ChatterBank4 mins ago
Should Gazza Be Charged With This Offence?
30 Answers
Initially he wasn't going to be charged but according to newspapers the decision was reviewed because of his 'celebrity status'.
Should this matter?
http://
Should this matter?
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by agchristie. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I honestly can't see why there is this uproar. A foolish statement perhaps, but in reality if you were looking at a white face and a black face in the same dim light - you would see the white face more easily. I hold no brief for Mr. Gascoigne - an immature, somewhat unpleasant man and a footballer (killing shot) to boot - but I really can't see the problem.
A Teaching Assistant and I were mucking about last week after school because we were both wearing the same top. 'Dead Ringers!' I cried to those present as we hugged for a photo. She's a very dark, nice, black lady and I am Anglo-Saxon blonde. We, and everyone present, had a laugh and a quick hug. Skin tone does matter to visibility and I can only assume that it is Mr. Gascoigne's 'celebrity' which has pushed matters as far as they have gone.
A Teaching Assistant and I were mucking about last week after school because we were both wearing the same top. 'Dead Ringers!' I cried to those present as we hugged for a photo. She's a very dark, nice, black lady and I am Anglo-Saxon blonde. We, and everyone present, had a laugh and a quick hug. Skin tone does matter to visibility and I can only assume that it is Mr. Gascoigne's 'celebrity' which has pushed matters as far as they have gone.
No idea, aggie.
Cases are sometimes transferred to a different area if it is felt it may not be just to hear the matter where it occurred. I once knew of a barrister who often appeared in local courts and who was charged with drink-driving. His case was transferred to a different area. But this has me stumped. Why Mr Gascoigne could not appear before the Beak in Wolverhampton and why it took the CPS in London to determine what seems a perfectly straightforward trivial matter is beyond me.
Cases are sometimes transferred to a different area if it is felt it may not be just to hear the matter where it occurred. I once knew of a barrister who often appeared in local courts and who was charged with drink-driving. His case was transferred to a different area. But this has me stumped. Why Mr Gascoigne could not appear before the Beak in Wolverhampton and why it took the CPS in London to determine what seems a perfectly straightforward trivial matter is beyond me.
It is understood that a West Midlands CPS lawyer had originally recommended prosecution but this was reversed after the finding went for a second opinion by another CPS lawyer in London because a public figure was involved.
Why London if a public figure is involved ?.
http://
Why London if a public figure is involved ?.
http://
// If the CPS cannot decide how can we expect potential jurors to convict him?
//
decision to prosecute is two stage
reasonable chance of conviction ( not overwhelmng chance )
and in the public interest
whether or not it has been reviewed, the criteria will not differ
yes and surely the police have something better to do - like historical rape by a dead person or war crimes from 1945....
//
decision to prosecute is two stage
reasonable chance of conviction ( not overwhelmng chance )
and in the public interest
whether or not it has been reviewed, the criteria will not differ
yes and surely the police have something better to do - like historical rape by a dead person or war crimes from 1945....
I would entirely agree with viv, that no-one should be excused punishment for a crime if convicted, simply because of their perceived 'celebrity'.
But the other side of that coin must apply - no-one should be charged simply because they are a 'celebrity'.
It may be to do with the media's twisted notions of someone famous as being a 'role model', which is an utterly fatuous concept in the first place.
Although - if you do wish to apply the notion of a 'role model' to Mr Gascoigne, then please don't ignore the potential as was done with Amy Winehouse, as portraying both as exemplary role models for young people -
Both were and are shining examples of utterly ruined human beings who have lost their God-given talent by dint of their addictions to alcohol and drugs.
Moving and still images of these destroyed former gods-in-human-form are as perfect an example of the evils of drugs as you could find anywhere, and should be considered mandatory viewing for all young people in pubs and music venues around the world.
But the other side of that coin must apply - no-one should be charged simply because they are a 'celebrity'.
It may be to do with the media's twisted notions of someone famous as being a 'role model', which is an utterly fatuous concept in the first place.
Although - if you do wish to apply the notion of a 'role model' to Mr Gascoigne, then please don't ignore the potential as was done with Amy Winehouse, as portraying both as exemplary role models for young people -
Both were and are shining examples of utterly ruined human beings who have lost their God-given talent by dint of their addictions to alcohol and drugs.
Moving and still images of these destroyed former gods-in-human-form are as perfect an example of the evils of drugs as you could find anywhere, and should be considered mandatory viewing for all young people in pubs and music venues around the world.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.