Brewster and McBurnie Charged

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

west_yorks_blade said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hopefully now this case has been settled the FA get their shit together and finally punish Forest for that play-off match.
 

Bladesman said:
Hopefully now this case has been settled the FA get their shit together and finally punish Forest for that play-off match.
Click to expand...

Hope so but so much time has passed that I expect them to just sweep this under the carpet.

Regardless of the outcome of this case, there was clear and obvious evidence of them failing to control their supporters. Action could and should have been taken straight away.

Plus of course they are the new media darlings having taken the mantle from the dirties.
 
Addison said:
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.
Click to expand...
Just to correct you, the security man testified that he was watching McBurnie put his hood up before attacking the dog nounce. To say there was a lack of security is an untruth :D
 
Flawed said:
We don’t have not proven verdicts in England. He is not guilty.
Click to expand...
Indeed, but judges often show what they are thinking by the way that they pronounce the verdict. Hence his reference to the case not being proved to the required level by the prosecution.
Interesting use of the word “flimsy” when referring to Brinkley’s evidence !
 
I have no doubt, in my mind, that the final few minutes went something like this....

<Judge Pyle> "Do you have any final thing to say Babez.....er, I mean Ms Judge?"

<Lisa Judge> "I would simply say this, your honor; take a look at that man over there, take a look at his kindly face, take a look at those eyes, do you really think he is capable of wrong doing?, is he a "rough diamond"?, yes, is he a "loveable rogue", yes, he is all of those things, but you are looking at a good man, a man loved by his employer, loved by his team mates, and most important of all, a man loved by the Blades fans throughout the length and breadth of this country, for let us not forget that that the good Lord himself said, "he is their striker, he is their number 9"..........."

<Judge Pyle turns and looks at Oli McB>

1671121184768.png

<Lisa Judge> "Now take a look at the other bloke"

1671121385259.png

<Judge Pyle looks over, and then turns back to look at Oli McB again, with a very stern look on his face.>

<Judge Pyle> "Now then young Oliver, do you have anything to say?.........."

<Oliver McBurnie> "Yes sir, <cheeky wink> please can I have some more?"

<Judge Pyle, face looking furious> "What?, do you think this is some sort of joke?, quoting Oliver Twist at me,......why I should......hang on..... <breaks into a smile>, how could you have known that was my favourite book? , answer me this one last question Oliver, is it true?, are your their striker?, are you their number 9?"

<Oliver McBurnie, with an angelic face> "Yes Sir".

<Judge Pyle, leans back in his chair and casually tosses his pen onto the desk>, "Why the bloody hell have you lot been wasting my time here, it's as plain as the nose on your face that this lad is innocent. Oliver, off you go lad, and don't let me see you again, in here, although the staff and I will be heading round the corner for a pint soon, so if you fancy joining, it's my round...."

<Oli McB> "Result!"
 

Addison said:
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.
Click to expand...
You seem to know the judicial system so I’ll chuck the question at you but open to anyone else with knowledge.

Situation…..
My son was hit by a lorry in roadworks ont M42. Car written-off he got non life threatening injuries. Witness supported son that it was lorry drivers fault. However, his employer (large well known transport company) decided to take it to court. Just before we went in they offered him a 75/25% blame split in his favour, he said no.
No contest, even though my sons brief only got file 30 mins before hearing (was switched to Nottingham court from Chesterfield at request of transport company’s brief on the day) it was judged as lorry drivers fault 100% and legal costs of £9,800 were awarded against the transport company.

£9,800 for a few minutes work by a young solicitor!!!

As we left I asked my sons brief who would have had to pay the legal costs if my son had lost, her quick cold reply shocked mre ”he would unless he had legal protection insurance”.

Now, back to McB. I assume a barrister for all the pre trial work and 2 days in court must have cost tens of thousands based on my sons experience. So, if his legal cost were say £25,000 who has to pay it? I seem to recall there was a big debate about legal costs in Cheds case.
 
Last edited:
Blade56 said:
You seem to know the judicial system so I’ll chuck the question at you but open to anyone else with knowledge.

Situation…..
My son was hit by a lorry in roadworks ont M42. Car written-off he got non life threatening injuries. Witness supported son that it was lorry drivers fault. However, his employer (large well known transport company) decided to take it to court. Just before we went in they offered him a 75/25% blame split in his favour, he said no.
No contest, even though my sons brief only got file 30 mins before hearing (was switched to Nottingham court from Chesterfield at request of transport company’s brief on the day) it was judged as lorry drivers fault 100% and legal costs of £9,800 were awarded against the transport company.

£9,800 for a few minutes work by a young solicitor!!!

As we left I asked my sons brief who would have had to pay the legal costs if my son had lost, her quick cold reply shocked mre ”he would unless he had legal protection insurance”.

Now, back to McB. I assume a barrister for all the pre trial work and 2 days in court must have cost tens of thousands based on my sons experience. So, if his legal cost were say £25,000 who has to pay it? I seem to recall there was a big debate about legal costs in Cheds case.
Click to expand...

You will probably find that the Florist fan was using the Legal Expenses cover under his household insurance policy if his "claim" was for personal injury...that said, LE Insurers would only get involved should they think the likelihood of success is above a certain percentage, usually 55% plus....
 
of course grateful it is not guilty. as i said at the time mcburnie has his faults we arent blind to them either. but its a ridiculous it went to court, as you cant be robbing a bank & then the sue them because you broke your ankle in the process. he shouldnt have been on the pitch on the 1st place. as football fans we know more than anyone that he is no angel because as fans we are no angels. because in my opinion he went on that pitch to provoke mcburnie because its what we saw in every match throughout that horrendous week of play off football. also i feel was heavily edited video

then i saw on bbc the bits on bbc website the cross examination showed him up for what it was. as we all know what "banter" means. just have take his word he had bruising. then had completely forgotten to say the 3 horrible messages he sent after full time. which appartantly was sent with zero malice

www.bbc.co.uk

Oli McBurnie: Fan feared for life after player stamp, court hears

Oli McBurnie denies assaulting George Brinkley during a pitch invasion after a play-off match.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk

temp 1.jpg
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
temp 2.png
 

Blade56 said:
You seem to know the judicial system so I’ll chuck the question at you but open to anyone else with knowledge.

Situation…..
My son was hit by a lorry in roadworks ont M42. Car written-off he got non life threatening injuries. Witness supported son that it was lorry drivers fault. However, his employer (large well known transport company) decided to take it to court. Just before we went in they offered him a 75/25% blame split in his favour, he said no.
No contest, even though my sons brief only got file 30 mins before hearing (was switched to Nottingham court from Chesterfield at request of transport company’s brief on the day) it was judged as lorry drivers fault 100% and legal costs of £9,800 were awarded against the transport company.

£9,800 for a few minutes work by a young solicitor!!!

As we left I asked my sons brief who would have had to pay the legal costs if my son had lost, her quick cold reply shocked mre ”he would unless he had legal protection insurance”.

Now, back to McB. I assume a barrister for all the pre trial work and 2 days in court must have cost tens of thousands based on my sons experience. So, if his legal cost were say £25,000 who has to pay it? I seem to recall there was a big debate about legal costs in Cheds case.
Click to expand...
According to those in the S24SU knowledge data base, the wages the club pays are low enough for him to claim legal aid (it was a criminal case, your son's case would have been a civil case)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

knowsnowt
53 million.
Replies
2
Views
621
Edgar Allan Poo
Edgar Allan Poo
COME BACK CHED
Kyle Bartley
2
Replies
37
Views
4K
Karaoke Blade
Karaoke Blade
Fjortoft's Aeroplane
  • Poll Poll
Brewster v O'hare
Replies
27
Views
2K
Agreasychipbutty
A
NAnstonblade
Brewster
2
Replies
59
Views
4K
Blademan89
Blademan89
R
Shackelele charged with Drink Driving
2 3 4
Replies
110
Views
8K
HarryHaslam
HarryHaslam

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