Flynn Clarke

[TheBaldOne66 697]

Just seen that he’s been found guilty of injuring 3 people due to reckless driving. 
 

In view of the comments on the Greenwood thread, how do people feel about him now? 
 

He has been found guilty yet not one mention of this anywhere. People said they wouldn’t want Greenwood, do they still want Clarke here?

Edited August 13, 2023 by TheBaldOne66

[Midlands Yellow 4,073]

8 minutes ago, TheBaldOne66 said:

Just seen that he’s been found guilty of injuring 3 people due to reckless driving. 
 

In view of the comments on the Greenwood thread, how do people feel about him now? 
 

He has been found guilty yet not one mention of this anywhere. People said they wouldn’t want Greenwood, do they still want Clarke here?

What were the injuries to the trio? Any other vehicle involved? I see it happened in April 22 and Clarke was involved in promotional work this summer to flog the new shirts. Looks like the club are standing by him. 

[TheBaldOne66 697]

14 minutes ago, Midlands Yellow said:

What were the injuries to the trio? Any other vehicle involved? I see it happened in April 22 and Clarke was involved in promotional work this summer to flog the new shirts. Looks like the club are standing by him. 

Story is on BBC Norfolk News page, but very short on detail other than he was found guilty

[Terminally Yellow 2,477]

33 minutes ago, TheBaldOne66 said:

Just seen that he’s been found guilty of injuring 3 people due to reckless driving. 
 

In view of the comments on the Greenwood thread, how do people feel about him now? 
 

He has been found guilty yet not one mention of this anywhere. People said they wouldn’t want Greenwood, do they still want Clarke here?

1. He's not been found guilty - he's admitted and pleaded guilty to an offence of driving dangerously causing serious injury. That's a big difference given he'll be due credit for the guilty plea.

2. The offence of driving dangerously causing serious injury is different to careless driving causing serious injury. There is no reckless driving causing serious injury charge in the UK. 

3. Irrespective of what a person does, I believe in second chances. If he - or Greenwood or any person - shows a willingness to change and remorse for what they have done (as Clarke has done through his guilty plea) then it should become a matter for the courts and then a matter for the club what happens next. 

Edited August 13, 2023 by Terminally Yellow

[TheBaldOne66 697]

2 hours ago, Terminally Yellow said:

1. He's not been found guilty - he's admitted and pleaded guilty to an offence of driving dangerously causing serious injury. That's a big difference given he'll be due credit for the guilty plea.

2. The offence of driving dangerously causing serious injury is different to careless driving causing serious injury. There is no reckless driving causing serious injury charge in the UK. 

3. Irrespective of what a person does, I believe in second chances. If he - or Greenwood or any person - shows a willingness to change and remorse for what they have done (as Clarke has done through his guilty plea) then it should become a matter for the courts and then a matter for the club what happens next. 

He’s not been found guilty but pleaded guilty? So he’s guilty then. Whether he’s pleaded guilty or been found guilty surely that’s the same? 
 

This message board is becoming stupid in that all things Norwich are correct yet everything else is wrong such as the refereeing decisions, Mason Greenwood etc.

Truly bizarre. 

[Bert 236]

He has brought the club into disrepute and should have his contract torn up and sent to Portman road as punishment 

[Terminally Yellow 2,477]

9 minutes ago, TheBaldOne66 said:

He’s not been found guilty but pleaded guilty? So he’s guilty then. Whether he’s pleaded guilty or been found guilty surely that’s the same? 

This message board is becoming stupid in that all things Norwich are correct yet everything else is wrong such as the refereeing decisions, Mason Greenwood etc.

Truly bizarre. 

What the **** are you on about, Baldy? Read my post before making dimwitted comments.

To be found guilty you need to have a trial. Clarke has admitted his guilt and pleaded guilty. A huge distinction as that will make a massive difference in the sentence he is given. It's more a factual distinction I'm correcting in your post. Like your quoting of the charge. You're wrong there too. Clarke has pleaded guilty to a much more serious charge than the one you claimed he had "been found guilty" of. 

If you want to try and pass judgement and set the pitchforks on a person, get your facts right first. 

I've also not made a distinction between Mason Greenwood and Flynn Clarke on the basis of one being a Norwich player and the other not. I've said - quite clearly, I'm surprised you missed it - my view is someone who shows remorse and a willingness for change deserves another chance and then it becomes a matter first for the courts and then for the club as to what happens to him and not for judgemental football fans who can't even get the facts straight on a football forum. 

[chicken 2,642]

Not only that, pleading guilty doesn't mean guilt on all counts. I've worked with people who have pled guilty because their solicitor advised them doing otherwise was unlikey to get a better result.

In one instance I was a witness to their innocense and was willing to stand in court but the solicitor felt it was too pricarious as it'd be my word vs the other party, with one other witness backing them up.

A trial may have gotten to the truth but the risk was a much more severe consequence. Community service Vs prison.

[RobJames 890]

10 hours ago, TheBaldOne66 said:

Story is on BBC Norfolk News page, but very short on detail other than he was found guilty

Because there is not a lot of detail available. at this stage. If he had pleaded not guilty, then the events would be known as they would be read out by the prosecution. Once he has been sentenced in September I'm sure more will come out. However, this smacks of your constant need to grab at any stick to beat the club with. As evidenced by your previous rants.  Maybe you would be better posting on the forum where your true support lies. At least there (TWTD) your idiocy would not stand out. A tree amongst a forest etc.

[DraytonBoy 160]

He'll do well to avoid any sort of prison time, I'm guessing the club have known everything about the case for some time and have an idea of the likely sentence which is why he's still at the club.  

[Rich T The Biscuit 562]

He won't get a prison sentence, he didn't kill anyone due to reckless driving, suggests it wasn't drink driving but stupid driving so a driving ban and fine or at work community service is what he'll get.

[DraytonBoy 160]

7 minutes ago, Rich T The Biscuit said:

He won't get a prison sentence, he didn't kill anyone due to reckless driving, suggests it wasn't drink driving but stupid driving so a driving ban and fine or at work community service is what he'll get.

If you look at the offence he's pleaded guilty to and the Crown Court sentencing tariffs for that offence he could get anything from six months to five years before a guilty plea, remorse and actual injuries are taken into account. A suspended sentence and a long driving ban would be a good result. 

[Captain Holt 522]

Think there’s a big difference between driving like a d1ck (admittedly that has caused harm to innocent people) and raping and beating your partner.

The comparison angle just isn’t there.

[BSEYELLOW 36]

21 hours ago, TheBaldOne66 said:

Just seen that he’s been found guilty of injuring 3 people due to reckless driving. 
 

In view of the comments on the Greenwood thread, how do people feel about him now? 
 

He has been found guilty yet not one mention of this anywhere. People said they wouldn’t want Greenwood, do they still want Clarke here?

Rape and assault are not equal to dangerous driving and accidental harm caused by it.  Neither should be accepted and forgotten without repercussions, but its obvious why there isnt the same outcry regarding both situations.  One is poor judgment and one is a deliberate choice to harm another person is despicable ways.

[Rich T The Biscuit 562]

6 hours ago, DraytonBoy said:

If you look at the offence he's pleaded guilty to and the Crown Court sentencing tariffs for that offence he could get anything from six months to five years before a guilty plea, remorse and actual injuries are taken into account. A suspended sentence and a long driving ban would be a good result. 

Hear what you're saying but if I was a betting man I'd bet on him not getting any prison time

[Capt. Pants 4,276]

Well he won't be driving anywhere again soon, at least not legally.

Insurance companies view Dangerous Driving worse than drunk driving and coupled with being young, a prof footballer and a conviction record it will be difficult for him to get insurance, or at least without paying through the nose for it.

It will be a life changing moment for him, at least in the short term.

[TheBaldOne66 697]

10 hours ago, BSEYELLOW said:

Rape and assault are not equal to dangerous driving and accidental harm caused by it.  Neither should be accepted and forgotten without repercussions, but its obvious why there isnt the same outcry regarding both situations.  One is poor judgment and one is a deliberate choice to harm another person is despicable ways.

Greenwood hasn’t been found guilty though has he, whereas Clarke has admitted his guilt. So Greenwood should be presumed innocent whatever people think he may have done, that’s the difference.

[Duncan Edwards 2,262]

1 hour ago, TheBaldOne66 said:

Greenwood hasn’t been found guilty though has he, whereas Clarke has admitted his guilt. So Greenwood should be presumed innocent whatever people think he may have done, that’s the difference.

Which is fine if that’s the world a person chooses to live in; where things are either one thing or the other, binary, black or white, innocent or guilty. Of course, that doesn’t allow for any nuance, doesn’t take into account the difficulty to demonstrate the burden of proof etc which is why I don’t think you can make a fair comparison between the two “incidents”.

The conviction rate for rape (most cases never get as far as court) is something ridiculous like 1.6%. The main reason being the difficulty to determine guilt beyond reasonable doubt especially in cases where the accuser/accused are known to each other or in a relationship. If defence counsel question the accuser and it turns out that they’d “..liked it a bit rough..” (apologies) and had consented to such on a previous occasion, how can anyone in a jurors position subsequently be sure beyond any reasonable doubt that the same hadn’t occurred in this instance?

That said, if anyone thinks or believes that 98.4% (or whatever the figure is) of those accused are “innocent” - as in they didn’t do it - well, I’ve got some magic beans to sell them; it’s just ridiculously hard to prove in most cases. 

Edited August 14, 2023 by Duncan Edwards

[By Hook or Ian crook 917]

In life young people make mistakes. Some make bigger ones than others but I think almost everyone deserves a second chance. The lad is barely an adult and has probably lived in the football bubble thinking he’s something special and above the law for a period. Hopefully something like this will build character of the young man and help him mature. 

[RobJames 890]

There is a vast difference between the two cases. The difference between manslaughter and murder. The guilty mind, as m'learned friends would have. 

If you have passed your driving test then you should know how to drive. You should be aware of the dangers of not driving with due care. I am not sure if the three injured were passengers or pedestrians. However the 'guilty mind was not there. It was not his intent to cause the harm he did.

Whereas Greenwood knew exactly what he was doing. It was also sustained, rather than a 'moment of madness'  Thankfully the law is in the hands of those who know these things. Not some idiot on social media trying to find a stick to beat the club with.

[BSEYELLOW 36]

11 hours ago, TheBaldOne66 said:

Greenwood hasn’t been found guilty though has he, whereas Clarke has admitted his guilt. So Greenwood should be presumed innocent whatever people think he may have done, that’s the difference.

Greenwood wasn't found not guilty though, was he.  The charges were "dropped"... doesnt take a genius to figure out what happened.  You heard the recording right?

[TheBaldOne66 697]

43 minutes ago, BSEYELLOW said:

Greenwood wasn't found not guilty though, was he.  The charges were "dropped"... doesnt take a genius to figure out what happened.  You heard the recording right?

No I haven’t, tbh I’m not interested as it’s of no relevance to me. I was making a point the law says innocent til proven guilty. Anyway as Duncan said, rape is difficult to prove at the best of times, I’m not saying he didn’t do it either, just that he’s innocent unless proven guilty in the eyes of the law 

[Ward 3 372]

On 13/08/2023 at 13:25, Terminally Yellow said:

1. He's not been found guilty - he's admitted and pleaded guilty to an offence of driving dangerously causing serious injury. That's a big difference given he'll be due credit for the guilty plea.

2. The offence of driving dangerously causing serious injury is different to careless driving causing serious injury. There is no reckless driving causing serious injury charge in the UK. 

3. Irrespective of what a person does, I believe in second chances. If he - or Greenwood or any person - shows a willingness to change and remorse for what they have done (as Clarke has done through his guilty plea) then it should become a matter for the courts and then a matter for the club what happens next. 

Everyone makes mistakes and deserve a second chance, within reason. I dont agree with that aspect on rapists, or abusers, but car accidents, they can happen any time anywhere, doesn't always have to be to do with the driver.

I stand by the lad.

[Capt. Pants 4,276]

Jailed for 12 months.

[TIL 1010 4,789]

https://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2023-09-15/footballer-jailed-for-a47-crash-that-seriously-injured-trio

Driving having been on laughing gas according to the EDP report.

[Capt. Pants 4,276]

Not really an accident, more an inevitable outcome, hence the sentence.

Club to undertake an internal review. Hopefully we'll tear up his contract.

[Dame to Blame 96]

1 hour ago, Capt. Pants said:

Not really an accident, more an inevitable outcome, hence the sentence.

Club to undertake an internal review. Hopefully we'll tear up his contract.

I think we can safely say his contract will be terminated, i would be amazed by any other outcome. 

[AJ 1,224]

48 minutes ago, Dame to Blame said:

I think we can safely say his contract will be terminated, i would be amazed by any other outcome. 

Absolutely, sadly another waste of talent

[dylanisabaddog 4,976]

11 hours ago, Capt. Pants said:

Not really an accident, more an inevitable outcome, hence the sentence.

Club to undertake an internal review. Hopefully we'll tear up his contract.

I would have thought so. The important thing from Norwich City's point of view is the effect on the other youngsters at the club. 

Edited September 16, 2023 by dylanisabaddog

[TheBaldOne66 697]

On 14/08/2023 at 17:42, Rich T The Biscuit said:

Hear what you're saying but if I was a betting man I'd bet on him not getting any prison time

But he did get prison time, and rightly so in my opinion