Fordy62 Posted October 15, 2022 Author Report Share Posted October 15, 2022 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-63269379 Interesting development this morning. Arrested for breaching bail. This will give us a good idea of how the CPS view GMP’s case… the arrest for breach of bail forces the urgency of a charging decision. We’ll know more very soon I’d have thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Posted October 15, 2022 Report Share Posted October 15, 2022 Really not looking good for him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fordy62 Posted October 15, 2022 Author Report Share Posted October 15, 2022 3 minutes ago, Super said: Really not looking good for him. Well… we don’t know… we know that he’s probably breached his bail, but actually that doesn’t matter too much, it’s more of an administrationy kind of thing… I could go into the ins and outs… in fact **** it… imagine you were arrested shoplifting in Asda. You did it, but you don’t admit it. You don’t have any previous. The police get a statement from a 2 members of staff who saw you do it and detained you, but the Cctv operator isn’t there to download the footage and can’t be within the 24 hours the police have to charge you. Now, they cannot charge you because they’re missing the Cctv. They need all key evidence to make a charging decision - after all the Cctv might attest to your innocence. Now because they haven’t got it and because they can’t get it in them, they have to release you on bail. Because you’ve got no previous, then bail has to be the assumption. You have conditions to not go to Asda, to not contact the two members of staff who detained you and to live and sleep at your home address. Let’s say that night you go to Asda. A clear breach of your bail conditions. The police arrest you from Asda. There still hasn’t been time for the police to get hold of the Cctv footage, but because you’ve breached your bail conditions the games changes as to how it was before. You’ve now shown a tendency to have little regard for bail and the police can now making a charging decision on a lower threshold of evidence than before because you went back to Asda. So you’d probably now get charged with theft and kept in custody overnight to go to court the next day. When Greenwood was initially released on bail that meant that the police needed to get every single shred of evidence before CPs would consider charging him. Absolutely every minute detail. Because now he’s breached his bail (I don’t know how - let’s say he’s contacted the complainant) this ups his risk factor to interfere with justice. So now the police need good evidence to charge, but not necessarily all of it as they had required previously. They’ll obviously have to get all evidence for trial, but this could be done while he’s on remand. Like I said, the next 24 hours are crucial and will give us a big steer as to what the current level of evidence is like. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phileas Fogg Posted October 15, 2022 Report Share Posted October 15, 2022 7 minutes ago, Fordy62 said: Well… we don’t know… we know that he’s probably breached his bail, but actually that doesn’t matter too much, it’s more of an administrationy kind of thing… I could go into the ins and outs… in fact **** it… imagine you were arrested shoplifting in Asda. You did it, but you don’t admit it. You don’t have any previous. The police get a statement from a 2 members of staff who saw you do it and detained you, but the Cctv operator isn’t there to download the footage and can’t be within the 24 hours the police have to charge you. Now, they cannot charge you because they’re missing the Cctv. They need all key evidence to make a charging decision - after all the Cctv might attest to your innocence. Now because they haven’t got it and because they can’t get it in them, they have to release you on bail. Because you’ve got no previous, then bail has to be the assumption. You have conditions to not go to Asda, to not contact the two members of staff who detained you and to live and sleep at your home address. Let’s say that night you go to Asda. A clear breach of your bail conditions. The police arrest you from Asda. There still hasn’t been time for the police to get hold of the Cctv footage, but because you’ve breached your bail conditions the games changes as to how it was before. You’ve now shown a tendency to have little regard for bail and the police can now making a charging decision on a lower threshold of evidence than before because you went back to Asda. So you’d probably now get charged with theft and kept in custody overnight to go to court the next day. When Greenwood was initially released on bail that meant that the police needed to get every single shred of evidence before CPs would consider charging him. Absolutely every minute detail. Because now he’s breached his bail (I don’t know how - let’s say he’s contacted the complainant) this ups his risk factor to interfere with justice. So now the police need good evidence to charge, but not necessarily all of it as they had required previously. They’ll obviously have to get all evidence for trial, but this could be done while he’s on remand. Like I said, the next 24 hours are crucial and will give us a big steer as to what the current level of evidence is like. In this instance, I imagine the bolded bit would be quite convoluted - for example sending her a Snapchat or liking an Instagram story? Or would it be more clear cut? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leveller Posted October 15, 2022 Report Share Posted October 15, 2022 Media comments suggest it involves contacting the complainant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe jordans teeth Posted October 15, 2022 Report Share Posted October 15, 2022 8 minutes ago, Fordy62 said: Well… we don’t know… we know that he’s probably breached his bail, but actually that doesn’t matter too much, it’s more of an administrationy kind of thing… I could go into the ins and outs… in fact **** it… imagine you were arrested shoplifting in Asda. You did it, but you don’t admit it. You don’t have any previous. The police get a statement from a 2 members of staff who saw you do it and detained you, but the Cctv operator isn’t there to download the footage and can’t be within the 24 hours the police have to charge you. Now, they cannot charge you because they’re missing the Cctv. They need all key evidence to make a charging decision - after all the Cctv might attest to your innocence. Now because they haven’t got it and because they can’t get it in them, they have to release you on bail. Because you’ve got no previous, then bail has to be the assumption. You have conditions to not go to Asda, to not contact the two members of staff who detained you and to live and sleep at your home address. Let’s say that night you go to Asda. A clear breach of your bail conditions. The police arrest you from Asda. There still hasn’t been time for the police to get hold of the Cctv footage, but because you’ve breached your bail conditions the games changes as to how it was before. You’ve now shown a tendency to have little regard for bail and the police can now making a charging decision on a lower threshold of evidence than before because you went back to Asda. So you’d probably now get charged with theft and kept in custody overnight to go to court the next day. When Greenwood was initially released on bail that meant that the police needed to get every single shred of evidence before CPs would consider charging him. Absolutely every minute detail. Because now he’s breached his bail (I don’t know how - let’s say he’s contacted the complainant) this ups his risk factor to interfere with justice. So now the police need good evidence to charge, but not necessarily all of it as they had required previously. They’ll obviously have to get all evidence for trial, but this could be done while he’s on remand. Like I said, the next 24 hours are crucial and will give us a big steer as to what the current level of evidence is like. Last time I nick a pair of Asda George pants then 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonBristolian Posted October 15, 2022 Report Share Posted October 15, 2022 1 minute ago, joe jordans teeth said: Last time I nick a pair of Asda George pants then You'd have got away with it if you hadn't immediately changed into them, right in the middle of the aisle... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedorDead BCFC Posted October 15, 2022 Report Share Posted October 15, 2022 (edited) 5 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said: You'd have got away with it if you hadn't immediately changed into them, right in the middle of the aisle... Ironic that you see people eat part of the French loaf whilst waiting in line to be served, they are buying no questions asked. But change into a clean pair of boxers in the line everyone complains. Edited October 15, 2022 by RedorDead BCFC 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robinforlife2 Posted October 15, 2022 Report Share Posted October 15, 2022 36 minutes ago, Fordy62 said: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-63269379 Interesting development this morning. Arrested for breaching bail. This will give us a good idea of how the CPS view GMP’s case… the arrest for breach of bail forces the urgency of a charging decision. We’ll know more very soon I’d have thought. Given he has breached bail, wouldn't most people be put on a tag or remanded for something like that ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cityal Posted October 15, 2022 Report Share Posted October 15, 2022 3 minutes ago, RedorDead BCFC said: Ironic that you see people eat part of the French loaf whilst waiting in line to be served, they are buying no questions asked. But change into a clean pair of boxers in the line everyone complains. I guess most people having a nibble in the queue are not (to quote blackadder) "tackle out" 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fordy62 Posted October 15, 2022 Author Report Share Posted October 15, 2022 (edited) 16 minutes ago, robinforlife2 said: Given he has breached bail, wouldn't most people be put on a tag or remanded for something like that ? 2 types of bail. Police and court. court can tag people. Police cannot. He’s on police bail so no tag. Both can remand but the police remand is after charge and only for one night to attend court the next morning where the court make the longer term remand decision. But the remand can only take place once he’s charged. Edited October 15, 2022 by Fordy62 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe jordans teeth Posted October 15, 2022 Report Share Posted October 15, 2022 37 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said: You'd have got away with it if you hadn't immediately changed into them, right in the middle of the aisle... I hung my Calvin’s in it’s place,granted they had holes everywhere and chocolate stains but someone will appreciate them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
!james Posted October 15, 2022 Report Share Posted October 15, 2022 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fixit Posted October 15, 2022 Report Share Posted October 15, 2022 Greenwood has now been charged, so the usual legal restrictions now apply. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Red Posted October 15, 2022 Report Share Posted October 15, 2022 3 hours ago, Fordy62 said: Well… we don’t know… we know that he’s probably breached his bail, but actually that doesn’t matter too much, it’s more of an administrationy kind of thing… I could go into the ins and outs… in fact **** it… imagine you were arrested shoplifting in Asda. You did it, but you don’t admit it. You don’t have any previous. The police get a statement from a 2 members of staff who saw you do it and detained you, but the Cctv operator isn’t there to download the footage and can’t be within the 24 hours the police have to charge you. Now, they cannot charge you because they’re missing the Cctv. They need all key evidence to make a charging decision - after all the Cctv might attest to your innocence. Now because they haven’t got it and because they can’t get it in them, they have to release you on bail. Because you’ve got no previous, then bail has to be the assumption. You have conditions to not go to Asda, to not contact the two members of staff who detained you and to live and sleep at your home address. Let’s say that night you go to Asda. A clear breach of your bail conditions. The police arrest you from Asda. There still hasn’t been time for the police to get hold of the Cctv footage, but because you’ve breached your bail conditions the games changes as to how it was before. You’ve now shown a tendency to have little regard for bail and the police can now making a charging decision on a lower threshold of evidence than before because you went back to Asda. So you’d probably now get charged with theft and kept in custody overnight to go to court the next day. When Greenwood was initially released on bail that meant that the police needed to get every single shred of evidence before CPs would consider charging him. Absolutely every minute detail. Because now he’s breached his bail (I don’t know how - let’s say he’s contacted the complainant) this ups his risk factor to interfere with justice. So now the police need good evidence to charge, but not necessarily all of it as they had required previously. They’ll obviously have to get all evidence for trial, but this could be done while he’s on remand. Like I said, the next 24 hours are crucial and will give us a big steer as to what the current level of evidence is like. I assume this is what's happened here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexukhc Posted October 15, 2022 Report Share Posted October 15, 2022 Apparently been living with the victim the last 4 months and they was getting back together and she wanted to drop charges.. though I did read that on twitter and I don’t believe everything I read. after what we saw and heard him do to her, he deserves huge punishment, if guilty that is… scum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheltons Army Posted October 15, 2022 Report Share Posted October 15, 2022 (edited) 2 minutes ago, alexukhc said: Apparently been living with the victim the last 4 months and they was getting back together and she wanted to drop charges.. though I did read that on twitter and I don’t believe everything I read. after what we saw and heard him do to her, he deserves huge punishment, if guilty that is… scum And if there is any truth to that , and it wouldn’t shock me She would need certifying Edited October 15, 2022 by Sheltons Army Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexukhc Posted October 15, 2022 Report Share Posted October 15, 2022 Just now, Sheltons Army said: And if there is any truth to that , and it wouldn’t shock me She needs certifying Sadly I agree, a similar situation happened with a friend, we all told her to keep away from this lad, but police weren’t doing anything and ended up going back with him after him saying he’d change, was sorry etc. did he? No, he changed for a few days, she has had to contact the police yet again and said boy is on the run Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheltons Army Posted October 15, 2022 Report Share Posted October 15, 2022 Just now, alexukhc said: Sadly I agree, a similar situation happened with a friend, we all told her to keep away from this lad, but police weren’t doing anything and ended up going back with him after him saying he’d change, was sorry etc. did he? No, he changed for a few days, she has had to contact the police yet again and said boy is on the run It happens a lot The first occurrence I have absolute , and every sympathy After that , I struggle to 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PHILINFRANCE Posted October 15, 2022 Report Share Posted October 15, 2022 8 minutes ago, alexukhc said: Apparently been living with the victim the last 4 months and they was getting back together and she wanted to drop charges.. though I did read that on twitter and I don’t believe everything I read. after what we saw and heard him do to her, he deserves huge punishment, if guilty that is… scum Hard to believe, if his bail conditions were as reported. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fordy62 Posted October 15, 2022 Author Report Share Posted October 15, 2022 25 minutes ago, Northern Red said: I assume this is what's happened here? I would guess so. I wonder on how many occasions he’s breached his bail? Because if your evidence isn’t up to scratch then there’s no point in acting on a breach because you just end up bailing again. I suspect he’ll get remanded on Monday by the Mags court and then bailed at his first crown court hearing - which i bet will be Tuesday/Wednesday. Court will set conditions then and that’s a whole new ball game if you breach those. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robinforlife2 Posted October 15, 2022 Report Share Posted October 15, 2022 3 hours ago, Fordy62 said: 2 types of bail. Police and court. court can tag people. Police cannot. He’s on police bail so no tag. Both can remand but the police remand is after charge and only for one night to attend court the next morning where the court make the longer term remand decision. But the remand can only take place once he’s charged. Thanks for explaining that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Original OTIB Posted October 15, 2022 Report Share Posted October 15, 2022 50 minutes ago, Fordy62 said: I would guess so. I wonder on how many occasions he’s breached his bail? Because if your evidence isn’t up to scratch then there’s no point in acting on a breach because you just end up bailing again. I suspect he’ll get remanded on Monday by the Mags court and then bailed at his first crown court hearing - which i bet will be Tuesday/Wednesday. Court will set conditions then and that’s a whole new ball game if you breach those. What's he looking at time wise if convicted overall? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gimme Shelton Posted October 15, 2022 Report Share Posted October 15, 2022 What attracted her for a 2nd time to the millionaire footballer.....? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fordy62 Posted October 15, 2022 Author Report Share Posted October 15, 2022 5 hours ago, The Original OTIB said: What's he looking at time wise if convicted overall? I’d say 4-6 serve half. But that’s a massive guess as I know no specifics of the case. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pillred Posted October 16, 2022 Report Share Posted October 16, 2022 (edited) 10 hours ago, Fordy62 said: I’d say 4-6 serve half. But that’s a massive guess as I know no specifics of the case. Don't they have to serve 2/3rds now for serious or violent crimes if the sentence is 4 or more years? Edited October 16, 2022 by pillred Opinion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fordy62 Posted October 16, 2022 Author Report Share Posted October 16, 2022 2 hours ago, pillred said: Don't they have to serve 2/3rds now for serious or violent crimes if the sentence is 4 or more years? That rings a bell, but I’m a little out of touch at the moment if it’s not life! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonBristolian Posted October 16, 2022 Report Share Posted October 16, 2022 18 hours ago, Gimme Shelton said: What attracted her for a 2nd time to the millionaire footballer.....? If it is true, I I would guess almost definitely not the fact he is a millionaire. The problem with abusive relationships is you get into a position where you're abused because someone has destroyed your confidence and self-worth to a point where you view abuse as something you deserve and an "acceptable" price to pay for staying with someone who has convinced you that you can't cope with them. If she has gone back to someone who has destroyed her confidence and self-worth to the point where she's convinced she can't cope without him, the financial situation isn't really the key factor. People who get lured back into horrific relationships need support rather than criticism. 8 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedM Posted October 16, 2022 Report Share Posted October 16, 2022 3 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said: If it is true, I I would guess almost definitely not the fact he is a millionaire. The problem with abusive relationships is you get into a position where you're abused because someone has destroyed your confidence and self-worth to a point where you view abuse as something you deserve and an "acceptable" price to pay for staying with someone who has convinced you that you can't cope with them. If she has gone back to someone who has destroyed her confidence and self-worth to the point where she's convinced she can't cope without him, the financial situation isn't really the key factor. People who get lured back into horrific relationships need support rather than criticism. Very true. I previously worked with women, and it was almost always women, who were constantly returning to abusive relationships.It was not always physical abuse either. They pretty much all were made to feel another man wouldn't want them, they were 'damaged goods' and their confidence was shot to pieces. Add into that the fear of being alone and they almost all would say 'my bad man is better than no man'. It was almost an impossible cycle to break. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Ian M Posted October 16, 2022 Admin Report Share Posted October 16, 2022 19 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said: If it is true, I I would guess almost definitely not the fact he is a millionaire. The problem with abusive relationships is you get into a position where you're abused because someone has destroyed your confidence and self-worth to a point where you view abuse as something you deserve and an "acceptable" price to pay for staying with someone who has convinced you that you can't cope with them. If she has gone back to someone who has destroyed her confidence and self-worth to the point where she's convinced she can't cope without him, the financial situation isn't really the key factor. People who get lured back into horrific relationships need support rather than criticism. Also I wonder how much her family pushed for her to reconcile. Remember back to when it all came out and her father was actually defending Mason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.