Further media interest re Morgan

Following the email from the F.A, I have been in contact with a national daily newspaper who say they are interested in running with the story. An article will probably be on their website this Friday and may or may not make the paper itself. I'll post a link if/when it happens.

 

Sounds good. Keep it in the news.

 

Good work mate. Check out signature 3059.

</p>

http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?ThugsOut&amp;1</p>

 

RE:Windy

Has your petition been passed on to South Yorkshires finest yet and if so whats been there reaction.

 

RE:Windy

</p>

Not interested, nor was the FA. The idea now is that the petition may beof some useto Iain Hume or BFC in a civil action.</p>

 

I always thought that if one person filed a complaint to the police they had to act.How can they just dismiss a 3.000 plus petition is beyond belief.

 

Police are a law unto themselves

specially now they've got the government in their pocket.</p>

We should be callin em Brownies instead o' Bobbies.
</p>

 

Dibble contacted Ian Hume and BFC, neither wanted the police to persue charges against Morgan.

 

It's not the number of people

it's the key people that make the difference.

You're right about the Police being duty bound to investigate, however what the public think "investigate" means and what the Police think it means are two different things. I'd wager that this happened when it was reported to SYP:

1. Incident created on force computer.
2. Incident assigned to officer(s).
3. Said officer(s) discouraged from proceeding with case as no victim statement so CPS won't touch it in case they lose at court.
4. Incident is filed under "NFA".
5. All further complaints logged but still stay under "NFA".

If you think that's sh*tty system, bear it in mind next time you go and vote

 

I would have thought that everybody forced to watch an assault would be a victim

what right did chris morgan have to force me to watch somebody getting their skull fractured?

 

I get what you mean but

To prove assault in court they'd have to prove that you believed that you personally were going to be subject to immediate violence from Chris Morgan or for affray they'd have to prove that Morgan's action directly put you in immediate fear of your personal safety. There's not a court in the world that would buy that unfortunately.

If Hume had wanted to pursue it SYP would have taken it further but it's like domestic violence cases where the only victim doesn't want to press charges or doesn't turn up to court so the prosecution have no case and the wifebeater walks free. It's the downside of innocent til proven guilty unfortunately (N)

 

but i don't understand

why somebody who takes a swing at someone in the street in front of police will be charged under a public order offence yet morgan wasnt

 

For murder and manslaughter

the complainant is the Crown.

Not all offences need victims to carry their weight at court, but all the ones mentioned re: Morgan & Hume such as assault, affray, ABH, GBH etc generally won't go anywhere if the victim doesn't complain.

If you put yourself in the shoes of Morgan's defence lawyer (and bear in mind Morgan is innocent til proven guilty in court) the fact that the victim doesn't even make a statement or want to prosecute is solid gold to a defence case, and there are no bigger b@stards in the world for milking things like defence lawyers.

 

RE: For murder and manslaughter

Spoken like a true copper.

Wont take a case against someone who smashed a persons skull in, but lie in wait at the bottom of hills with a speed cameras.

 

How do you actually know that they are all genuine signatures, and if there is the possibility of adding fictitious names, why would anyone take the petition seriously

 

RE: but i don't understand

The big difference is between the street and the football pitch. In the street taking a swing at someone would see you being locked up for assault without a doubt and if Morgan had elbowed Hume in the street he would have been nicked, charged and almost certainly found guilty.

However there are built-in defences when an assault takes place in sports (otherwise almost everyone playing a contact sport would be committing a criminal offence) which basically says that if the assault is what you could have reasonably expected to take place when you took to the field, then you indirectly consented to it.

Obviously the assault on Hume was outside the boundaries of the rules and so the sporting defence might not apply to help Morgan. There was a test case a few years ago where in a Sunday League game a player kicked another one and broke his leg. The guy who did it was convicted of GBH but his conviction was quashed on appeal and the High Court issued guidelines saying that it is preferable that a sport's own governing body can apply its own discipline (or not, in this case) and since civil action is open to the victim, it is not in the public interest for the Police and CPS to pursue criminal prosecutions for on the field sporting events. That's the guidance from a High Court judge so the police and CPS can't really argue with it.

Personally I believe that Morgan assaulted Hume however Morgan could quite easily win the case based on the sporting defence, even though elbowing is outside the rules of the game, since you could prove in court that elbowing is something that you could reasonably expect to happen in the course of a football match. It would ultimately be up to a jury to decide but the chances of losing the case are very high so Morgan would walk away. Civil case would be the best option.

 

Cops have no choice

if a judge says it's so, it's so.

In any case the CPS make the decision whether or not to prosecute and charge, not the police.

 

Not this time. SYP decision not CPS.

At the end of the day it comes down to the National Crime Recording Standards. I would imagine that the case has been looked at very carefully by a senior detective who has spoken with Ian Hume and his family. If the Hume family don't want a criminal prosecution, I dare say that the SYP have complied with the NCRS and not recorded a crime as per Ian Hume's wishes. And who are we as 'fans' to go against the wishes of the man himself and his family?

On the balance of probabilities has a criminal offence been committed? I would say so, most people agree with me - but if the victim states that he doesn't think so, that's it. End of. It's not like an issue domestic violence where we have reason to doubt his inclination - he is clearly not vulnerable or intimidated, he does not appear to be under duress and there is no on going threat of harm to him (and by that I do not mean a relapse of condition, I mean a secondary attack). Therefore, we ought to respect his wishes - as much as we may disagree with it.

I would imagine that this has gone absolutely nowhere near the CPS, and I absolutely agree with S.Y.P. in the decision they have taken to allow Ian Hume to make his own decision on the matter. It does not stop either Barnsley F.C. or Ian Hume seeking a civil remedy.

I might get criticised for this, but I'm not bothered. South Yorkshire Police have done what was right by Ian Hume. If it's good enough for Ian Hume - it should be good enough for us.

 

You could say that about any petition ?

But a petition has proved benificial in the past.