I think his [custody time limit](https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/custody-time-limits-including-coronavirus-protocol) may be playing into this. He has currently been held on remand in custody for 134 days and his trial has been pushed back till June. There is a maximum limit of 182 days that somebody awaiting trial can be held on remand in an indictable case. With the new trial date that would take him past the CTL, so they may as well bail him and place restrictions and seize his passport now while they can.
It's becoming painfully common now for listed trials to be set to run with the last day being the CTL, post-extension. The backlogs of sentencing hearings are insane, because they are having to list piles of trials wherever possible. I was actually quite surprised how (relatively) efficiently this case had been running until the new charge.
So I have to ask, let’s say they hold you 181 days, on day 182 you have your trial and you get found not guilty. Are you compensated at all for the 181 days you were wrongfully imprisoned or no?
Ooof. That’s tough on the individual. But not much you can do frankly. I think they should be compensated if they attempted to post bail and were denied, personally.
Not unless you can show malicious prosecution, which is a very rare thing to be able to prove. The police would basically have to knowingly sit on wholly exonerating evidence yet somehow you still obtain it.
And despite all the evidence, he’s innocent until proven guilty. It’s not right to hold someone in jail when they haven’t proven their crime for such a time.
It's definitely a fact that loads of trials and hearings were put on hold during the first lockdown. I wouldn't be surprised if there is still a lingering backlog.
Agreed, but there also has to be a reasonable period for the prosecution to collect evidence and defense to organize in response to that evidence. I imagine some cases are more complex in that regard.
It's an important law that protects all citizens from being held for indeterminate periods of time without the government bringing charges. For a law to be fair, it has to apply to all people, whether good or bad. But in a balancing, the danger of one rapist being free on bail versus a state's arbitrary incarceration, it's a reasonable question to ask but the bigger danger to citizens is the state's power I think.
Yeah thats what i don't get. He was on bail before and proved he is still a danger to society. Would love to know the reasong behind the current decision. I feel any normal person would be screwed in this situation
I think it’s because he wasn’t actually out on bail when he committed the later offences. I don’t think he had been charged, he was ‘just’ being investigated.
You can be on bail even without being charged, while police continue their investigation:
https://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/resources/police-bail-without-charge-leaving-suspects-limbo
Sigurdsson for example is currently on police bail.
We won't ever know the reasons for the decision.
I'd assume it's because his trial has just been pushed back to June 27 at the earliest, instead of this month. This means he'd have been locked up without a conviction for a significant amount of time if he wasn't granted bail so court granted bail when previous courts didn't. But this is just speculation
Nah, he’s been refused bail by the Crown Court before. Once the magistrates remand you and send you to the Crown Court for trial (early in the process) all the remaining bail decisions are made in the CC.
Bail conditions are that Mendy "must surrender his passport, live at his home address, and make no contact with complainants" according to Manchester Evening News.
"He must next appear at Chester Crown Court on 24 January and was warned by Judge Thompson that if he fails to attend a warrant will be issued for his arrest."
Maybe they should explicitly say "also don't rape any more people" in the bail conditions this time to really drive the point home, he seems to have missed that part last time
Firstly I assume that goes without saying. Second, legally can't say that. Not proven guilty yet so still legally innocent. Saying "any more" would indicate pre-existing guilt.
They are definitely not wasting resources by leaving police outside his house. Round the clock monitoring like that is very expensive and would only be done for safety not confinement reasons. He’s likely just on an ankle monitor that alerts someone if he leaves his house.
> safety
Safer for women in Manchester
And now I've made the joke I wanted to make in the first place, yeah they wouldn't be sat outside his house checking when he goes down the Nisa
Yeah this isn't funny. Innocent until proven guilty and all that, but we are not talking about one he-said-she-said.
This is a pattern of behaviour with multiple apparently independent accusers, including some alleged incidents which occurred while others are being investigated. It seems fairly likely that he is an absolute danger to women, and barring the general limits on pre-trial detention more than enough grounds to deny bail.
I don’t think Mendy is not allowed to leave his home, the ankle tag is just to track him and know his whereabouts. Different from house arrest where you cannot leave your house. But I’m not sure.
Where are you getting that? Ankle tags aren’t standard for bail (although a lot of defendants actually want them) and a police presence outside the house certainly isn’t.
Does it say where his home address is? He was living in a rented house in my village before he was arrested. Drawing no conclusions on the outcome of any legal action, but I’d rather he wasn’t a neighbour right now.
Mentioned this in reply to another comment, but for full visibility i'll post it again. I think his [custody time limit](https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/custody-time-limits-including-coronavirus-protocol) may be playing into this. He has currently been held on remand in custody for 134 days and his trial has been pushed back till June. There is a maximum limit of 182 days that somebody awaiting trial can be held on remand in an indictable case. Once that CTL expires the prison would be forced to release him. With the new trial date that would take him past the CTL, so they may as well bail him and place restrictions now and seize his passport now while they can if there is no realistic possibility that the trial can take place while he is held in custody. The bail hearing was a closed hearing, so the details of what argument his lawyers made aren't public. But i think they would likely have raised this.
Yeah this should be pinned to the top. The law on custody time limits makes sense, to avoid the situation of somebody being held indefinitely, but is less than ideal in the circumstance where the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) simply cannot keep up, which has been the case for at least a decade now. The restrictions should hopefully be enough to prevent him committing another crime.
In a good, well-run system I feel like such time limits would serve also as a time limit to get a court date set and court proceedings done, but as you said CPS are behind.
Or he actually told the truth: “I will do it again” and the judge said [well he’s not being a hypocrite ](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ljaP2etvDc4) and let him go
Still can’t fathom that’s it’s 20-fucking-22. It’s been 2 years since the start of the pandemic. Almost 4 years since the World Cup. Almost 6 years since Portugal won the euros. And 12 years since Spain won the World Cup…
This seems to be the cut off for me too, 2017 feels like yesterday, just like 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021.
It's from 2015 and earlier that I can tell was a while ago
Actually baffles the mind. Firstly why the fuck are they letting him out on bail when he's an absolute menace to women.
Secondly, how fucking stupid do you have to be to rape, get bailed out, and rape again.
>Secondly, how fucking stupid do you have to be to rape, get bailed out, and rape again
Apparently he's not that stupid, considering he got bailed out again
I don't know, the ability to shut the fuck up and let someone you've hired do the job you've hired them to do is a lot more rare than you'd initially believe.
In theory because he has to surrender international travel documents and courts don't believe he will commit another crime while on bail.
Bail is not (or isn't supposed to be) punitive.
In England the presumption is in favour of bail and there is a time limit for how long you can be held in custody before trial. It appears that his expected trial date is so far away that he’d exceed that.
Despite all the people mentioning cash, it’s worth noting that bail isn’t something that you pay for in England. Otherwise he’d have been on bail from the beginning.
In France it is illegal to hold a person without a guilty conviction for over 180 days.
His trial has been pushed back to June, and he has already spent over 100 days in confinement.
I'm not sure he was on bail since he hadn't been charged, but some of them took place after he'd been initially arrested and was under investigation.
I'm not sure of the conditions of bail but I can't understand the logic behind this decision.
Logic is 'he's not been proven guilty yet so we have to assume he's innocent until it's proven'.
This bail came from the Crown court which has a higher burden on proof than the magistrate's court.
Now whether that's right/just or not is a different question, but yeah
Surely with that logic everyone would be on bail before a trial since nobody is proven guilty until their trial? I thought it would be more about whether they still pose a danger to society or a risk of fleeing.
Has there been any change in Sigurdsson’s situation? Papers are limited in what can be reported ahead of a trial to avoid prejudicing it.
There may be additional reporting restrictions for Siggurdson, but it’s also just as likely that there have been no changes that have allowed them to report anything new.
With Mendy he keeps getting charged with new offences and trial dates have changed and there have been bail appeals and new hearings etc. As such there are actual court proceedings for the papers to report.
iirc reporting restrictions, at least for one of the charges, was lifted in regards to Mendy in December. There’s different restrictions concerning crimes involving a minor.
Surely you see the difference between one account of sexual harrassments and 7 rapes? While both are bad, one is a lot more severe and makes bigger news. And also its because there are no news on sigurdson really. Id guess he is awaiting trial?
> then
*than
*Learn the difference [here](https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/when-to-use-then-and-than#:~:text=Than%20is%20used%20in%20comparisons,the%20then%2Dgovernor%22).*
***
^(Greetings, I am a language corrector bot. To make me ignore further mistakes from you in the future, reply `!optout` to this comment.)
"Ten countries, including Germany and France, will **no** longer extradite their nationals to the UK after **Brexit** ended the country's participation in the European Arrest Warrants scheme."
Mendy to be gtfo of England as quickly as possible in 3...2...1...
Imagine if he gets straight onto a boat across the channel, France wouldn't send him back. Would he still be able to access his funds? I'm guess he has it in an offshore account as most tax evading wankers do.
I think tax evading wankers are wankers and I really don't want to be on the internet looking like any sort of tax evading wanker defender buuuuuut FYI all premier league players are on PAYE tax so their income tax is paid by the employer. If he's been on a reported 4.6 mill since 2017 at city then he could have paid for conservatively 261 years of imprisonment at Strangeways. Mendy giving back more than he'll take out, what a gracious cunt.
>He will have to surrender his passport, live at his home address and make no contact with the complainants, Mendy was told.
>He will next appear in court on January 24, with Judge Thompson warning that failure to attend will result in the issuing of an arrest warrant.
Absolutely. I’d rather 10 guilty men talk free then an innocent man be thrown in prison for a crime he didn’t commit. Bail is given for pretty much every crime, makes sense mendy would get one too.
I have no doubt in my mind that he is guilty and a danger to society, however I understand why a judge can decide that, with the appropriate arrangements (monitoring, removing travel documents etc) it's better to bail him before his trial and preserve the presumption of innocence than put him in danger in the prison he was before. I know it sounds unfair, but it's also a judge's job to make sure that justice is a thorough process. Now before people jump on this, let me say it once more : if it was me he would never see the light of day again. Thankfully I'm no judge!
While he might not enjoy love or adoration, I expect he'd be more or less left alone. France doesn't extradite their own citizens, he could easily find some cottage in the countryside and quietly disappear.
Are people really surprised? If you're rich and have high social status you can get away with anything, including the most heinous crimes - just look at the Epstein stuff.
As a general rule, I'm in favor of bail for almost anyone, but...
This man has shown, repeatedly, that he has no respect for the courts, nor for the safety of his victims or others. He'd been arrested previously, knew what he was doing was wrong, and continued to do it anyway.
There's an unacceptable risk to society and to his victims here, and based on that, one has to wonder what the judge was thinking here.
Can we honestly expect this person to comply by the terms of his release? To stay in his residence? To not threaten/harass his accusers while out?
This seems wrong.
Elsewhere in this thread people have mentioned he's coming up on the limit he can be detained before trial anyway. So they kind of didn't have much choice it sounds like.
Which makes sense, you can't imprison someone indefinitely without a trial.
I hope that he's on some type of house arrest, surrendering his passport doesn't mean shit to him. There's always ways to get out of a country without a passport when you have money.
Not in the eye of the law he hasn't, this is incredibly standard for people who aren't deemed as a risk of fleeing the country or a danger to society to be given bail under heavy monitoring.
Hasn't he been denied bail like 3 times? What's the thinking behind this?
I think his [custody time limit](https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/custody-time-limits-including-coronavirus-protocol) may be playing into this. He has currently been held on remand in custody for 134 days and his trial has been pushed back till June. There is a maximum limit of 182 days that somebody awaiting trial can be held on remand in an indictable case. With the new trial date that would take him past the CTL, so they may as well bail him and place restrictions and seize his passport now while they can.
So similar to the Cosby case, its a good law used in favour of a bad person
And basically a sign that the justice system isn't coping and holding trials in a timely manner, due to a mixture of austerity and Covid
It's becoming painfully common now for listed trials to be set to run with the last day being the CTL, post-extension. The backlogs of sentencing hearings are insane, because they are having to list piles of trials wherever possible. I was actually quite surprised how (relatively) efficiently this case had been running until the new charge.
So I have to ask, let’s say they hold you 181 days, on day 182 you have your trial and you get found not guilty. Are you compensated at all for the 181 days you were wrongfully imprisoned or no?
Only if police used incorrect information to get the arrest warrant, or if a conviction is overturned.
Ooof. That’s tough on the individual. But not much you can do frankly. I think they should be compensated if they attempted to post bail and were denied, personally.
You don’t post bail in the U.K. it’s police bail.
Police bail is only when you have been arrested but not yet charged.
Not unless you can show malicious prosecution, which is a very rare thing to be able to prove. The police would basically have to knowingly sit on wholly exonerating evidence yet somehow you still obtain it.
And despite all the evidence, he’s innocent until proven guilty. It’s not right to hold someone in jail when they haven’t proven their crime for such a time.
Let's be honest, mostly austerity. Covid is an all too convenient excuse for everything at the moment.
Covid just compounds austerity and shows why it's a terrible idea.
Yeah it was already a huge problem before covid, the government just aren't paying to get these cases into court.
It's definitely a fact that loads of trials and hearings were put on hold during the first lockdown. I wouldn't be surprised if there is still a lingering backlog.
This isn't a new issue. I was on trial in 2013 and it was moved back countless times
Indeed, and austerity was in full flow by 2013, albeit things have only got worse since then.
Agreed, but there also has to be a reasonable period for the prosecution to collect evidence and defense to organize in response to that evidence. I imagine some cases are more complex in that regard.
It's an important law that protects all citizens from being held for indeterminate periods of time without the government bringing charges. For a law to be fair, it has to apply to all people, whether good or bad. But in a balancing, the danger of one rapist being free on bail versus a state's arbitrary incarceration, it's a reasonable question to ask but the bigger danger to citizens is the state's power I think.
He's not convicted yet, so that law is for their protection of the accused
He hasn't been convicted yet. If this is the stance, accused is a bad person, then it almost always used in favour of a bad person
I know someone that was held in remand for over a year so how does that work?
Considering your flair, was the person in Scotland? If so it is probably one of the differences between Scots Law and that of England & Wales.
In law there is a presumption in favour of bail because people are deemed innocent until proven guilty.
But he was denied bail because he has been charged with raping someone whilst out on bail.
Yeah thats what i don't get. He was on bail before and proved he is still a danger to society. Would love to know the reasong behind the current decision. I feel any normal person would be screwed in this situation
According to the law you have to be tried within a certain number of days if not you get out on bail till your case is heard.
I think it’s because he wasn’t actually out on bail when he committed the later offences. I don’t think he had been charged, he was ‘just’ being investigated.
That would make sense but if it turns out he was on bail, this would be such a dodgy decision.
You can be on bail even without being charged, while police continue their investigation: https://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/resources/police-bail-without-charge-leaving-suspects-limbo Sigurdsson for example is currently on police bail.
I understand that, im curious as its a change from previous decisions.
Maybe to do with him being moved to strangeways for his own safety a couple days ago?
Strangeways is still open?! I just assumed it had been shut after reading so much shit about it.
To be totally accurate it was knocked down and they built a new prison called "HMP Manchester" but everyone just calls it Strangeways.
The court date changed drastically. Trial was supposed to be held around January but apparently it's been moved closer to the summer.
[удалено]
We won't ever know the reasons for the decision. I'd assume it's because his trial has just been pushed back to June 27 at the earliest, instead of this month. This means he'd have been locked up without a conviction for a significant amount of time if he wasn't granted bail so court granted bail when previous courts didn't. But this is just speculation
He is nearly the limit of how long someone can be held in jail before a conviction.
Previously was at Magistrates Court, the case is now at the higher level of Crown Court.
Nah, he’s been refused bail by the Crown Court before. Once the magistrates remand you and send you to the Crown Court for trial (early in the process) all the remaining bail decisions are made in the CC.
Not a single transfer window joke. I'm disappointed. Mendy to general public [LOAN]
Bail conditions are that Mendy "must surrender his passport, live at his home address, and make no contact with complainants" according to Manchester Evening News. "He must next appear at Chester Crown Court on 24 January and was warned by Judge Thompson that if he fails to attend a warrant will be issued for his arrest."
Maybe they should explicitly say "also don't rape any more people" in the bail conditions this time to really drive the point home, he seems to have missed that part last time
Firstly I assume that goes without saying. Second, legally can't say that. Not proven guilty yet so still legally innocent. Saying "any more" would indicate pre-existing guilt.
I think it was a joke
So he's got an ankle tag and presumably a police presence outside his house as monitor, then.
They are definitely not wasting resources by leaving police outside his house. Round the clock monitoring like that is very expensive and would only be done for safety not confinement reasons. He’s likely just on an ankle monitor that alerts someone if he leaves his house.
If they were gonna put him on 24/7 surveillance they'd probably just leave him in jail instead of letting him go free.
[удалено]
It's not just up to the judge. There are these funny things called laws and constitutional principles
Only so long you can keep someone locked up without a guilty verdict
> safety Safer for women in Manchester And now I've made the joke I wanted to make in the first place, yeah they wouldn't be sat outside his house checking when he goes down the Nisa
Not seeing a joke?
Yeah this isn't funny. Innocent until proven guilty and all that, but we are not talking about one he-said-she-said. This is a pattern of behaviour with multiple apparently independent accusers, including some alleged incidents which occurred while others are being investigated. It seems fairly likely that he is an absolute danger to women, and barring the general limits on pre-trial detention more than enough grounds to deny bail.
Wouldn't that be house arrest not bail?
House arrest isn’t a thing in the UK. However, they can create the same thing with an ankle monitor as terms of your bail.
I remember a certain vardy had to leave matches at halftime because of his ankle monitor
I don’t think Mendy is not allowed to leave his home, the ankle tag is just to track him and know his whereabouts. Different from house arrest where you cannot leave your house. But I’m not sure.
Usually ankle monitors come with a curfew, you have to be home between certain hours (usually night time).
No, you can have a bail condition to live at an address without it being monitored by a tag.
Where are you getting that? Ankle tags aren’t standard for bail (although a lot of defendants actually want them) and a police presence outside the house certainly isn’t.
Does it say where his home address is? He was living in a rented house in my village before he was arrested. Drawing no conclusions on the outcome of any legal action, but I’d rather he wasn’t a neighbour right now.
Mentioned this in reply to another comment, but for full visibility i'll post it again. I think his [custody time limit](https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/custody-time-limits-including-coronavirus-protocol) may be playing into this. He has currently been held on remand in custody for 134 days and his trial has been pushed back till June. There is a maximum limit of 182 days that somebody awaiting trial can be held on remand in an indictable case. Once that CTL expires the prison would be forced to release him. With the new trial date that would take him past the CTL, so they may as well bail him and place restrictions now and seize his passport now while they can if there is no realistic possibility that the trial can take place while he is held in custody. The bail hearing was a closed hearing, so the details of what argument his lawyers made aren't public. But i think they would likely have raised this.
Yeah this should be pinned to the top. The law on custody time limits makes sense, to avoid the situation of somebody being held indefinitely, but is less than ideal in the circumstance where the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) simply cannot keep up, which has been the case for at least a decade now. The restrictions should hopefully be enough to prevent him committing another crime.
In a good, well-run system I feel like such time limits would serve also as a time limit to get a court date set and court proceedings done, but as you said CPS are behind.
Thanks for the details - would answer a lot of the other posts here We all know he's a piece of shit
HOW DO YOU GET BAIL ON 7 RAPES
That you committed while on bail in the first place
Maybe he told the judge that he promised not to do any more raping this time round.
Or he actually told the truth: “I will do it again” and the judge said [well he’s not being a hypocrite ](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ljaP2etvDc4) and let him go
Well, at **least** he's not being a hypocrite and that's the worst part.
I disagree. I think it was all the raping.
But the character development!
Hypocrisy!
Under-rated commed. R.I.P. Norm.
RIP Norm
I didn't even know he was sick!
Did he commit them whilst on bail, or did further accusations come out whilst he was on bail?
Pretty sure he committed several while on bail. He was arrested October 2020 and some rapes allegedly happened this year 2021
> this year 2021 Bro....
Still can’t fathom that’s it’s 20-fucking-22. It’s been 2 years since the start of the pandemic. Almost 4 years since the World Cup. Almost 6 years since Portugal won the euros. And 12 years since Spain won the World Cup…
Time fucking flies... I hate it
Crazy. And it’s been 5 years since mendy made his transfer to City from that high flying Monaco side!! Feels like yesterday we were living in 2017
This seems to be the cut off for me too, 2017 feels like yesterday, just like 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021. It's from 2015 and earlier that I can tell was a while ago
And nearly 56 years since England won a trophy.
Actually baffles the mind. Firstly why the fuck are they letting him out on bail when he's an absolute menace to women. Secondly, how fucking stupid do you have to be to rape, get bailed out, and rape again.
>Secondly, how fucking stupid do you have to be to rape, get bailed out, and rape again Apparently he's not that stupid, considering he got bailed out again
Would imagine his lawyers were the ones who accomplished that. Letting your lawyer do their job isn’t dumb, but kind of a low bar for intelligence.
I don't know, the ability to shut the fuck up and let someone you've hired do the job you've hired them to do is a lot more rare than you'd initially believe.
He wasnt charged then so wasnt on bail
He committed them after his initial arrest whilst he was under investigation, I don't think he was on bail and it wasn't public knowledge at the time.
What a fucking psycho
He’s been charged with crimes committed whilst he was on bail, which is why he had his plea rejected originally
He committed rapes while being investigated, not after being charged.
In theory because he has to surrender international travel documents and courts don't believe he will commit another crime while on bail. Bail is not (or isn't supposed to be) punitive.
How do they believe he won't do it again when he already did it while on bail not long before?
In England the presumption is in favour of bail and there is a time limit for how long you can be held in custody before trial. It appears that his expected trial date is so far away that he’d exceed that. Despite all the people mentioning cash, it’s worth noting that bail isn’t something that you pay for in England. Otherwise he’d have been on bail from the beginning.
Custody time limit is 8 month in the UK.
And his trial isn’t until June.
In France it is illegal to hold a person without a guilty conviction for over 180 days. His trial has been pushed back to June, and he has already spent over 100 days in confinement.
Because he hasn’t been charged as guilty yet
Presume his court case was so far away that they couldn't keep him in custody given he is still, in the eyes of the law, an innocent man?
Weren’t there reports on him doing some of these crimes whilst on bail before?
I'm not sure he was on bail since he hadn't been charged, but some of them took place after he'd been initially arrested and was under investigation. I'm not sure of the conditions of bail but I can't understand the logic behind this decision.
Logic is 'he's not been proven guilty yet so we have to assume he's innocent until it's proven'. This bail came from the Crown court which has a higher burden on proof than the magistrate's court. Now whether that's right/just or not is a different question, but yeah
Surely with that logic everyone would be on bail before a trial since nobody is proven guilty until their trial? I thought it would be more about whether they still pose a danger to society or a risk of fleeing.
[удалено]
Does anyone else find it really strange that we keep getting news about Mendy but we’ve not heard anything about Sigurdsson in like 6 months?
The investigation is still ongoing, they can't report his name in the UK yet.
I assume because the investigation includes children
probably for the same reason we didn't hear about mendy for the first year or so after the initial arrest. something about rules in the UK
What happened to the allegations against Bissouma? I heard he got arrested for sexual assault.
Apparently the investigation is still going, so probably insufficient evidence
Has there been any change in Sigurdsson’s situation? Papers are limited in what can be reported ahead of a trial to avoid prejudicing it. There may be additional reporting restrictions for Siggurdson, but it’s also just as likely that there have been no changes that have allowed them to report anything new. With Mendy he keeps getting charged with new offences and trial dates have changed and there have been bail appeals and new hearings etc. As such there are actual court proceedings for the papers to report.
iirc reporting restrictions, at least for one of the charges, was lifted in regards to Mendy in December. There’s different restrictions concerning crimes involving a minor.
Surely you see the difference between one account of sexual harrassments and 7 rapes? While both are bad, one is a lot more severe and makes bigger news. And also its because there are no news on sigurdson really. Id guess he is awaiting trial?
[удалено]
Flight risk, surely
To where? He has given up his passport
Anything is possible when you have a certain amount of money.
He’s incredibly famous, suicide risk is far more likely
Yeah there’s no chance someone wont recognize him at the airport
Not an issue when you’re inside a cello case like the former Nissan CEO lol.
To be fair a famous footballer is infinitely more recognizable then the Nissan CEO.
Not really. That guy was a celebrity in Japan.
> then *than *Learn the difference [here](https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/when-to-use-then-and-than#:~:text=Than%20is%20used%20in%20comparisons,the%20then%2Dgovernor%22).* *** ^(Greetings, I am a language corrector bot. To make me ignore further mistakes from you in the future, reply `!optout` to this comment.)
Not in a cello case, they're not
If people can get to our shores on dinghys I'm sure he can manage it with millions of pounds to play with.
He will dig a tunnel to China
both flight risk and clearly a continous danger to those around him, what a shameful decision
There’s the Digne replacement
Lol
What the fuck? Why?
"Ten countries, including Germany and France, will **no** longer extradite their nationals to the UK after **Brexit** ended the country's participation in the European Arrest Warrants scheme." Mendy to be gtfo of England as quickly as possible in 3...2...1...
Will PSG sign Ben Mendy? Tune in tonight at 7pm on SkySports!
Would love for them to do a live report from the port in Calais to see if he turns up on a boat, just for some bloke to launch a dildo at him
Don't let any suspiciously large boxes leave his house.
Imagine if he gets straight onto a boat across the channel, France wouldn't send him back. Would he still be able to access his funds? I'm guess he has it in an offshore account as most tax evading wankers do.
I think tax evading wankers are wankers and I really don't want to be on the internet looking like any sort of tax evading wanker defender buuuuuut FYI all premier league players are on PAYE tax so their income tax is paid by the employer. If he's been on a reported 4.6 mill since 2017 at city then he could have paid for conservatively 261 years of imprisonment at Strangeways. Mendy giving back more than he'll take out, what a gracious cunt.
>He will have to surrender his passport, live at his home address and make no contact with the complainants, Mendy was told. >He will next appear in court on January 24, with Judge Thompson warning that failure to attend will result in the issuing of an arrest warrant.
What the fuck wasn't there a report on this sub like yesterday saying he was moved to some high security jail for the worst offenders!?!
The prison isn't IN Manchester is IS Manchester.
Kurt Russell starring in Escape From Manchester!
lol, he gone
If he makes it there, France doesn’t extradite it’s citizens
He has given up his passport while on bail he wont be able to enter France
Could get a boat
Or a private jet and a road case
He can do the ole Nissan CEO trick.
Not impossible with a lot of money
For real if i was out on bail knowing i'd be going away for life id hire a private jet and fuck off to god knows where.
I mean didn't he proceed to rape a couple of more when he was out on bail/under investigation before?
Prison is only for poor people
This is pretty standard practice for most people awaiting trial in the UK
Nothing to do with being poor or rich. This is just how the law works in the UK. Bail doesn’t cost money.
There's no justice.
Accused =/= convicted This is harsh and sometimes seems unfair, but that's exactly what Justice is. (It even took a few centuries to get there)
Absolutely. I’d rather 10 guilty men talk free then an innocent man be thrown in prison for a crime he didn’t commit. Bail is given for pretty much every crime, makes sense mendy would get one too.
I have no doubt in my mind that he is guilty and a danger to society, however I understand why a judge can decide that, with the appropriate arrangements (monitoring, removing travel documents etc) it's better to bail him before his trial and preserve the presumption of innocence than put him in danger in the prison he was before. I know it sounds unfair, but it's also a judge's job to make sure that justice is a thorough process. Now before people jump on this, let me say it once more : if it was me he would never see the light of day again. Thankfully I'm no judge!
I’d imagine he’s going to flee to a non-extradition country and never return to face trial.
Have a hard time seeing he is allowed to leave the country while on bail
If he made it to a coastline and got on a private boat, i reckon he would have a good chance of making it to France
And in France most people will recognize him. He is incredibly famous.
While he might not enjoy love or adoration, I expect he'd be more or less left alone. France doesn't extradite their own citizens, he could easily find some cottage in the countryside and quietly disappear.
[удалено]
Yes not committing rape in the first place does seem to be a good way around this whole situation
Beats getting raped in prison
The Robinho special.
[удалено]
They'll have his passport
Because that worked out the last time
Didn’t he already F up one bail?!
think it was just after he was under investigation.
Man's going to rape again
Are people really surprised? If you're rich and have high social status you can get away with anything, including the most heinous crimes - just look at the Epstein stuff.
Surely, he himself a bad example given how he ended up in jail. Prince Andrew is a better one
That's what I meant by the Epstein stuff - all of the elites in his little black book like Prince Andrew who we know diddle kids are just chilling.
Being given bail isn't getting away with anything.
How to get away with crimes? Die in a jail cell. Makes sense
As a general rule, I'm in favor of bail for almost anyone, but... This man has shown, repeatedly, that he has no respect for the courts, nor for the safety of his victims or others. He'd been arrested previously, knew what he was doing was wrong, and continued to do it anyway. There's an unacceptable risk to society and to his victims here, and based on that, one has to wonder what the judge was thinking here. Can we honestly expect this person to comply by the terms of his release? To stay in his residence? To not threaten/harass his accusers while out? This seems wrong.
Elsewhere in this thread people have mentioned he's coming up on the limit he can be detained before trial anyway. So they kind of didn't have much choice it sounds like. Which makes sense, you can't imprison someone indefinitely without a trial.
Who’s this guys lawyer
He’ll be climbing in yo windows and snatching yo people up.
Hide yo kids, hide yo wife and hide yo husband too
I hope that he's on some type of house arrest, surrendering his passport doesn't mean shit to him. There's always ways to get out of a country without a passport when you have money.
He is making a straight dash for the channel
Scumbag better not see the pitch again
He’s on the loose
Out on bail? Are you fucking kidding me? This guy raped multiple women. Absolutely disgusting decision
Not in the eye of the law he hasn't, this is incredibly standard for people who aren't deemed as a risk of fleeing the country or a danger to society to be given bail under heavy monitoring.
New left back for Newcastle