Brewster and McBurnie Charged

[brownblade]

It's true. Just completely unnecessary to cast any doubts in anybody's mind, that you're not being truthful.

The "learning to walk again" thing sounded unnecessary as well. Over the top detail... a bit like you feel guilty.

Also weird to deny you're angry, when you have every reason to be angry. Sounds unbelievable, which is not ideal when you're on trial for something.

 

[bartman]

Also weird to deny you're angry, when you have every reason to be angry. Sounds unbelievable, which is not ideal when you're on trial for something.

In fairness, he says he was gutted and then was concerned about his team mates

 

[Yogi]

The prosecutor says: "You went over there for a fight didn't you?"

McBurnie replies: "Definitely not".

I know Oli doesn't come over as the brightest but I can't imagine someone wearing a boot whilst recovering from 3 fractured metatarsals would be looking for a fight. Would he?

I’d also like to know why if he was looking for a fight he’d have to go anywhere there was hardly a scarcity of Forest fans to have a pop at.

 

[brownblade]

I'm hoping Oli gets off. I'm not a lawyer etc.
And importantly I'm only reading snippets from a Nottingham based journalist.... I'd just rather he'd used some different phrasing.

 

[Mojo]

Prosecution sound like absolute muppets. "You're lying aren't you?" Top notch questioning there

 

[Bladey_blade]

It is all the prosecution have to ask OM...'oh yes you did, oh no i didn't'

It is suggested McBurnie is lying​

The prosecutor suggests: "Your lying aren't you?"
McBurnie replies: "I'm telling the truth, no".



12:21REBECCA SHERDLEY

McBurnie denies his team mates dragged him away​

McBurnie is being shown the film again and denies that his team mates had to drag him away from Mr Brinkley.

138415682727
12:13REBECCA SHERDLEY

McBurnie continues to profess his innocence​

More questions are asked.
The prosecutor says: "You went over there for a fight didn't you?"
McBurnie replies: "Definitely not".


12:05REBECCA SHERDLEY

McBurnie denies stamping on Mr Brinkley​

The prosecutor continues asking questions.
He suggests McBurnie's right foor stamped on Mr Brinkley but McBurnie replies, "100% not".

What kind of questioning is that?

 

[Chingo]

I'm hoping Oli gets off. I'm not a lawyer etc.
And importantly I'm only reading snippets from a Nottingham based journalist.... I'd just rather he'd used some different phrasing.

I’m glad there isn’t a jury and you’re on it lol

 

[S64 Blade]

Prosecution sound like absolute muppets. "You're lying aren't you?" Top notch questioning there

“I’m not lying bbz”

 

[Dkc]

Worst case scenario he won't serve any time for it. Will he?

 

[Chingo]

Worst case scenario he won't serve any time for it. Will he?

Who’s knows the rules seem to change when Sheff U are involved!

 

[Trigger Blade]

Worst case scenario he won't serve any time for it. Will he?

No, he’ll be tagged and have to report to a police station when the red and white wizards are playing.

 

[bibbity bobbity boo]

Personal abuse infractions are for transgressions against people who are on the forum.

If he is on here, I'd like to know who he is so I can ban him for crimes against fashion.

So you would ban him for crimes of fashion but fingering his dogs arse is fair game?

 

[stringjunior]

Gone to Villa.

Deserves more likes

 

[Westran]

Assault occasioning actual bodily harm / Racially or religiously aggravated ABH – Sentencing

www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk

The prosecutor's are working towards trying to prove a charge that fits into the highest possible category in the sentencing guidelines. They're categorised from A-C for culpability and 1-3 for harm.

It seems from the focus on him getting revenge for what the alleged victim had said earlier, and also his claim that he suffered psychological and physical injuries, that the prosecution are pushing for what would be categorised as B - medium culpability and category 3 for harm.

Sentencing is further determined by previous convictions, he has one for drink driving but it doesn't have relevance on this charge so wouldn't be taken into consideration.

Sentencing can be custodial, community orders and fines dependant on category. For B3, the starting point is a high level community order and a fine.

Looking at the above and the case so far, I think it's weak at best, likely to be C3 with starting point of medium level community order

Edit - if found guilty in the first place, which I don't think he will be

 

[Klaatu Barada Nikto]

Maybe this helps
View attachment 149290

Dog looks over the age of dog consent to me, so is nonce the right term?

 

[Dkc]

Assault occasioning actual bodily harm / Racially or religiously aggravated ABH – Sentencing

www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk

The prosecutor's are working towards trying to prove a charge that fits into the highest possible category in the sentencing guidelines. They're categorised from A-C for culpability and 1-3 for harm.

It seems from the focus on him getting revenge for what the alleged victim had said earlier, and also his claim that he suffered psychological and physical injuries, that the prosecution are pushing for what would be categorised as B - medium culpability and category 3 for harm.

Sentencing is further determined by previous convictions, he has one for drink driving but it doesn't have relevance on this charge so wouldn't be taken into consideration.

Sentencing can be custodial, community orders and fines dependant on category. For B3, the starting point is a high level community order and a fine.

Looking at the above and the case so far, I think it's weak at best, likely to be C3 with starting point of medium level community order

Edit - if found guilty in the first place, which I don't think he will be

Doesn't he have a caution for assault too?

He won't serve any time, but if he's found guilty then commits a similar offence in the future he might be.

 

[Carlton Blade]

So we can't call him Dog Nonce then?

We need Roygbiv to do a View From to see what they're saying over on the Forest Forum.

Tree Nonces

 

[Westran]

Doesn't he have a caution for assault too?

He won't serve any time, but if he's found guilty then commits a similar offence in the future he might be.

Not sure, his wiki says that 2 of the men involved in the phone stamping incident we're given cautions, but doesn't say that one of then was OB

 

[derfblade.3]

6 Mins ago....

McBurnie tells assault trial he tried to jump over fan to protect injury

The Scotland striker told court that he had his foot, which was broken six weeks previous, in a boot and attempted to hop over Nottingham Forest fan

www.mirror.co.uk

 

[Tom Bott]

Don’t call the Solicitor babes would be my advice

Sweetcheeks ok?

 

[skyjam]

oreyt Fred keep us updated mate

 

[Tom Bott]

Weerz "View From Court Room" thread?

First ...

Just in case.

 

[Torrix1889]

The defence case has closed. The prosecutor, Simon Jones, is addressing Judge Leo Pyle. He says the prosecution case is that the video (which went viral) shows the immediate aftermath of the stamps.

"We don't say that footage shows the stamps. That footage clearly shows the stamping motion and the anger".

 

[mattbianco1]

The defence case has closed. The prosecutor, Simon Jones, is addressing Judge Leo Pyle. He says the prosecution case is that the video (which went viral) shows the immediate aftermath of the stamps.

"We don't say that footage shows the stamps. That footage clearly shows the stamping motion and the anger".

WTF?!?

If that's the aftermath, then there is no case, surely? Brewster drags him to the ground, McBurnie stands over him (stamps maybe)... but if this is the aftermath, there is no video of the actual event.

But the video shot from the stands shows it from a wider angle. There is no "before" this video.

Am i missing something?

 

[El Volví]

There is so much about this photograph that gives me the ick.

Wellies.
Wellies with tracksuit bottoms.
The shit dog.
That straight mouth smile/grimace.
The wind tunnel hair.

Married to the fact that he's apparently an absolute utter fanny who gets traumatised by a bruise on his shin as well as being a fucking part-timer.

Nope.

ETA: He gives me Mr Tumble vibes. Nope nope nope.

 

[bartman]

WTF?!?

If that's the aftermath, then there is no case, surely? Brewster drags him to the ground, McBurnie stands over him (stamps maybe)... but if this is the aftermath, there is no video of the actual event.

But the video shot from the stands shows it from a wider angle. There is no "before" this video.

Am i missing something?

from the footage, how can you tell that a 'stamping motion' is in anger.....even thou they can't prove there was a stamp ?

 

[Hitchin]

Different to ABH I think, but I’m no legal expert. Might ABH need to go to Crown Court?



No thera different variations of common assault. ABH can also be dealt with at Mags Court.

 

[Tom Bott]

Also weird to deny you're angry, when you have every reason to be angry.

Anger at losing a sporting fixture is what causes trouble.


Disappointed - yes.

 

[El Volví]

WTF?!?

If that's the aftermath, then there is no case, surely? Brewster drags him to the ground, McBurnie stands over him (stamps maybe)... but if this is the aftermath, there is no video of the actual event.

But the video shot from the stands shows it from a wider angle. There is no "before" this video.

Am i missing something?

It does seem like a 'clutching at straws' type of prosecution!

 

[Sean Thornton]

Also weird to deny you're angry, when you have every reason to be angry. Sounds unbelievable, which is not ideal when you're on trial for something.

M’learned friend Mr Brownblade appears for the prosecution.