lower than itโ€™s possible the jury could convict him for the murder. For instance, he was found liable for both deaths in a civil trial where the burden is much lower than a criminal trial. In a civil trial the plaintiff only have to prove that it was more likely than not that the defendant is responsible for the act.
 
Top Bottom