Fan arrested over hanging blow up dolls at Old Firm match

[pete 2,499]

Even if say the prosecution could provide evidence of religious hatred perhaps from social media.

 

You wouldn't make much of a juror.

Show me this evidence. A sex doll with an orange rag. Prove to me that is religious hatred. Without bullshit about murder cases.

[craig 5,199]

As I say you can talk about proof all you like but you only need to convince them.

 

You can prove all sorts of things.

 

Like it was Orange and a sash.

 

Like you can prove a persons dna was on a body.

 

You use those proofs to convince them.

 

If your looking for absolute proofs you won't win many cases.

 

It's not that long ago that people in Scotland were convicted of murder when no body could be produced.

 

They couldn't even prove a murder had happened.

 

You only need to convince a jury.

 

In post 58 you Confuse prosecution with defense. Reasonable doubt is a defense, not a prosecution.

 

Whilst you keep talking of only convincing a jury, you will still be hard pushed to prove beyond reasonable doubt, which is all a defense needs for acquittal.

[craig 5,199]

As I say you can talk about proof all you like but you only need to convince them.

 

You can prove all sorts of things.

 

Like it was Orange and a sash.

 

Like you can prove a persons dna was on a body.

 

You use those proofs to convince them.

 

If your looking for absolute proofs you won't win many cases.

 

It's not that long ago that people in Scotland were convicted of murder when no body could be produced.

 

They couldn't even prove a murder had happened.

 

You only need to convince a jury.

 

You may prove all of those.... But interestingly enough you don't mention proving it is a religious hate crime. Conveniently ignored that as it would be so difficult to prove ?

[craig 5,199]

Even if say the prosecution could provide evidence of religious hatred perhaps from social media.

 

You wouldn't make much of a juror.

 

Any decent defense lawyer would drive a horse and cart through that assertion. You are conveniently only looking at the prosecution and ignoring that the defense don't have the burden of proof on them.

[barca72 440]

There is no point in arguing with you anymore. I can only say that I as a Rangers supporting Jury member would not vote for a guilty verdict as I think it was a stupid thought out way to annoy Rangers supporters. I do not believe for a second that there was real religious hate involved.

 

Whether you like it or not, as a Rangers fan you are referred to by C1888c fans as either a 'hun' or a 'Dirty Orange B*****d'. If you want proof just check out their banners on game day or go onto social media.

Now go back and check out the pics in the media of the hanging doll effigies. One has a Rangers scarf around its neck and the other has an orange 'thing' around its neck. You choose what these represent.

Now I refer you back to post #65 with the extract from the OBA of para 6. Just about any of those sub-paras would be easily proved if the police have done their job properly. For myself I like sub-paras 6.3.(a) or (b). Stone-cold winners.

By the way, the Record has reported that these men will be appearing in Glasgow Sheriff Court next Friday. I would hazard a guess that this would be a summary appearance, ergo there would be no need for a jury.

[pete 2,499]

Whether you like it or not, as a Rangers fan you are referred to by C1888c fans as either a 'hun' or a 'Dirty Orange B*****d'. If you want proof just check out their banners on game day or go onto social media.

Now go back and check out the pics in the media of the hanging doll effigies. One has a Rangers scarf around its neck and the other has an orange 'thing' around its neck. You choose what these represent.

Now I refer you back to post #65 with the extract from the OBA of para 6. Just about any of those sub-paras would be easily proved if the police have done their job properly. For myself I like sub-paras 6.3.(a) or (b). Stone-cold winners.

By the way, the Record has reported that these men will be appearing in Glasgow Sheriff Court next Friday. I would hazard a guess that this would be a summary appearance, ergo there would be no need for a jury.

 

Were these men holding a banner? If you are guilty of hate because someone else has a banner lets get all 50.000+ arrested. As for social media if someone comes on here spewing hate does it make me guilty. As for your charges we are talking about proving religious hate. Can you prove those images to be religious? Without the we all know line.

 

This actually was a copy cat act. In Holland just a few weeks earlier Ajax supporters displayed a black doll with a keepers jumper with the name Vermeer on it. Vermeer was an Ajax player that now plays for Feynoord. Because this is clear cut aimed at 1 person as his name was on the shirt the charges are Threatening to kill or commit a violent act.

On the dolls at Parkhead was no text it was all left to your own imagination and interpretation and that is what makes it difficult to prove.

[barca72 440]

Were these men holding a banner? If you are guilty of hate because someone else has a banner lets get all 50.000+ arrested. As for social media if someone comes on here spewing hate does it make me guilty. As for your charges we are talking about proving religious hate. Can you prove those images to be religious? Without the we all know line.

 

This actually was a copy cat act. In Holland just a few weeks earlier Ajax supporters displayed a black doll with a keepers jumper with the name Vermeer on it. Vermeer was an Ajax player that now plays for Feynoord. Because this is clear cut aimed at 1 person as his name was on the shirt the charges are Threatening to kill or commit a violent act.

On the dolls at Parkhead was no text it was all left to your own imagination and interpretation and that is what makes it difficult to prove.

 

Did you read those sub-paras I quoted? It says if there is implication of a violent act against a person or group.

One has a Rangers supporters scarf and in my opinion the other is referring to an orangeman.

Ergo, I consider both condition A and condition B to be satisfied.

[pete 2,499]

Did you read those sub-paras I quoted? It says if there is implication of a violent act against a person or group.

One has a Rangers supporters scarf and in my opinion the other is referring to an orangeman.

Ergo, I consider both condition A and condition B to be satisfied.

 

In my opinion there lies the reasonable doubt and again Rangers are not a religion. Could they have brought heavier charges? Possibly by threatening a group by showing an image but that will probably bring a trial and breach of the piece will probably get all to plead guilty. It is possible that has already been agreed with the lawyers

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Show me this evidence. A sex doll with an orange rag. Prove to me that is religious hatred. Without bullshit about murder cases.

Your the one prejudicing the evidence.

 

I've got you on the murder trial lol.

 

As I say and I will keep saying it and proving it. You only need to convince 8 out of 15 in a trial by jury.

 

You can do that without even proving the crime happened as shown by the murder trials with no body.

 

You say we can't prove it was religiously motivated. I agree. No one will ever know the absolute truth ofor the motive but that's not how trials work.

 

You prove what you can and convince a jury. Or in this case a sheriff.

 

Your fundamentally misunderstanding trials.

 

I'm pretty sure you know it to.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

In post 58 you Confuse prosecution with defense. Reasonable doubt is a defense, not a prosecution.

 

Whilst you keep talking of only convincing a jury, you will still be hard pushed to prove beyond reasonable doubt, which is all a defense needs for acquittal.

You might struggle. But as I say you only need to convince.

 

Tbh it's clear to anyone with a brain it was a sash and that's clearly religious intolerance.

 

It should be simple to convince people of that.

 

But that wouldn't suit the political agenda of catholics being the victims in religious crimes.

 

So the press and procurator fiscal won't even acknowledge it happened.

 

If you and Pete were in very few convictions would happen.

 

I repeat they do not have to prove that was a sash. Only convince the sheriff.

 

What on earth will the defence claim it was.

 

There's a burden of proof on both sides.

 

What lawyer ever went in court and won just going you can't absolutely prove that.

 

There's no evidence of that then sure. But we all know there's evidence we've seen it.