Forestieri Charged

[cognacbarnowl]

2 hours ago, matthefish2002 said:

 

Think they have announced the 'Rooney Rule' will be used over here next season when you have to interview 1 BME person for a managers position.

Not sure how this will work in practice as you dont really have a formal interview for a job as you would in normal life.

 

And what happens if no BME? , (scuse my ignorance but no idea what it stands for), person applies for the job ?

[matthefish2002]

10 minutes ago, cognacbarnowl said:

 

And what happens if no BME? , (scuse my ignorance but no idea what it stands for), person applies for the job ?

 

Stands for Black and Mixed ethnicity.

Not sure what you do if no black person applies.

All a load of identity politics crap to me.

[Ronio]

30 minutes ago, cognacbarnowl said:

 

And what happens if no BME? , (scuse my ignorance but no idea what it stands for), person applies for the job ?

Best person for the job is who should be given the job.  

 

Meritocracy as opposed to filling a quota should be the way forward imo.  

[Ronio]

I should add, best person for the job without prejudice, that is true equality.   

[Mr. Tom]

6 hours ago, cognacbarnowl said:

 

On the issue of minority representation in the coaching and management fields ; surely it is down to the individual to go out and get whatever qualifications are required to do the job in the first place. I have never seen nor heard of a member of an ethnic minority being denied the chance to obtain the necessary qualifications needed to become a manager or coach in football. Then when the necessary qualifications have been achieved it is up to the individual concerned to apply for any jobs that become available and should expect to be employed if they are the best candidate.

 

 

 

This would be perfectly reasonable but it assumes a level playing field across the board. The opportunities may be *technically* equal on paper, but hiring and recruitment policies - to say nothing of the culture within workplaces all over the UK, and football especially - are anything but.

[Dick_Turpin]

7 hours ago, Hookowl said:

One persons word against another persons words doesn't really give much credence to an "on the balance of probability" verdict though.

Depends on how credible each individual is and the quality of their evidence. 

[Dick_Turpin]

7 hours ago, Hirstys Salopettes said:

 

Thats a fair take on it ...

 

i do however think that the reported summing up from the Judge (and I say reported because this initially came via The Stir’s reporter, it would be interesting to read the actual transcript) will taint the hearing 

The Guardian reported the same thing. One man’s taint is another man’s informed. 

 

I have no idea what will happen or happened as I wasn’t in court and haven’t seen either bloke give evidence.

 

What I am certain of is there is no vendetta against Wednesday or Forestieri, from the Star, The Guardian,  the judge or the FA, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a bit paranoid. 

 

 

[Ever the pessimist]

17 minutes ago, rickygoo said:

 

What I am certain of is there is no vendetta against Wednesday or Forestieri, from the Star, The Guardian,  the judge or the FA, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a bit paranoid. 

 

 

 

Guardian, judge, FA probably don’t care either way about Wednesday.

The Star are a bit of a weathervane: whoever is on top the tend to champion. Also think pigs reporters are more blinkered than ours ( kind of like the fan bases in general).

[kobayashi]

4 hours ago, ChinaOwl said:

 

Aye, but even in a civil matter, the case has to be proved to a point that it can be described as "in all probability" or "most likely". Unless there is a reliable and sufficiently independent third party (e.g. the referee) that can corroborate the allegations made against FF, how can it be sufficiently proven? The best that could be achieved would be a guess based on one version of events against another. It would be wrong, wholly wrong if they use a guess or assumption to find Forestieri guilty of the alleged breaches.

A court or tribunal just has to satisfy itself that it was more likely than not...

[Binky Griptite]

If nothing else this is crazy timing.

 

If you're going to charge him, do so to coincide with the court case and use the evidence therein, alongside your own follow up / interviews, etc, to form your own balance of probability findings, then dole out the punishment. Chances are he'd have got a ban (if the charge stuck) when injured or out of favour. But no, lets rake it up at the end of the season, you know, at the time where historically every single footballer at every tier of the footballing pyramid has supposedly had the slate wiped clean, when every club in the land is planning a title assault. 

 

It's seriously outrageous.

[matthefish2002]

2 hours ago, Binky Griptite said:

If nothing else this is crazy timing.

 

If you're going to charge him, do so to coincide with the court case and use the evidence therein, alongside your own follow up / interviews, etc, to form your own balance of probability findings, then dole out the punishment. Chances are he'd have got a ban (if the charge stuck) when injured or out of favour. But no, lets rake it up at the end of the season, you know, at the time where historically every single footballer at every tier of the footballing pyramid has supposedly had the slate wiped clean, when every club in the land is planning a title assault. 

 

It's seriously outrageous.

 

I think the FA were not be able to charge him until after the court case has finished for legal reasons.

Edited June 8, 2019 by matthefish2002

[Hirstys Salopettes]

11 hours ago, rickygoo said:

The Guardian reported the same thing. One man’s taint is another man’s informed. 

 

I have no idea what will happen or happened as I wasn’t in court and haven’t seen either bloke give evidence.

 

What I am certain of is there is no vendetta against Wednesday or Forestieri, from the Star, The Guardian,  the judge or the FA, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a bit paranoid. 

 

 

 

No I don’t think there is a vendetta against Wednesday or Forestieri, so I’m not paranoid, but thanks for implying it. 

 

In your reposts, you state ‘The Guardian reported the same thing’.  Incidentally other nationals reported along similar lines.  Are you implying that the Guardian (for example) had a reporter there as well as the Sheffield Star? You do know that national newspapers have reciprocal copy agreements with local newspapers which (sometimes for a nominal fee) allows them to reproduce what’s published locally.  The concept of each national having their own court reporter is simply uneconomical.  Even more so when covering cases of local/regional interest, rather than national interest.  

 

You further state ‘One mans taint is another mans informed’.  In my post which you’ve quoted I mention that I’d like to see the transcript produced by the stenographers, that’s because we’re not being robustly informed by what’s being reported.  

 

For example ... 

 

https://www.thestar.co.uk/news/crime/everything-fernando-forestieri-said-in-court-as-sheffield-wednesday-star-is-found-not-guilty-41621

 

The Sheffield Star’s report includes the line ‘He (the Judge) said he believed Mr Pearce was ‘unlikely’ to have been mistaken about hearing it’.  Now based on this report I think most people would conclude that Forestieri DID USE racial language but there was insufficient evidence to prove this beyond all reasonable doubt (due to a lack of eye witnesses). 

 

And then we have these reports ...

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-47738045

 

The BBC’s report includes the line ‘District Judge Jonathan Taffe ruled Mr Pearce May have misheard Mr Forestieri as ‘it was very loud’ at the ground’.  Now based on this report I think most people would conclude that Forestieri DID NOT USE racial language and that Mr Pearce was mistaken. 

 

The Sky report also leads one to conclude in Forestieri’s favour with respect to one’s  perception of the case https://news.sky.com/story/sheffield-wednesday-footballer-fernando-forestieri-found-not-guilty-of-racial-abuse-11677377

 

In my opinion, if the FA have not followed the same procedures as in the Firminio case (as in first carrying out an investigation to determine whether the is sufficient evidence to charge Forestieri) then it absolutely stinks of double standards.  If they think the text of newspaper reports reports into the court hearing are sufficient evidence then they’re also incompetent (as shown by the polar opposite examples above).  

 

Come what may, Forestieri’s name is back in the headlines and simply by being charged by the FA (which is of course not the verdict) there will again be a public perception of racism.  A lingering doubt remains.  It’s human nature that if you throw enough mud, some sticks. 

 

To to go back to your perception of my quote, I also do not believe for one second that there is an institutional vendetta.  There will however be a premeditated perception of the player.  It’s human nature.  It’s why Tim Robinson sent off ‘diver’ Forestieri at Hull. 

 

 

 

[darklord]

On 06/06/2019 at 23:35, The Horse said:

Here's the racist Fernando who invited his best mates from the squad, the black Lucas João and the Muslim Adthe Nuhiu to his son's first birthday bash at Fox Valley.

 

Bet big Dave insisted on a slice of cake with a character on it

[Dick_Turpin]

22 hours ago, Hirstys Salopettes said:

 

No I don’t think there is a vendetta against Wednesday or Forestieri, so I’m not paranoid, but thanks for implying it. 

 

In your reposts, you state ‘The Guardian reported the same thing’.  Incidentally other nationals reported along similar lines.  Are you implying that the Guardian (for example) had a reporter there as well as the Sheffield Star? You do know that national newspapers have reciprocal copy agreements with local newspapers which (sometimes for a nominal fee) allows them to reproduce what’s published locally.  The concept of each national having their own court reporter is simply uneconomical.  Even more so when covering cases of local/regional interest, rather than national interest.  

 

You further state ‘One mans taint is another mans informed’.  In my post which you’ve quoted I mention that I’d like to see the transcript produced by the stenographers, that’s because we’re not being robustly informed by what’s being reported.  

 

For example ... 

 

https://www.thestar.co.uk/news/crime/everything-fernando-forestieri-said-in-court-as-sheffield-wednesday-star-is-found-not-guilty-41621

 

The Sheffield Star’s report includes the line ‘He (the Judge) said he believed Mr Pearce was ‘unlikely’ to have been mistaken about hearing it’.  Now based on this report I think most people would conclude that Forestieri DID USE racial language but there was insufficient evidence to prove this beyond all reasonable doubt (due to a lack of eye witnesses). 

 

And then we have these reports ...

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-47738045

 

The BBC’s report includes the line ‘District Judge Jonathan Taffe ruled Mr Pearce May have misheard Mr Forestieri as ‘it was very loud’ at the ground’.  Now based on this report I think most people would conclude that Forestieri DID NOT USE racial language and that Mr Pearce was mistaken. 

 

The Sky report also leads one to conclude in Forestieri’s favour with respect to one’s  perception of the case https://news.sky.com/story/sheffield-wednesday-footballer-fernando-forestieri-found-not-guilty-of-racial-abuse-11677377

 

In my opinion, if the FA have not followed the same procedures as in the Firminio case (as in first carrying out an investigation to determine whether the is sufficient evidence to charge Forestieri) then it absolutely stinks of double standards.  If they think the text of newspaper reports reports into the court hearing are sufficient evidence then they’re also incompetent (as shown by the polar opposite examples above).  

 

Come what may, Forestieri’s name is back in the headlines and simply by being charged by the FA (which is of course not the verdict) there will again be a public perception of racism.  A lingering doubt remains.  It’s human nature that if you throw enough mud, some sticks. 

 

To to go back to your perception of my quote, I also do not believe for one second that there is an institutional vendetta.  There will however be a premeditated perception of the player.  It’s human nature.  It’s why Tim Robinson sent off ‘diver’ Forestieri at Hull. 

 

 

 

Seems straightforward.

 

The judge didn’t think the level of proof had reached enough for a criminal conviction. Regardless of the judge’s stated opinion on  whether the Mansfield player misheard he couldn’t be sure to the level required. It’s not a difficult circle to square. 

 

The Guardian and The Star took the obvious and best, from a story point of view, news line from the comments - no more no less. Their reporting - like the Sky and BBC reports - would have complied with contempt laws. 

 

As The Guardian reported, the judge’s comments were likely to give FF a problem given the lower level of proof required. That indeed is what has happened. 

 

 

[RichieB]

On 07/06/2019 at 23:08, rickygoo said:

Depends on how credible each individual is and the quality of their evidence. 

 

How do you determine who's evidence (in this case someone's word being the evidence) is better quality than another person's evidence...again their word only. 

 

My point is there's no evidence other than he said she said. So there is zero difference in the "quality of their evidence" as you put it. 

[McRightSide]

No surprise to see the investigation but it’s very different to the Terry case since it was clear he used a racist term.

 

With FF, there’s no credible evidence so I don’t see how you could make a charge stick. 

 

What would be really interesting would be gets banned and then launches a defamation suit against the EFL...

[Dick_Turpin]

2 hours ago, RichieB said:

 

How do you determine who's evidence (in this case someone's word being the evidence) is better quality than another person's evidence...again their word only. 

 

My point is there's no evidence other than he said she said. So there is zero difference in the "quality of their evidence" as you put it. 

 

Depends on how convincing the he and the she are.  Are you saying some people aren’t more believable than others? 

 

I’m not saying it’s simple nor that FF is guilty but it’s no surprise the FA are looking at it. 

[RigBon]

A reminder that...

Quote

Forestieri has until 14 June to respond to the charge.

 

 

[airborne_rat_of_s6]

Question; has anyone ever been charged by the FA and then cleared? Seems as though getting charged is a prelude to a kangaroo court and inevitable fine/ban.

[asteener1867]

16 minutes ago, airborne_rat_of_s6 said:

Question; has anyone ever been charged by the FA and then cleared? Seems as though getting charged is a prelude to a kangaroo court and inevitable fine/ban.

Wayne Hennessy..Palace