Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Michael Shields finally free.
A proud day for Reds everywhere.
Who? And what does he have to do with the communists?
Don't Leave Me This Way was half decent I suppose.
This is the sort of attitude and ethos that makes me think that the world would be a place without Liverpool FC. Or, to be fair to the club, the vast majority of their fans.
There seems to be little question that Shields was not guilty of attempted murder and was wrongly convicted. So congrats to him. Shields has justice. You'd have to be pleased for the man.
BUT he served so much time in prison because another Liverpool supporter fucked him over. Proud day for Reds all over? Leave it out, wrighty. You should be better than this.
It's already a place of sorts. And if it wasn't, it would be unduly harsh of me to blame Liverpool supporters for the world's lack of existence.
that is hilarious.
was unconnected to Shields, to the best that any court could ascertain. And he only admitted it in word to the Shields family. Refused to speak to the police or go back to Greece.
It was a bit more than them saying "so-and-so said they did it so there."
Thanks for that, Poirot.
I'm going off the fact Jack Straw has made the decision to release him based on the evidence of that confession and the fact that his further enquiries into it have suggested it was true. It was a legal decision - hearsay isn't admissable legally so whatever the evidence is cannot be hearsay.
Like you I don't know the exact nature of the evidence and why Jack Straw/the courts/lawyers etc. are convinced by it. Unlike you I'm not going to pretend I'm an expert in something I actually know fuck-all about and start arguing with a legal decision despite the fact I haven't seen the evidence.
But the question of whether they think they've evidence which can convict the other guy is a different question to whether they've got the evidence to acquit Shields, which clearly they think they do.
It might simply be that Shields' trial was in Bulgaria so it'd be for the Bulgarians to re-open the case and try the other guy if they wanted to.
Jack Straw says he's done it 'cos new evidence has come to light and presumably whatever came to light would have been compelling enough to release him. But, like you, I don't actually know the details of what it is.
I just don't get, since you don't know what the evidence is either and, like me, have no idea about the facts of the case, why you've decided you somehow know for sure whether he's guilty.
As you say, hearsay (generally) isn't admissable in a court of law, but you need to keep in mind that this decision was made outside of a court of law using the royal prerogative. A court hasn't been convinced of his innocence (or instilled with reasonable doubt as to his guilt) at all.
Dangerous decision indeed...
But the problem with exercising this prerogative is that we can't say for certain that the evidence was convincing - it is ractically a private decision made by somebody with a political bias, rather than a collective decision made by a jury of peers. The fact is that this "evidence" has not been countered - Straw has likely not heard sufficiently from the Bulgarian prosecutors re their views and quite frankly this decision should have been left to the Bulgarian courts and their proper appeal procedures.
I hope that the evidence will properly come to light, because at the moment it does seem like the decision was made based on what is likely to be easily disputable hearsay evidence with potentially political motives.
I'm not sure who would have sufficient "standing" to do so here.
It's interesting though. There have been quite a few serious constitutional issues this last year or so - unelected and unpopular prime minister, unelected people being made Lords so they can fulfil certain roles that should really be elected positions, unelected Mandelson being left to run the country... and now the Justice Secretary using a rarely used royal prerogative.
standing is more likely to be granted to somebody because of the greater public interest following the Fleet St Casuals test. Perhaps the guy who it is claimed confessed? But I see your point.
It certainly has been a fascinating constitutional year, although I dispute that Brown is unelected - he was elected by his constituency. We vote for the party in this country and they then elect their leader on their popular mandate, and of course the Queen then appoints the PM based on who the largest party is. Otherwise only a small group of people would directly elect the PM. And of course PMs have always been unpopular.
The real question is whether that system is appropriate in an age where we have a far more presidential style of government than we did pre-Thatcher, and how we can rectify that.
The Mandelson stuff is endlessly fascinating, particularly the hoo-ha around Straw's Constututional Reform Bill and the whole renouncing peerages stuff (and how it got gazumped by the time limit). The Lords really needs sorting out, it's a mess.
who'd barged into his living room
...and hold his arms aloft, just like Gaddafi did for Megrahi.
aimed at gerrard will be relevant for the whole anfield crowd.
because like, to be found innocent you'd have to have a retrial and stuff.
Something isn't right about this.
"two of Mr Shield's family went to some blokes house and I was told said bloke confessed. This took place on 22 July 2005."
It took four years for the Shields family to mention this? Good lord.
this is a shitty day. both scousers get off scot free, and they probably killed the bloke anyway, or something as bad.
Liverpool fans going abroad, killing natives and then wanting justice for their own. All sounds very familiar.
it's pretty obvious he did it, and got away with it. What a cunt.