Diop Tehuti Djed-Hotep Spence

[Notcher]

It's why this shaking hands thing is a nonsense. Players are put in a no win situation. If they shake hands then they're shaking hands with someone who's been charged with rape and could be guilty. If they don't shake hands then they're potentially taking a stance against someone who might be completely innocent.

What is this shaking hands bollocks all about? I didn't want to shake hands with any opposition before a game, it's completely meaningless. I'll go and shake hands or speak to any of the opposition that I want to after the game.

 

[Aitor & The Snow Dog]

I don’t think I would want to shake hands with a bloke who has been charged with 6 counts of rape and one count of sexual assault on 4 different women, regardless of whether he ends up being one of the absolute tiny percentage of rapists in this country that get convicted or not.

So I don’t think the verdict really matters to me or quite possibly Djed Spence.

Every chance he gets off I suppose, once the defence barrister (almost certainly a woman) spends the whole trial tearing down the victims’ lives, past, sexual history, medical history, professional life, what they were wearing, going through their phones and all sorts of other itrelevant information to basically paint them all as sluts/gold diggers/liars (or all three).

It’s not difficult to convince a couple of people on a jury when so many people in general have such outdated, incorrect and biased views on rape, consent and sexual violence.

Probably why rape is so prevalent but rape convictions are so low…..

Paragraph 3 may represent in certain aspects the way rape trials were conducted several moons ago, but nearly all of the practices you describe there are now in the history books.

Rape complaints have gone through the roof, for sure. That's not the same as rape itself being especially prevalent, of course.

The main reason the conviction rate is so low is inherent in the nature of an intimate act. Person A swears it happened, Person B says either it didn't or, more likely, that it happened but was consensual. When you have one person's word against another, it's understandable that the very high (and rightly high) barrier the prosecution has to clear to secure a conviction is problematic to the 12 good people and true.

 

[Statto]

Paragraph 3 may represent in certain aspects the way rape trials were conducted several moons ago, but nearly all of the practices you describe there are now in the history books.

Rape complaints have gone through the roof, for sure. That's not the same as rape itself being especially prevalent, of course.

The main reason the conviction rate is so low is inherent in the nature of an intimate act. Person A swears it happened, Person B says either it didn't or, more likely, that it happened but was consensual. When you have one person's word against another, it's understandable that the very high (and rightly high) barrier the prosecution has to clear to secure a conviction is problematic to the 12 good people and true.

Yes, and things like there being DNA present doesn't explain how it got there fully enough (because it could have legitimately got there consensually) as well as it being an intimate act meaning there probably won't be any witnesses to confirm; as you correctly point out, one person's word against another's, which doesn't mean proof beyond reasonable doubt.

It must be very difficult to get these cases to court in the first place and having done so for the evidence to be conclusive enough should the defendant try and contest it.

 

[FLC]

I’ve always been impressed by the way Djed has conducted himself. I’ve said it before but I’ll always remember Heckingbottom trying to wind him up in the playoff semi by throwing the ball at him and Djed just laughing.

 

[Master Yates]

Paragraph 3 may represent in certain aspects the way rape trials were conducted several moons ago, but nearly all of the practices you describe there are now in the history books.

Rape complaints have gone through the roof, for sure. That's not the same as rape itself being especially prevalent, of course.

The main reason the conviction rate is so low is inherent in the nature of an intimate act. Person A swears it happened, Person B says either it didn't or, more likely, that it happened but was consensual. When you have one person's word against another, it's understandable that the very high (and rightly high) barrier the prosecution has to clear to secure a conviction is problematic to the 12 good people and true.

It wasn't "several moons ago" when it happened exactly like that in a trial that I had a personal interest in about 3 and a half years ago.
Didn't work in that case though, despite the best efforts to smear the victim in any way possible. He got 7 years after about 40 minutes deliberation.

The main reason the conviction rate is so low is because people don't understand consent. Just look at any comments section of any social media post on the topic. These are the pool from which the "jury of your peers" is drawn - horrific. For example, the occasions where women completely make up a false allegation against a bloke for whatever reason are a tiny fraction of a percentage of all rape complaints, yet this seems to be the go-to response for a lot of (mainly) men whenever a rape is alleged.

 

[Statto]

It wasn't "several moons ago" when it happened exactly like that in a trial that I had a personal interest in about 3 and a half years ago.
Didn't work in that case though, despite the best efforts to smear the victim in any way possible. He got 7 years after about 40 minutes deliberation.

The main reason the conviction rate is so low is because people don't understand consent. Just look at any comments section of any social media post on the topic. These are the pool from which the "jury of your peers" is drawn - horrific. For example, the occasions where women completely make up a false allegation against a bloke for whatever reason are a tiny fraction of a percentage of all rape complaints, yet this seems to be the go-to response for a lot of (mainly) men whenever a rape is alleged.

AIUI the judge etc usually fills in the jury with any specific legal knowledge they need to make a verdict, but then there's still always going to be the possibility they don't make the right decision, even based on the facts they have being correct and enough to hint that they did it or otherwise

It's a huge down side to trials by jury, because you're asking 12 lay people to make a decision which probably not even lawyers would be sure of, and that is why we have appeals processes and several higher courts to help if something has gone wrong. The alternative probably still wouldn't be good though because then you'd just let the lawyers decide and there could be potential influences there which you don't presumably get with a jury. I suppose we already do something similar to that with magistrates but they have only a limited spectrum of offences which they can adjudicate on and also very clear guidelines on what they can do in terms of verdicts and sentencing.

I'm not exactly certain how someone would be able to define consent (or lack of) in these instances, but there is probably a test somewhere, and the jury will be given the knowledge of that to see if the facts they are presented are sufficient to decide or not. I don't remember where it was but one of the soaps did something a few years ago where they presented an incident as "well she didn't say no" but then she was like "well she didn't say yes either"... so where do you go? Do you need to wait for a yes to be sure of consent (probably most likely to be the sensible way) or just go ahead and no push back equals consent? If you're looking at the latter then you're at best implying consent which isn't clear cut and always carries the risk they just go through it anyway because they're scared of saying no or don't really feel they are in a position to.

 

[Master Yates]

AIUI the judge etc usually fills in the jury with any specific legal knowledge they need to make a verdict, but then there's still always going to be the possibility they don't make the right decision, even based on the facts they have being correct and enough to hint that they did it or otherwise

It's a huge down side to trials by jury, because you're asking 12 lay people to make a decision which probably not even lawyers would be sure of, and that is why we have appeals processes and several higher courts to help if something has gone wrong. The alternative probably still wouldn't be good though because then you'd just let the lawyers decide and there could be potential influences there which you don't presumably get with a jury. I suppose we already do something similar to that with magistrates but they have only a limited spectrum of offences which they can adjudicate on and also very clear guidelines on what they can do in terms of verdicts and sentencing.

I'm not exactly certain how someone would be able to define consent (or lack of) in these instances, but there is probably a test somewhere, and the jury will be given the knowledge of that to see if the facts they are presented are sufficient to decide or not. I don't remember where it was but one of the soaps did something a few years ago where they presented an incident as "well she didn't say no" but then she was like "well she didn't say yes either"... so where do you go? Do you need to wait for a yes to be sure of consent (probably most likely to be the sensible way) or just go ahead and no push back equals consent? If you're looking at the latter then you're at best implying consent which isn't clear cut and always carries the risk they just go through it anyway because they're scared of saying no or don't really feel they are in a position to.

It's not implied consent that I was talking about - it's the sizeable proportion of blokes who think that if a girl wears a short skirt she is "asking for it" or if a girl goes back to a bloke's then she has consented to everything after that point or that if a girl originally consents then changes her mind and says "stop" that the bloke doesn't have to, or that if a girl consents to sex with one bloke then his mate can just join in if he feels like it, plus many, many other shockingly common perceptions of consent that continue among general society.

If you want a truly terrifying insight into the lack of comprehension of facts and justice from some people serving on a jury, (or just the plain stupidity of some) just serve on a jury. That experience will be enough to terrify you should you ever find yourself in court.

 

[thermopyl]

It's not implied consent that I was talking about - it's the sizeable proportion of blokes who think that if a girl wears a short skirt she is "asking for it" or if a girl goes back to a bloke's then she has consented to everything after that point or that if a girl originally consents then changes her mind and says "stop" that the bloke doesn't have to, or that if a girl consents to sex with one bloke then his mate can just join in if he feels like it, plus many, many other shockingly common perceptions of consent that continue among general society.

If you want a truly terrifying insight into the lack of comprehension of facts and justice from some people serving on a jury, (or just the plain stupidity of some) just serve on a jury. That experience will be enough to terrify you should you ever find yourself in court.

i've done Jury service twice.

On both occasions one selected Juror could barely write never mind spell. On the last one he was told to bring ID so brought a Tesco Clubcard.
I also saw people living out some weird cosplay in the deliberations, based on US TV shows they'd watched.
Nightmare

 

[Master Yates]

i've done Jury service twice.

On both occasions one selected Juror could barely write never mind spell. On the last one he was told to bring ID so brought a Tesco Clubcard.
I also saw people living out some weird cosplay in the deliberations, based on US TV shows they'd watched.
Nightmare

You want to serve on a jury at coroner's court mate - it's quite an experience.

The jury get to ask questions during the inquest - written down and read out by the coroner for all to hear. Some of the questions..... good lord. At least in a criminal trial the morons keep their idiotic thoughts within the jury room. At coroners court they get to broadcast them to all, via the quite often confused and exasperated coroner.

Facepalm moments aplenty

 

[Rubics]

You want to serve on a jury at coroner's court mate - it's quite an experience.

The jury get to ask questions during the inquest - written down and read out by the coroner for all to hear. Some of the questions..... good lord. At least in a criminal trial the morons keep their idiotic thoughts within the jury room. At coroners court they get to broadcast them to all, via the quite often confused and exasperated coroner.

Facepalm moments aplenty

About 3 weeks ago the Mrs opened a letter and announced she’d been called up to jury service - at which point I advised that hanging was the only sensible verdict for whatever the scrote will have done! (I’d soon sort the backlog out and free up a few prison places for the great unwashed)

She then let me know it was the coroners court - starts middle of July and she’s booked holiday off work as her employer is being a dick head about it and she wants to do it. Just let her know she gets to ask questions, and she’s hoping she gets picked.

 

[Aitor & The Snow Dog]

There is a great joke about how to get off jury service but to tell it would get me a permanent ban at the very least.

 

[Strummer]

There is a great joke about how to get off jury service but to tell it would get me a permanent ban at the very least.

Oh I don’t know….

 

[Statto]

It's not implied consent that I was talking about - it's the sizeable proportion of blokes who think that if a girl wears a short skirt she is "asking for it" or if a girl goes back to a bloke's then she has consented to everything after that point or that if a girl originally consents then changes her mind and says "stop" that the bloke doesn't have to, or that if a girl consents to sex with one bloke then his mate can just join in if he feels like it, plus many, many other shockingly common perceptions of consent that continue among general society.

If you want a truly terrifying insight into the lack of comprehension of facts and justice from some people serving on a jury, (or just the plain stupidity of some) just serve on a jury. That experience will be enough to terrify you should you ever find yourself in court.

Oh I totally get that, it's just general attitudes which are questionable to say the least, along with a whole load of entitlement that what they want is more important than what anyone else wants, we see this all the time with some people, it's all about them and what they want and what anyone else wants isn't important.

But we can't expect the people on juries to be legal experts - they're not going to be. That's kind of the point, 12 people literally plucked off the streets are told what happened and what the law is and they then decide. I guess there's the expectation that the design of the process means that those who aren't complete muppets will be able to talk around those who are...

 

[HappyHappyJoyJoy]

There is a great joke about how to get off jury service but to tell it would get me a permanent ban at the very least.

 

[Master Yates]

About 3 weeks ago the Mrs opened a letter and announced she’d been called up to jury service - at which point I advised that hanging was the only sensible verdict for whatever the scrote will have done! (I’d soon sort the backlog out and free up a few prison places for the great unwashed)

She then let me know it was the coroners court - starts middle of July and she’s booked holiday off work as her employer is being a dick head about it and she wants to do it. Just let her know she gets to ask questions, and she’s hoping she gets picked.

They do pay expenses if I recall correctly, but obviously that's not much.

It's a bit of a weird concept as they just sort of launch into the events leading to the death, but not necessarily in chronological order, and without any kind of overall summary of who died, what happened and what you are there to decide. So early on there are lots of questions that in hindsight, are pretty irrelevant, but you feel you need to ask to try and get a feel for what is going on.

The questions though - jeez. In the case I sat on, some poor bloke standing at a zebra crossing had been mown down by gang members in a rental car, but inexplicably, despite CCTV and a police car in pursuit, they couldn't identify the driver to charge him with death by dangerous driving. All 3 of these idiots were called as witnesses, and all appeared via videolink from various HMPs, where they all denied any memory of the incident at all.

The questions from my fellow jury members - "Were you driving the car?", "who was driving the car?" etc. Genius - you've cracked it Colombo. Forced a confession from hardened gang bangers with your rapier-like interrogation skills at the inquest.

I think one of the questions was something like "how do you sleep at night?" or "don't you feel bad?" or some such nonsense. There were more that must have been even more idiotic because the coroner read them and said "I am not reading that one out"

 

[isaacs]

Apparently not in De Zerbis plans........

 

[Master Yates]

Apparently not in De Zerbis plans........

I'd happily take Djed back for the right price. He's got 4 years on Aina and can play both sides. Plus we already know he isn't dog shit

 

[Marco Pascolo]

Take him back in a heart beat if the fee is right for us, Plus means his mum will be back within the Forest faithful

 

[Monkman]

Plus he'll flush out any wrong'uns.

 

[Rubics]

They do pay expenses if I recall correctly, but obviously that's not much.

It's a bit of a weird concept as they just sort of launch into the events leading to the death, but not necessarily in chronological order, and without any kind of overall summary of who died, what happened and what you are there to decide. So early on there are lots of questions that in hindsight, are pretty irrelevant, but you feel you need to ask to try and get a feel for what is going on.

The questions though - jeez. In the case I sat on, some poor bloke standing at a zebra crossing had been mown down by gang members in a rental car, but inexplicably, despite CCTV and a police car in pursuit, they couldn't identify the driver to charge him with death by dangerous driving. All 3 of these idiots were called as witnesses, and all appeared via videolink from various HMPs, where they all denied any memory of the incident at all.

The questions from my fellow jury members - "Were you driving the car?", "who was driving the car?" etc. Genius - you've cracked it Colombo. Forced a confession from hardened gang bangers with your rapier-like interrogation skills at the inquest.

I think one of the questions was something like "how do you sleep at night?" or "don't you feel bad?" or some such nonsense. There were more that must have been even more idiotic because the coroner read them and said "I am not reading that one out"

Just read her that - she’s really looking forward to it strangely. She’s just hoping it’s nothing to do with maternity / babies etc.
I’ll let you know how she gets on.

 

[Strummer]

Apparently not in De Zerbis plans........

Which again proves de Zerbi is an idiot.

 

[It's Baggio]

Would take him back 100%, especially if VP fancies a back 3.

 

[Aitor & The Snow Dog]

View attachment 60987

Way worse than that.

 

[StanleyVictorCollywobbles]

I wouldn’t hate it if we are playing a back 5.

I don’t fancy him in a back 4 though. Also likely a hefty transfer fee for a player that would be behind both Aina and Neco, not sure he’s a priority when we don’t have Europe to worry about

If he hadn’t previously been here it wouldn’t even be crossing our minds.

 

[Statto]

I wouldn’t hate it if we are playing a back 5.

I don’t fancy him in a back 4 though. Also likely a hefty transfer fee for a player that would be behind both Aina and Neco, not sure he’s a priority when we don’t have Europe to worry about

If he hadn’t previously been here it wouldn’t even be crossing our minds.

I think he's better than Aina and Neco, and like both of them can play both sides as well, and possibly further forwards, which increases our options in a 25 player squad.

If the price was right I'd definitely think it would be a good move. Spurs are presumably still a bit of a mess and RDZ is going to take a while to settle it if he is actually even going to but he's not let them down (once he'd got out of being loaned out all the time).

Cheeky swoop for Djed, Bergvall and Gray with lets say 40m combined would be a good deal...