Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
davieG

Beagrie has been sacked by Sky Sports after being convicted of an assault on his partner.

By davieG, in General Football and Sport

Recommended Posts

davieG

davieG

Posted
Posted

Ex-Premier League footballer Peter Beagrie has been sacked as a Sky Sports pundit after being convicted of an assault on his partner.

The 51-year-old ex-Everton, Manchester City and Bradford City winger punched Zarah Blake while angry and drunk, his trial heard.

Beagrie, of Killinghall, North Yorkshire, was sentenced to a 12-month community order on Tuesday.

He said he intended to appeal against his conviction.

In a statement following the hearing at Skipton Magistrates Court, Beagrie said: "I am innocent, something I have maintained from the outset; that is why the verdict was so devastating.

"I will be appealing."

 

Beagrie  played for several clubs including Bradford City, Everton, Manchester City and Scunthorpe United

He said he was still with Ms Blake, adding: "This has been an upsetting and traumatic time for us and we both feel there is no other alternative but to appeal."

The court heard he punched his partner during an argument in Harrogate in April.

A Sky Sports spokesman said: "When we first became aware of the charge, we removed Peter from our coverage pending his case.

"Following the outcome we have terminated his contract with immediate effect."

ajthefox

ajthefox

Posted
Posted

He says he didn't do it, she is still with him and wants to appeal the verdict. If anyone knows better do correct me, but presuming she isn't the one pressing charges, this surely suggests it's the CPS who are prosecuting. Don't they usually have to have pretty good evidence to get a conviction with domestic abuse?

MPH

MPH

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, ajthefox said:

He says he didn't do it, she is still with him and wants to appeal the verdict. If anyone knows better do correct me, but presuming she isn't the one pressing charges, this surely suggests it's the CPS who are prosecuting. Don't they usually have to have pretty good evidence to get a conviction with domestic abuse?

 

 

They are probably saying that because they like his income, plus the connotations this will have for the rest of his career in football.

 

 

As for him being prosecuted without her pressing charges... I feel that is often done for all those who are too scared to press charges and also to help those who are pressured into dropping the charges and are feeling very vulnerable/trapped  about it all.. She might not be one of those but im sure there is plenty of them out there and this sends a message that domestic abuse will not be tolerated.

 

 

He has been found guilty and i applaud the cps for pressing forward with the case..

ajthefox

ajthefox

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

 

They are probably saying that because they like his income, plus the connotations this will have for the rest of his career in football.

 

 

As for him being prosecuted without her pressing charges... I feel that is often done for all those who are too scared to press charges and also to help those who are pressured into dropping the charges and are feeling very vulnerable/trapped  about it all.. She might not be one of those but im sure there is plenty of them out there and this sends a message that domestic abuse will not be tolerated.

 

 

He has been found guilty and i applaud the cps for pressing forward with the case..

 

Mmmm that's the kind of thing I was thinking.

 

As far as I understand it's a crime which can be particularly difficult to get a conviction. So for the CPS to get one when the victim isn't actually pressing charges usually means the accused is guilty as fvck, no two ways about it.

MPH

MPH

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Costock_Fox said:

Could have just sacked him for being a **** to be fair.

 

 

Well If they started doing that then they wouldn't have many left...

Kitchandro

Kitchandro

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, stripeyfox said:

Maybe he should phone Danny SImpson for some advice....

A bit sad that Sky Sports have more morality than our club.

ScouseFox

ScouseFox

Posted
Posted

the kinda person you happily forget even exists when you're out that hellhole of a division 

Guest BlueBrett

Guest BlueBrett

Posted
Posted

And to think he always seemed like such a nice bloke..

Countryfox

Countryfox

Posted
Posted

Of course he's appealing ...    apparently it was only a glancing blow and apart from a couple of loose teeth hardly did any damage at all ....    mountain out of a bloody mole hill.

:nigel: 

Bob Weasel Fox

Bob Weasel Fox

Posted
Posted
On 16/08/2017 at 19:18, ajthefox said:

 

Mmmm that's the kind of thing I was thinking.

 

As far as I understand it's a crime which can be particularly difficult to get a conviction. So for the CPS to get one when the victim isn't actually pressing charges usually means the accused is guilty as fvck, no two ways about it.

Usually maybe but not always, it's worth remembering that there are lots of different strands to an investigation including previous convictions, cctv, witnesses, the aggrieved party themselves aswell as what the accused has said in interview etc etc

 

i would keep an open mind about it

 

however generally speaking CPS will only go ahead with prosecution without the aggrieved being behind the matter with a reasonable amount of evidence

 

however this doesn't mean he is guilty just indicates there is a reasonably good chance 

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...