It's interesting that his club has not suspended him. Brave decision or not?
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/62158150
Just been reading the story on another site. Very brave or very stupid by his club. Either they know something to take such steps but, it appears they’re willing to run the wrath if he’s convicted.
All ifs and buts…. It will all come out in the end.
Biggest thing for me though is, IF he’s proven innocent does he have the right to have her charged for false allegations?
The thing is Brin, in our courts you get found not guilty. That isn't the same as being proven innocent. If you mean if he can categorically prove he is innocent (other end of country when it supposedly took place or something similar) then I suspect he may have a chance. But being found not guilty in court due to a lack of evidence wouldn't be enough. He would have to prove she was lying.
There is no statutory bar on the naming of suspects in criminal cases, but the police and media have stopped doing so since the BBC got a £210 000 bloody nose for breaching Cliff Richard's right to a private life when they filmed the police at his home and named him as a suspect in a ***ual offence case in 2014.
The European Convention on Human Rights protects the right to a private life.
Exactly so.
The evidence in criminal cases is often limited. That is, perhaps, particularly so in rape cases where the complainant and suspect are often the only two direct witnesses to what occurred. What that means is that it will frequently be the case that a jury will conclude that is impossible to be sure who is telling the truth.
The. Scottish courts have three verdicts - 'guilty', 'not guilty' and 'not proven'.
I'm not sure what the implications of the third verdict is for the defendant. It strikes me as being a tad unfair - a bit of a 'we're not sure you did it, but don't do it again' approach.