DJ Barry Hammond

No, this has been standard practice for a long time… so long that I couldn’t tell you how far back it dates.

I know, but when trying to clarify the difference between two situations, adding an additional caveat - which is highly occurrence unusual - is awkward.

Yeah the two aren’t the same are they. It’s a much bigger issue for a jury to consider a case purely on that case’s merits if previous convictions were allowed to be known. You know - the common idea of “well if he was guilty of that, he’s guilty of this too.” Providing evidence of good character on the other hand is an acceptable part of a defence because very often cases evolve around conflicting pieces of testimony where the jury will need to decide how much weight they give to those pieces of testimony. Also note - the judge won’t be adding any new information in his summing up. The whole purpose of the judge doing this is to provide a summary of what the prosecution and defence laid before the court before the jury retires to consider a verdict - so clearly the defence offered evidence of “good character” to try and add weight to their clients testimony when presenting their defence. Final point - it could be that the “good character” remark was primarily made in reference to the brother that has, so far, not received a conviction… rather than the evident thug that - to give him his due -somewhat impressively, briefly incapacitated and downed 4 officers pretty much single-handedly!

Previous convictions are not allowed to be disclosed. But ‘good character’ can be used as a defence.

The judge has to do that though - they have to point the jury to all the relevant matters they should consider when try to come to a verdict. They can’t show any deference during the trial - I expect the sentencing remarks will be a little different.

Everyone’s at it! I blame Yaya Toure myself, he started this nonsense 🎂

The defence’s argument of “self defence” couldn’t really qualify for the attacks against the two female officers - so guilty verdicts on those were pretty much slam dunks, as was the charge relating to the earlier head butting of a man within the terminal that prompted the police’s involvement in the first place. But the “no verdict” on Count 2, which I think relates to Officer Stampy is interesting. That suggests the jury felt there were merits to the claims of “self defence” here and that by implication calls into question the officers initial approach to the men. This could mean there’s more to follow here - could one, some or all of the officers end up being disciplined for their part in this yet? And it’s worth noting, the “no verdict” on count 2 means one of the brothers does remain “free” at the moment, because he was facing no other charges - The CPS will need to decide whether to go for a retrial for that particular charge.

Guilty on 3 counts. No verdict offered for one count - which seems to relate to one of the male police officers.

Try reading the entire tweet!

Looks like the Wednesday admin haven’t bothered for the last couple of years.

This highlights why any incoming transfers might be a little way away yet.

Ah, the old “sign a player that scored against you” transfer policy. Makes some sense, he was very good that day.

Just seems bizarre. You just don’t hand over millions of £’s without some sort of guarantees / signed contractual agreements etc - that’s basic due diligence. It’s perhaps why I’m a little dubious about the merits of Panjab Warriors credentials.

So how have Panjab Warriors managed to put so much money into the club without; a.) securing an official stake/equity in the club? b.) getting a seat(s) on the board? That seems bizarre given the suggested sums involved.

Can I ask @jammie82uk given you seem to be quite knowledgeable on this subject… Are there any concerns with Panjab Warriors - the primary party being discussed behind purchasing the club? I’m sure I read somewhere that the local MP has co-backed their bid; but I get the feeling the situation could end up as going from one set of chancers to another. I also understand that Morcombe own their stadium and training complex… I assume that the land it sits on would be quite valuable if, say, the club didn’t exist anymore and it ended up being turned into houses. Is that ultimately what this about?

See you’ve corrected it now @davieG - making my comment look very random 😂

The problem is, how does the FA / EFL / Premier League go about taking an asset off somebody or a group of people? Realistically they don’t have that much power besides financial and sporting sanctions for the competitions they run. Yes, there’s an argument about the fit and proper person’s test not being of an appropriate standard… but the majority of football clubs are massively loss making affairs, so again, it’s quite difficult for the footballing authorities to fully veto a prospective buyer(s) of a club at that point if there’s promises of inward investment. The new regulator, which will have statutory powers may have a bit more scope to do something in these situations… but these instances are always going to be a tricky and complex legal situations.

Might as well add this

Cintract ended huh? Sounds painful!

I don’t know about this year - are we sure the driver can actually see over the steering wheel?

Hasn’t there been a strong suggestion amongst the Morecambe fans that this “Jonny Cato” - the supposed buyer that has just appeared from nowhere - doesn’t exist and it’s just more game playing by Whittingham.

It certainly looks like he’s tried to give every player a fair chance so far doesn’t it. I’d expect to see some more movement this week, now they’re back and with the season drawing ever closer. I’m sure the club would quite like a new face in (one a little more exciting than Begovic) ahead of this weekends game to help sell some tickets.