https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... court.html

He got death penalty at Cold Mountain Penitentiary for a crime he’s didn’t commit.

Everyone knows that.

I can remember being assured on here by some very prominent posters that he was going to go all the way to the top and play for England.

Looks like he's going the long way round.

ac99 wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 13, 2024 3:18 pm

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... court.html

Big feller John Coffey

King of New York isn't he ?

La di da di free John Cofie

ChristheViking wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 13, 2024 4:22 pm

I can remember being assured on here by some very prominent posters that he was going to go all the way to the top and play for England.

Looks like he's going the long way round.

I think Manchester United felt the same, they invested £1m on him

He's had a bizzarre career, playing for 16 clubs in 10 years.

I wonder if he was actually good or just 6ft and rapid at 13 years old. I remember him doing an interview where he said he couldn't play on the crap pitches whenever he got loaned out because he was too used to the high quality surfaces at Utd's academy.

SammyBoy wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 15, 2024 1:28 pm

I wonder if he was actually good or just 6ft and rapid at 13 years old. I remember him doing an interview where he said he couldn't play on the crap pitches whenever he got loaned out because he was too used to the high quality surfaces at Utd's academy.

I watched a lot of him aged 15-17, thought he was terrible to be honest and miles off his team mates level, like bambi on ice, was amazed he was even getting game time

At the age of 14 Steve Cotterill wrote to the FA to request for him to be included in a match day squad - that was refused

At the age of 14 he was playing in the youth team, which at the time was an under 19's league, as it was still possible to be on 3 year scholarships. He played against stockport, and dominated a centre half who had played many first team games that season, and was being scouted by Liverpool and Manchester United.

He went for a reported £1m 17 years ago.... What value would that be in today's money?

His career definitely didn't pan out anywhere near to what was expected from the level of talent and ability he showed at his young ages.

He's just been found not guilty of rape. More details in the athletic.

Knowing now first hand what damage these accusations can do to a family i really believe naming anyone should not happen until a person is found guilty.But the headline from the opening posts link is nothing short of a disgrace implying the accused have actually commited the crime

Ptangyangkipperbang wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 23, 2024 5:23 pm

Knowing now first hand what damage these accusations can do to a family i really believe naming anyone should not happen until a person is found guilty.But the headline from the opening posts link is nothing short of a disgrace implying the accused have actually commited the crime

I expect nothing less from the Daily Mail.

Poulton-le-Claret wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 23, 2024 5:43 pm

I expect nothing less from the Daily Mail.

It wasn't just the mail Manchester evening news ran the same headline

Ptangyangkipperbang wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 23, 2024 5:23 pm

Knowing now first hand what damage these accusations can do to a family i really believe naming anyone should not happen until a person is found guilty.But the headline from the opening posts link is nothing short of a disgrace implying the accused have actually commited the crime

I'm all for anonymity for defendants in crimes when the same is afforded to people reporting to be victims. However, there is no such law at present and the papers who ran with this story were simply reporting the court case.

If people find any aspect of this morally wrong and feel strongly about it they can join a political party and campaign about it but we do need to be careful with these matters and consider the ramifications and the law of unintended consequences: Having open criminal trials is one of the key aspects of any democracy. It prevents miscarriages of justice, despotism and promotes fairness and transparency.

Rowls wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 23, 2024 6:16 pm

I'm all for anonymity for defendants in crimes when the same is afforded to people reporting to be victims. However, there is no such law at present and the papers who ran with this story were simply reporting the court case.

If people find any aspect of this morally wrong and feel strongly about it they can join a political party and campaign about it but we do need to be careful with these matters and consider the ramifications and the law of unintended consequences: Having open criminal trials is one of the key aspects of any democracy. It prevents miscarriages of justice, despotism and promotes fairness and transparency.

I do agree, but the particular headline quoted is misleading. It implies our justice system has found him guilty but that isn't the case.

I don't see the forementioned papers rushing to show the not guilty verdict

I see nothing wrong with the headline if it is read properly.

Hipper wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 24, 2024 10:39 am

I see nothing wrong with the headline if it is read properly.

You mean there is nothing wrong with the headline if you read the full article.The headline is most definitely wrong and misleading.

The headline isn't wrong or misleading. It is a statement of fact.

No it's not John Cofie is not guilty

The headline is a hook, and while factually correct is deliberately misleading to grab attention. Had the Headline read ex-footballer’s had their careers destroyed by claims the court decided where unsubstantiated… it would have had a whole different emotive feel: and would have only appealed to a few fans who could remember the players.

The Mail’s wider agenda is pushing for legal reform, and discrediting a profession that is in virtually full revolt against government reforms and attempts to sidestep legal precedents on a regular basis (not least Rwanda). You leave the article thinking did they get away with it? Which was the intention of article.