People that are getting angry over 'innocent until proven guilty' are just wasting their voices. It doesn't mean that the person in question is innocent and is in the clear, rather it is just outlining the fact that we should trust the legal process and let the officials involved do their due diligence in regards to the case such that a well-informed and accurate judgement is made
We know that though, it's one of the most basic concepts in Law. Issue is when people use it to imply that others can't be mad or upset about the situation, or hold orgs to account.
Innocent until proven guilty is the general concept in any jurisdiction, unless you get a speeding / parking / traffic fine...then the state tells you you're guilty and the burden of proof is then on the alleged offender to prove his / her innocence...probably the reason y ppl get so upset when they do get a pcn ini'
Especially when you consider things like sentencing. Surely we want an investigation to find out how regularly this stuff was happening, and ensure people are held to account.
So basically, bail doesn't mean that they are innocent or guilty. They basically continue investigation in the background but let the accused continue with their normal lives with a few restrictions.
Correct, you're only guilty if the judge finds you guilty, unless you yourself pleads guilty, which some ppl do in what they call a plea bargain, then you get a lesser sentence coz you've saved the state's time and resources...but not if you're an author 🤣😂, then you get double coz you'll b doing multiple sentences
@@archiewall124we don't have a jury system in my country, but that's something i'm not in favour of anyway, i mean these ppl sometimes, i think i'm not sure work on emotions, and they'll get a guilty verdict to please the public...and do they even have legal backgrounds?
@@fearlessformidableferociou8623 the jury is randomly selected in the uk, it can be absolutely anyone 18+ with a few exceptions. Usually the jury is guided by the judge though, although the judge isn’t really meant to influence the juries decision.
No need 2.0 No problem mate! The guys very intelligent and definitely knows what he’s talking about. Hope this video spreads across to more people who are uneducated about this current topic
Goldbridge showing the levels here. Some people say he can only do content about Man United and he only gets views because of the club that he supports. Yet again he’s put that to shame in this video. Not many people can do both entertaining AND informative/serious as well as Mark. 👏🏼👏🏼
Cheers Mark. to be honest, think most people would need these type of videos to understand these sort of situations, not jump to the opinion, but to keep an open mind and research before they say something about it and this would help that. 👍
That's right m8 . They should teach stuff like this in the schools . There are so many subjects out there like Money management, what happens when u stab someone in real life, what its like in jail , consequences of crime , drugs and rape and life skills that u can't learn on the streets .
Patience, everyone needs to let the process take shape organically. The laws are there to protect everyone, this social media activists, investigators and lawyers are doing more harm than good moving forward with such cases, they need to be handled with the utmost care and not sensationalized or made into memes. Keeping quiet when you don't know everything is ok.
Hi Mark, Great video. I work for NZ Police and our system is very very similar. I unfortunitely have aspects of this conversation daily with victim's, witnesses, informants and even suspects who unfortunitely have a very hollywood view of how the criminal justice system works. I'm sure this is the same in the UK but we have people who dI am 911, think bail is something you can pay for and refer to the station as the "prextinct.." Would lone if this stuff was taught in schools!
Charges are not dropped because someone gets bailed...."If a person is charged with a crime they can either be released on police bail, or detained in police custody" Uk Gov...Pretty simple, and is he a danger to society when considering the case?.. Conditions of not contacting or going near the victim and so forth would be the norm under his circumstances..
The sad thing is most people won't see this video, or bother clicking on it if it shows up in their feed. This was a good and informative video explaining that jumping to conclusions is never right, no matter how sure you are.
But the investigation is ongoing. Why do you think that is? Almost every person arrested has the option of bail, unless the crime is murder, where no bail would be issued. And he has the money to do that. The audio proves his guilt. If that didn't exist, most people wouldn't have accepted this straight away.
Mark: Well presented. You are a wonderful detective -- reaping the rewards by bringing your talent to RU-vid. One day there will be many professionals: doctors, lawyers, and firemen, that will join the ranks of sending soliloquized statements for stipends from Silicon Valley.
I think something you didn't touch on is the 'refusing to press charges' thing we hear a lot in the UK, but that isn't how things work here. A victim can't decide whether a suspect is charged; they can refuse to give statements/cooperate with the police, but if enough evidence is found without that, the Police/CPS can still charge and then attempt to prosecute the suspect.
Yes a law change that was a recent addition (historically speaking), to cover domestic violence, especially where a person would be obviously and clearly injured from an attack, but would refuse to bring a charge out of fear for the accused. 👍
This is spot on. The problem with social media in cases like this is that the people who jump to conclusions will always make their voices heard by screaming "guilty" as loud as they can, while the people who don't want to comment pre-emptively won't say anything, and everyone who thinks the person might be innocent are afraid to say anything for fear of backlash. So you end up with nothing but "guilty!!!" comments on social media. And to further complicate it, the people who shouted "guilty" won't like it if it turns out they were wrong, so they'll be accusing the person for years afterwards so that they don't have to admit they made a mistake. So, in a situation like this the person who gets arrested is going to be blackened online forever more, even if they turn out to be innocent.
Well said. The law in this country has been developed over hundreds of years to protect any victim, and anyone who is accused. That said, questions need to be asked about the wider issue. This is not an isolated case and clubs need to think long and hard about the role they can play in bringing up these clearly talented young men. Greenwood came to the club at the age of six, and if the allegations are true, you have to think more could have been done.
That is correct. However it's not the club's job to monitor the psychological traits of young players in my opinion. However the club has immediately suspended the player, and if he is guilty, will never play.
@@thebiasedreview5432 I agree that it is not necessarily the duty of the club to do that, nevertheless I think it is clearly in the interests of both the club and the players that they take a proactive stance in helping to prevent players ending up on this path, rather than dealing with them once they are down it.
@@thebiasedreview5432 I disagree, monitoring psychological traits for young people is one of the most important things to look at when developing the youth. Teachers and safeguarding officers have to do it, so if the child is under the care of the club, they must also do it
Not quite. They may have more than enough evidence to charge you, but they may also believe that you could have committed other offences and it builds a stronger case if they can find evidence or witnesses to other crimes.
@@saferouge5457 not necessarily. They clearly have evidence as they have the pictures and audio recording, but evidence needs to be verified as being genuine.
Really appreciate this constructive insight Mark. The way I see it is they had to bail so that the investigation can be completed properly. There's two consequences I can see which result from incomplete investigation jeopardising the integrity of a potential Jury trial. 1. Somebody might be falsely convicted. 2. A victim of a crime might be deprived of the justice they deserve. It's not hard to imagine at all, that the police need to be allowed to do their jobs to the fullest extent of the law of the land.
Innocent until proven guilty no longer exists . The second it hits social media and enters the court of public opinion it's game over . This seriously impedes the law and justice system and can potentially destroy an individual's reputation and life 🤔
I agree if ther is no evidence and its pure hearsay but the recording of him abusing her is clear and we the public don't need an enquiry or investigation for something so blatant. So the police can go investigate all they want but the recording aswell as the pictures are enough especially the recording, you gonna sit there and say he's innocent EVEN IF he gets away with it.
@@Stoko11081990 too add also . Consider the various deep fake applications that you can utilise ! We're talking in general here not about anything that is presently in the media
This clears up so much for me bc I was confused when I heard he was released on bail. In America I believe how it works is bail is a cash payment that is set after the charges have been made and the suspect is in custody awaiting their trial. Bail is usually larger the worse the crime is or the more evidence there is. I was confused that would happen in this case since it has been such little time since the allegations have been made. Thank you Mark!
🔵 One question… in a scenario that you robbed a place and you’re arrested on suspicion of theft, possession of a dangerous weapon and assault. And the police have enough evidence to charge you on two of them but Lets say not the theft could they put you on bail until they have the evidence to charge you on all 3 count at once or would they the do the two first and add them third later once they have the evidence..🔴
I’m sorry but this is fishy from both parties. She unfollowed Greenwood then refollowed him. Someone commented why she would still be following him and she deleted and blocked that person. Hmmm…..
This is a fantastic video, and I am only halfway through it. More of this Mark. Lot of people just get triggered without knowing the actual legal process behind prosecuting an alleged crime
Highly unlikely that anyone posting such has actual information. But the longer Greenwood continued to be out of England reckoning at the club’s request, the weirder that felt, and the less substantive Southgate’s attempts to spin otherwise.
Well he was arrested before in Nov 2020 so manager of course knew something public don't. Mason is still a expensive asset which needs to be protected. If those audio, photos haven't been public, he would still be playing for the team.
Innocent until proven guilty is a legal term that just means he should be given a fair trial. Until then the public is perfectly entitled to their own opinion as to whether he did it based on the facts available. If nobody but the police were allowed to draw adverse inferences from what's happened then Man United should not have suspended him and he should still be allowed to play, since he's "innocent in the eyes of the law".
Studied LLB in the UK.. In criminal cases, prosecutors need to prove beyond reasonable doubt.. And this is tough with regards to the evidences to be produced in court.. Not easy to have admissible evidence in court.. And the defence lawyer will focus on the credibility of evidence to negate the “beyond reasonable doubt” principle.. Not surprised that the police needed more time to investigate and gather admissible evidences..
Sometimes as westerners we have an unconscious bias that our way is the best way but as an ex-police officer (just like you Mark), the system in the west, especially in the U.K. is one of the worst.
The best thing to do as United fans is just forget about Mason and move on. Most probably he did all those things, and I have a suspicion people inside United know about it very well, and that's why didn't help with legal like they did with Maguire. Otherwise they would've definitely helped him out. It's a business club and Mason is one of it's most valuable assets. They would've protected him if he were innocent. It might still be hard to prove he is guilty, or it may be settled outside court. But one thing is sure, he ain't playing for us again so as United fans, just forget he ever existed and move on. And hopefully justice is done and the girl gets help.
Can someone please educate me here... If the case of 'innocent until proven guilty'is true in the UK why is Borris Johnson under pressure before the finding of the Met Police investigation? What's the difference apart from the severity of the case?
