The Gooner Forum

Sorry mate but this is not a nonsense story. It's on BBC, ITV & Sky news and in every newspaper - just the sort of headlines that Arsenal don't need. I'm more than happy to give young Jack the benefit of the doubt as in the pictures I've seen, he doesn't seem to be involved in the fighting.

BUT - why do footballers continue to put themselves in these situations in the first place?? There are so many scumbags desperate to get involved with top level sportsmen and these scummy people haven't got the sportsmens' interests at heart.

Look at the betting scandal involving the Pakistan cricket team. A young 18 yr old widely acknowledged as the best young fast bowler in the world but what do people drag him into? A betting fraud so that they can make a few thousand. Aamer is facing a life ban but do the people that put him up to bowling a couple of no balls care?

No - they couldn't give a shit!!

Young sportsmen need to be looked after by their clubs / countries. It might mean missing out on a few nights out but surely that is a price worth paying to get to the top.

marcengels wrote:

QuartzGooner wrote:The fairest way for law to work would be to withhold the names of anyone accused of any crime until a verdict is reached.

If guilty then the name can be published, if innocent the name should never be released.

The public have a right to know of someone who is accused of an offence, who is subsequently released on bail, so that they can make a decision on what their interaction is with that person.

In addition, important information concerning the "innocent" may be revealed in court that has bearing on previous acts of the innocent that have nothing to with the charges, but would be useful for the public to know in terms of the character and future behaviour of that person.

Really?

The RIGHT?

What about the person accused?

Does he or she not have the RIGHT to be allowed to live as normal unless convicted, rather than accused?

Look at the ex Southampton manager who was accused of heinous crimes but it was all a fit up.
Why should he have to suffer because of criminals trying to fit him up?

I strongly believe in anonymity unless proven guilty, and if police know that someone is a threat to public safety then they should be held on remand prior to trial.

QuartzGooner wrote:

marcengels wrote:

QuartzGooner wrote:The fairest way for law to work would be to withhold the names of anyone accused of any crime until a verdict is reached.

If guilty then the name can be published, if innocent the name should never be released.

The public have a right to know of someone who is accused of an offence, who is subsequently released on bail, so that they can make a decision on what their interaction is with that person.

In addition, important information concerning the "innocent" may be revealed in court that has bearing on previous acts of the innocent that have nothing to with the charges, but would be useful for the public to know in terms of the character and future behaviour of that person.

Really?

The RIGHT?

What about the person accused?

Does he or she not have the RIGHT to be allowed to live as normal unless convicted, rather than accused?

Look at the ex Southampton manager who was accused of heinous crimes but it was all a fit up.
Why should he have to suffer because of criminals trying to fit him up?

I strongly believe in anonymity unless proven guilty, and if police know that someone is a threat to public safety then they should be held on remand prior to trial.

And if the case is not pertaining to a violent crime? Perhaps there is information that the public (including agencies, companies employing individuals, and members of the public) have a right to know to make their own decisions.

Perhaps someone was found innocent of a crime, but during trial other information came out that has an impact on their work, personal ,and relationships within society, that may be of significance to the people they come into contact with. Should that not be known, because the person has complete anonimity?

The way that information is used and manipulated by the media, and the people, is the problem, not whether anonimity should be granted to everyone.

QuartzGooner wrote:

marcengels wrote:

QuartzGooner wrote:The fairest way for law to work would be to withhold the names of anyone accused of any crime until a verdict is reached.

If guilty then the name can be published, if innocent the name should never be released.

The public have a right to know of someone who is accused of an offence, who is subsequently released on bail, so that they can make a decision on what their interaction is with that person.

In addition, important information concerning the "innocent" may be revealed in court that has bearing on previous acts of the innocent that have nothing to with the charges, but would be useful for the public to know in terms of the character and future behaviour of that person.

Really?

The RIGHT?

What about the person accused?

Does he or she not have the RIGHT to be allowed to live as normal unless convicted, rather than accused?

Look at the ex Southampton manager who was accused of heinous crimes but it was all a fit up.
Why should he have to suffer because of criminals trying to fit him up?

I strongly believe in anonymity unless proven guilty, and if police know that someone is a threat to public safety then they should be held on remand prior to trial.

Has RVP's life really been ruined? Really? It might have been a tough time for him but i think he's doing alright since.

I think it case of the less of two evils and the fact is, naming accused often helps many more victims speak out - look at the convicted black cab rapist, for example. 30 women spoke out when before they'd been afraid and disbelieved by the police. This is quite a good piece on how dangerous anonymity for defendents could be:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... defendants

How would you feel BT and Marc, if you were accused of being a peado?

Spent six months waiting for a trial.

Were publicly named in the papers as such.

But then found innocent.

As for RvP, he was found innocent.
But between the period he was accused and the case against him collapsing, he had to go to prison for nothing, and there was definitely a cloud over him.

Cannot buy your arguments at all.
If someone is a threat to public safety, then by all means keep them in jail on remand, but naming prior to verdict is irresponsible and smacks of mob rule.

QuartzGooner wrote:How would you feel BT and Marc, if you were accused of being a peado?

Spent six months waiting for a trial.

Were publicly named in the papers as such.

But then found innocent.

As for RvP, he was found innocent.
But between the period he was accused and the case against him collapsing, he had to go to prison for nothing, and there was definitely a cloud over him.

Cannot buy your arguments at all.
If someone is a threat to public safety, then by all means keep them in jail on remand, but naming prior to verdict is irresponsible and smacks of mob rule.

Again, you didn't answer the question about what if they are non-violent circumstances? After all, you advocate complete anonimity.

I will answer your question though. I would be horrified and it would probably ruin my life. But there has to be a balance.

I can't buy your argument that complete anonimity is the way forward. David Jones and RvP were hung out to dry by the media, because they were in the spotlight, and it's a story. On the other hand, it is often the media who expose criminals through sting operations - should this sort of investigative journalism be stopped because of anonimity rules?

Its a non story in the sense that absolutley nothing has happened.

The bird got her arm broke, how can you say nothing happened?

QuartzGooner wrote:How would you feel BT and Marc, if you were accused of being a peado?

Spent six months waiting for a trial.

Were publicly named in the papers as such.

But then found innocent.

As for RvP, he was found innocent.
But between the period he was accused and the case against him collapsing, he had to go to prison for nothing, and there was definitely a cloud over him.

Cannot buy your arguments at all.
If someone is a threat to public safety, then by all means keep them in jail on remand, but naming prior to verdict is irresponsible and smacks of mob rule.

If I was innocent, I would hope that justice would be done. After all, naming me might help bring the actual perpetrator to justice.

Likewise, Quartz, imagine if you/your daughter/your sister/your mother were raped. Imagine if you knew from the outset that there was no chance of a conviction because
a) they perhaps had a drink that day and therefore the investigation would be dropped or
b) they wore a shortish skirt that day and the investigation would be dropped or
c) they had previously had a one night stand and the investigation would be dropped or
d) they were unconscious at the time and therefore didnt explicitly say no and therefore the investigation would be dropped or
e) the accused was a rich celebrity with a large fanbase and the best lawyers in the country and therefore she wouldnt be taken seriously and unlikely to be able to match that power and
f) imagine if it was the same guy in your area who'd raped several women you knew, all of whom were too intimidated to come forward and had no idea of the other's case because the accused wasn't named

The point is, why protect the 6% of men accused falsely to the detriment of the 94% of women who were in fact raped? We already have most backwards legal system in the Western world for dealing with rape cases and we want to make it more difficult for women to come forward and be believed?! Its crazy.

RVP may have a stain on his name to those that remember (and he was a public figure caught, at the least, adulterating, so the papers did go to town on it but the average man isn't and won;t get that publicity) but then he is still happily married, happily employed and earning millions, worshipped by thousands...

Who remembers the Man United players accused of rape at their infamous Christmas party?

I bet there's a lot more scared and pshycologically damaged women out there who couldn't bring their rapist to trial than there are slightly tainted accused. Also, RVP wasn't innocent, the charges were dropped because there was insufficent evidence to convict him. That's not the same thing.

The bird got her arm broke, how can you say nothing happened?

Fucking hell mate, in relation to Wilshire. Would it be in the paper if he wasn't there.

BT wrote: I bet there's a lot more scared and pshycologically damaged women out there who couldn't bring their rapist to trial than there are slightly tainted accused. Also, RVP wasn't innocent, the charges were dropped because there was insufficent evidence to convict him. That's not the same thing.

To answer Marc Engels:

Yes, I believe in anonymity in all criminal cases, until a verdict is reached. If guilty, then name the guilty person.
If the offence is a violent or sexual one, then keep the suspect on remand to protect the public.

To answer BT:


You seem to advocate mob rule, rule by the press, and rule by popular opinion, in addition to the established rule of law.

As I write to Marc above, if there are sufficient grounds to suspect someone of being a rapist, they should be held on remand prior to trial.
But until and unless a guilty verdict is reached, the accused should remain anonymous.

If people are scared to come forward, or pessimistic of the chance of conviction, then that is a separate issue that needs dealing with.
But to publically accuse someone of criminal activity before a considered trial is in my eyes immoral.
(Excepting that of course the victim's circle of friends and family and colleagues would likely be told of the alleged crime.)

OK Quartz, your argument doesn't really hold for me, but am not going to turn into a USMartin for this one. You didn't answer my question convincingly, but I respect why you think anonimity should be present in all cases.

Hopefully Jack will be cleared and a case of "wrong place at wrong time" however he chose to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, inviting trouble etc. British players are immature compared to the continentals generally, am sure he will be having an interview with no coffee at club. Yes the young players can go out, restaurants and cinemas and home before midnight is sound advice! They will always be vulnerable to gold diggers, drunk yobs, fights, setups and groupies etc its his choice .... Mr W will explain he needs to choose his future, its either Jack Wilshere or Jack Tweed?

An uncle of mine was once accused by a young lad of being a nonce.

My uncle's life became hell.

Luckily, the lad's uncle was a policeman. He got the truth out of the boy. The accusation was an act of vengeance. He didn't like being told off by my uncle for an act of vandalism.

Now. Just imagine if my uncle had been named in the local press. There would be people saying that "there's no smoke without fire". He would be a marked man. His life ruined.

People should remain anonymous until they are proven guilty.

Guilty people deserve all the shit that comes their way.

But we should protect the innocent.

I apologise that i've slightly sent this thread on a completly different tangent but will send one more reply.

Olgit, i've no doubt that was a terrible experience for your uncle but I still maintain it pales incomparison to the 94% or true allegations that are made, of which 2% meet a conviction.

I don't want to keep this debate going on when it has become so un-Arsenal related but its something I feel quite strongly about. Naming suspects helps other victims come forward and leads to better chance of conviction (likewise, it helps character witnesses in defense of the accused also come forward). The black cab rapist, once named in one case, lead to 85 women coming forward/files being reopened and he was then convicted of 12 rapes on the basis of existing evidence (nearly every file had been lingering on a policeman's desk who knew there was not enough weight to support charges).

The government want to change the laws on anonymity to protect men accused of rape ONLY. Not in any other crime. For the simple reason that falsely accused cases get far more publicity than genuine cases. This is so dangerous when this is the one crime where the UK falls behind every other country in terms of conviction rates. Assumptions that the likes of RVP and Jack Wilshere are being 'set up' by women is indicative of this sweeping generalisation that women are settingout to damage the man's reputation, first and formost, over horror of the crime that has been potentially commited.

Please take some time to read these:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... defendants

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 78387.html

Being raped and having your rapist still be on the streets, possibly raping other women, is really a life a ruined. So is being raped and being treated as a lying hussy from the off by the police, the courts and the public. Slander is in no way comparable as an experience. It just isn't.

Anyway, happy to debate this further on a pm but think its probably time to call it a day on the 'Arsenal Chat'. Nice to have some intelligent debate on the forum though