Jump to content

Forestieri Charged


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

But in the Terry case, as has been said numerous times, the words were clearly used and there was clear evidence of this. The criminal courts found him not guilty on the basis that in his version of events, he used the words to confirm to the player that he hadn't called him that. The FA banned him on the basis that those words shouldn't have been uttered on the football pitch at all.

 

In this case Forestieri has denied using racist words and the courts found no evidence to suggest that any such words were used. Surely the FA don't have any evidence to the contrary as this would have to have been submitted as part of the criminal trial.

 

Of course the FA should conduct their own investigation into what happened but surely it is better to invite both parties to submit evidence/their testimonies as to what happened in detail rather than charging a player then giving him the chance to respond if there is seemingly no clear evidence in support of what has been alleged?

 

 

The Terry thing was brought up because of the obvious comparisons with the whole Not guilty thing then charged by the FA, the details are different but earlier in the thread I was debating the procedure which at this point is the same. 

 

I've no idea what evidence the FA have, do any of us really? 

 

Agree with the 3rd bit. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ChinaOwl said:

 

They have rule books and codes of practice that are different from legislation. Sometimes by necessity, law and legislation impinge on rules and codes of practice but they are not the same. Neither are court cases (criminal or civil) and disciplinary procedure. The are lots of examples where people have been found not guilty in court cases but subject to disciplinary action and vice versa.

Yes I agree.

I don't want a war about this..so I'll leave my thoughts on the matter..

How would you feel if the law brought to to court charges against you for racism..you were found not guilty.. then your workplace decided to have another enquiry... completely outside of the law?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Costello 77 said:

 

They "govern" a game..a sport..by consent... that's all they do.

 

 

Good point, Costello, they do, and every sport needs and requires that governance and oversight. However, who looks over the overseers, to ensure their governance is fair, balanced and impartial ?

 

The FA HAVE to be seen to be proactive in respect of racist allegations, we all I presume agree on that. But, where the FA let themselves down, is the yearly campaigns they endorse that are meant to tackle racist and homophobic language and gestures, yet seem not to have a effect. The reluctance of the elected governors of the game to have a truly representative group of people, in governance, reflecting the many cultures and backgrounds of the players and the fans. The incredible lack of minority representation of coaches and managers being afforded the opportunities to progress.

 

I could go on, but I am sure most have been bored reading this, and not reached this far.

 

Bottom line for me is, the FA whilst outwardly championing the banner of tackling racism and other discrimination, they have inwardly got it so wrong, and will continue to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, ChinaOwl said:

 

They have rule books and codes of practice that are different from legislation. Sometimes by necessity, law and legislation impinge on rules and codes of practice but they are not the same. Neither are court cases (criminal or civil) and disciplinary procedure. The are lots of examples where people have been found not guilty in court cases but subject to disciplinary action and vice versa.

 

Agree with this, but the comparison you made with the Stokes incident is not appropriate. 

Stokes, as with Forestieri was found not guilty in a court of law. Stokes was found guilty by the ECB of bringing the game into disrepute - he actually pleaded guilty to this charge - the evidence was there for all to see that he had done that, even though the circumstances surrounding the incident meant he was not guilty of affray in the eyes of the law.

 

The criminal trial Forestieri went through found no evidence of racial language being used so not sure how the FA can prove there was evidence of this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Whitechapel Owl said:

 

The Terry thing was brought up because of the obvious comparisons with the whole Not guilty thing then charged by the FA, the details are different but earlier in the thread I was debating the procedure which at this point is the same. 

 

I've no idea what evidence the FA have, do any of us really? 

 

Agree with the 3rd bit. 

 

As the game was conducted under FA rules using FA officials by clubs governed by the FA, I would assume that if they had any pertinent evidence that gave reason to believe racist language was used then they would have had to submit this under the laws of the land when the criminal trial was conducted. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Costello 77 said:

Yes I agree.

I don't want a war about this..so I'll leave my thoughts on the matter..

How would you feel if the law brought to to court charges against you for racism..you were found not guilty.. then your workplace decided to have another enquiry... completely outside of the law?

 

 

I would respond in exactly the same way that I expect FF to do. I would approach a solicitor and leave the wording of the response to him/her. I would emphatically deny the charge whilst asserting my agreement that such matters should not be taken lightly. I would politely ask them to drop the charges and explain the reasons in a press release. I fully believe that course of action would be taken because, like you, I cannot possibly envisage that any evidence exists over and above that already outlined in the court case (which was wholly inadequate for either a criminal conviction or disciplinary procedure). I still dwell on how the feck the CPS even allowed it tp progress into the courts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

As the game was conducted under FA rules using FA officials by clubs governed by the FA, I would assume that if they had any pertinent evidence that gave reason to believe racist language was used then they would have had to submit this under the laws of the land when the criminal trial was conducted. 

 

Sounds about right, will be interesting to see if the FA think that's enough. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Theboylangers

Have the FA have failed in their duty of care to other players by allowing an alleged racist player to continue playing for 11 months without charging him? 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Whitechapel Owl said:

 

The Terry thing was brought up because of the obvious comparisons with the whole Not guilty thing then charged by the FA, the details are different but earlier in the thread I was debating the procedure which at this point is the same. 

 

I've no idea what evidence the FA have, do any of us really? 

 

Agree with the 3rd bit. 

The FA will investigate either way evidence or not. They have to be seen to do something before people start to realise what the real deal is.

 

I personally believe the only real inequality in football in this country is within organisations like the FA themselves. They don't have a proportional representation of ethnic minorities holding top positions in the FA in comparison to minorities playing the game professionally.

 

Same goes for the LMA, UEFA. 

 

During and in the immediate aftermath of the match there were possibly 3 crimes commited. Racial abuse, assault and inciting violence on social media. All should have been investigated by the FA and law in the sameway, as all are just as serious.

 

We talk about Terry, but what about Jay Rodriguez, what happened to him was horrendous, those claims were obviously unfounded and the FA still investigated, which is understandable but they didn't do it compassionately. Putting him through a terrible ordeal and he became the victim. 

 

Society really needs to look at itself and the lengths people will go to to say I'm not racist. We all have brains use them, its obvious when someone is taking the p*** isn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scapegoat, FA trying to look tough on racism. Also means unlikely anyone will sign him with this hanging over him in probably our last window to get a much needed fee. 

 

Just hoping DC has a ***** good lawyer and we decide to go after the player who assaulted one of our lads

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve made my feelings on forestieri clear, I think he’s an idiot and I’d happily of sold him . Having said this , this is a joke. As soon as the ‘r’ word is brandished , the faux outrage brigade get all giddy for a ‘look at my I’m offended and I’m doing the right thing’ session . It’s boring beyond belief 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, ChinaOwl said:

 

But, in this instance, it would be neither. It is a rule that they are enforcing, not a law. A rule that only exists in their own rule book. I guess Forestieri's legal team can possibly challenge it on employment legislation (that he is being victimised on a disciplinary issue for which no firm evidence exists).

Some one was comparing the UK legal system with the league's rules ,I pointed out there is a similarity,my guess is he will be banned for up to 5 games

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Birley Owl 1867 said:

Was bound to happen.

 

Gets thrown out in court of law but FA take it upon themselves to impose over the law of the land.

 

Did same with Terry too.

this needs the club to throw everything behind him in defence, and put the 'old farts' in their place. NOW lets see what witnesses they have?

a body of opposition footballers who had got together (perhaps manager included?) and decided to 'rough up' their opposition in the 'friendly game' and for that game to be played in a bad spirit, a bad atmosphere, and akin to something like turning out time at a nightclub used to be, with confrontation at every possible turn.

when that 'confrontation' is at it's height, one opposition football claims he was 'abused' and the major shock is his confederates on the day ALL HEARD IT. WOW! what a surprise.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, akbuk said:

Some one was comparing the UK legal system with the league's rules ,I pointed out there is a similarity,my guess is he will be banned for up to 5 games

 

My guess (and that is all it is) is that FF and/or a legal representative will respond to the charge, the FA will decide that there is insufficient evidence to proceed, the matter will be dropped and then everyone moves on. It would appear to me just a perfunctory exercise in which the FA have to be seen to take a racist slur seriously. So they issue the charge simply as a procedural measure. I just cannot envisage how they can progress disciplinary action on FF based on what looks like the flimsiest of evidence that has already been rejected in the courts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...