Brewster and McBurnie Charged

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?


Can anybody explain how a choke hold from behind isn't assault? How come Brewster was let off without trial?

Video clearly shows this and it can't be questioned that it happened.

Id say it was more of a chokeslam than a chokehold. Maybe even a clothesline-chokeslam, like Bradshaw of the APA used to do.
 
Glad the right outcome came about. Was ridiculous it got to court anyway.

Oli will be dancing all the way back to Knaresborough in his new pair of Clark’s Dessert Treks.
 
Not guilty, how? With overwhelming evidence against him.

Get the dog worrier up in court for wasting police time and Sun for deformation saying he stamped on the perps head
Note the judges wording. Simply not proved to the right level : not “he didn’t stamp on him”
 
Note the judges wording. Simply not proved to the right level : not “he didn’t stamp on him”
Wasn't Forestieri's racist trial ended with similar? Judge said he couldn't decide either way so just fucked it off.
 
I wasn't confident, I won't lie. Glad that non-confidence was wrong. As above, what a waste of time and money. I hope McBurnie does the cunt for sending death threats and calling him whatever those 5 stars represented as I'd class that as malicious communications personally speaking. And I hope dog nonce gets punished for invading the pitch.
The police are aware of both the social media content and that he was on the pitch. Let’s see what they do now.
McB should just walk away and stay clear.
 
Note the judges wording. Simply not proved to the right level : not “he didn’t stamp on him”
Right level is as ambiguous as your statement to be honest.

COuld be anything from not proven anything at all... to not proven there was intent.
 


Merchandise is available and the best bit is you can change the definition on the mug. What a world we live in


1671120110818.png
 
Last edited:
The police are aware of both the social media content and that he was on the pitch. Let’s see what they do now.
McB should just walk away and stay clear.
You reckon the police have let the pitch invasion and social media contact slide until this was done?

I'd laugh if dog nonce gets back from walking his dog only to get a knock from the coppers "you're under arrest for malicious communications"

Have that *****
 
You reckon the police have let the pitch invasion and social media contact slide until this was done?

I'd laugh if dog nonce gets back from walking his dog only to get a knock from the coppers "you're under arrest for malicious communications"

Have that *****
I don’t know, but they have plenty of evidence to pass it to the CPS. Now it is publicly know there is more pressure to do something, as there is on the EFL or FA about the pitch invasion.
 
Addison

Could McBurnie or the dog nonce go through the civil courts for any damages against the other party?
The case not being proven to the required standard under the 3 requirements for obtaining a guilty verdict for assault by beating is significant. Questions may be subsequently raised as to the standard of evidence the prosecution provided. Relying on the grainy video and saying this was clear evidence of a stamp when all could see it was inconclusive is one illustration of the poor standard. If this together with a few I saw him stamp on him statements was the totality of their evidence you may be entitled to ask why was this drain on the public purse allowed to proceed? Bearing in mind they were already in possession of threatening texts sent by the alleged victim to Mcburnie which should have been a flag as to the credibility of the allegations. Add in the fact Brinkley went to the press within two days making reference to not wanting compensation but justice and you began to see a picture developing of a potential civil case being pursued for damages against Mcb in the event of a guilty verdict. Not guilty now dismisses that prospect.

Mcb's victory is being found not guilty. There is no recourse for him to pursue Brinkley for bringing this action. He can bask in the knowledge his reputation has been enhanced by this verdict and that newspaper editors up and down the country are having to hastily re write their front pages and move this result inside hidden away in the classified ads.

This is also a victory for professional footballers who seek to defend themselves when attacked by pitch intruders carrying out criminal acts. Perhaps the FA will now finally dust themselves down and apply the appropriate sanctions against Florist FC for failing to control their fans and address the woeful lack of security. This is long overdue.
 
Theoretically yes, but the judge made no finding he was lying and , reading between the lines, it was probably "he says one thing, OMB says another, I don't know who's telling the truth so I can't be certain there was an assault, its NG". That being the case, its highly unlikely you could prove beyond reasonable doubt, the complainant was lying, which you'd need for a perjury conviction. Hence he won't be prosecuted.

^^^^^. Yep, closing comments seem to agree with you (re no interest in potential perjury) :-

District Judge Pyle said: "For someone so wedded to his phone and social media one has to ask the obvious question why didn't he photograph these bruises?"
He added: "What this witness describes and what is reality as far as evidence is concerned seems to diverge."

 
Absolute joke of a case and has rightly been proved so.

Something very very dubious about mcburnie being prosecuted for this in the first place when the wrong doing was clearly all from Forrest wankers attacking our players.

Where’s their punishment for the horrendous attack on our players from a large mob of forest scum bags? Whole thing stinks.
 
Just convincing anyone it was definitely a stamp may be difficult when his mobility was impaired by the boot. I expect any reasonable judge to say the evidence is not conclusive enough and criticise the CPS for pursuing it.
I wasn’t far off then.
 
^^^^^. Yep, closing comments seem to agree with you (re no interest in potential perjury) :-

District Judge Pyle said: "For someone so wedded to his phone and social media one has to ask the obvious question why didn't he photograph these bruises?"
He added: "What this witness describes and what is reality as far as evidence is concerned seems to diverge."

"What this witness describes and what is reality as far as evidence is concerned seems to diverge."

There you have it. The Judge was not impressed by Brinkleys evidence. In effect he's saying he doesn't believe him which adds weight to the question why was this brought to Court in the first place. Seem to remember a certain judge said something similar about a Mr McCabe a few years ago :).
 

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom