BeverleyOwl74 Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 It'll do fizz all but you've got to say something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mkowl Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 1 minute ago, Harrysgame said: Well done FF, hope he takes it all the way. Must say his grasp of the English language is fantastic, I would struggle to prepare a statement like that! Without stating the bleedin obvious that was 100% lawyer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Von shabba Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 5 minutes ago, Hirstys Salopettes said: Not at the disciplinary hearing it would seem ... Date: 15 July 2019 Appearances: Football Association Rebecca Turner – Regulatory Advocate, The FA Player Fernando Forestieri – (‘the Player’) Craig Harris – Player’s Counsel Philip Bonner – Player’s Solicitor Sarah Athi – Player’s Solicitor Lindsey Hinton – Club Secretary, Sheffield Wednesday FC (observer) Andria Forestieri – Player’s wife (observer) Lucas Cominelli – Player’s agent (observer) Other Chris Lang – Stenographer Sophie Macgregor – Stenographer Changez Khan – Interpreter (Argentinean-Spanish) Apparently he had..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hirstys Salopettes Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, evaD said: The judge believed KP had heard the word based on his reaction, not that FF had necessarily said it. Big difference Nail on head (although I think you could equally be referring to the disciplinary panel) Edited July 31, 2019 by Hirstys Salopettes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mkowl Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 I think the Human Rights Act is a fair place to start on this. To be accused of racism when this could impact on your reputation and this just being assessed on the balance of probabilities would seem to infringe your fundamental rights Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hirstys Salopettes Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 4 minutes ago, Ray Von shabba said: Date: 15 July 2019 Appearances: Football Association Rebecca Turner – Regulatory Advocate, The FA Player Fernando Forestieri – (‘the Player’) Craig Harris – Player’s Counsel Philip Bonner – Player’s Solicitor Sarah Athi – Player’s Solicitor Lindsey Hinton – Club Secretary, Sheffield Wednesday FC (observer) Andria Forestieri – Player’s wife (observer) Lucas Cominelli – Player’s agent (observer) Other Chris Lang – Stenographer Sophie Macgregor – Stenographer Changez Khan – Interpreter (Argentinean-Spanish) Apparently he had..... The OP said surely he had top legal eagles defending him ... my point was, having read the reasons for the decision, I find FF counsel to be far to passive with the panel and his reference to other cases (Suarez, Terry) is not the tact to have followed imho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leaping Lannys Perm Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 30 minutes ago, Ray Von shabba said: Hear what you're saying but in this supposed democratic country of ours, aren't you innocent until PROVEN guilty. I think the counter argument is that the FA consider him proven guilty. They've gone through their version of due process and reached a verdict. But again, I can certainly understand anyone's view that that process is just plain wrong. I'm somewhere in the middle on that particular debate but can certainly see why it wee wees people off. I guess one thing we will never know is how close to crossing the boundary of beyond reasonable doubt the original court case was. As I've stated, I feel the judges words suggest it was more likely than a 50:50 balance but how much further. If it is 5-10% away from being enough for a criminal conviction then I can see why the FA feel they need to take some action. But if it was 25-30% away then it isn't even close and at that point any FA judgement would seem unjust. The comparison with Terry is interesting though. In that case there was some pretty clear video evidence yet it still wasnt enough for a criminal conviction. But in that situation I can see why the FA felt there was enough evidence for their 'balance of probability.' But here we as a fanbase and a general public don't get to see anything so obvious. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest REDAs_biG_piECE Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 An absolute outrage Fight this politically correct, statistic gathering bullsh1t with your last breath Nando Much love and never ever accept their unlawful charge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
torres Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 9 minutes ago, mkowl said: Without stating the bleedin obvious that was 100% lawyer Get away - you might be on to something there 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mkowl Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 Like others have said IF the Mansfield player perceived he had heard the word i can understand the reaction But to assign guilt on what could be a reaction based on mis hearing something without any 3rd party evidence to support the assertion is an outstanding judgement call by the commission Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mkowl Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 2 minutes ago, torres said: Get away - you might be on to something there It's my top notch forensic skills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hirstys Salopettes Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 The District Judge expressed the single issue for him to be: “whether or not the word ****** was used”. So far as is material (at this stage) to his conclusion that the prosecution had not made him sure of the Player’s guilt, the District Judge’s Notes record, inter alia: “Mr Pearce has in my judgment provided clear and consistent evidence that on the pitch he was called a ******...I am satisfied beyond any doubt that Mr Pearce was of the view he was called a ****** – his loss of concentration and emotional [reaction?] together with what is said in the aftermath [?] persuades me of this.” “In fairness to [the Player] he likewise has provided clear and consistent testimony as to what occurred and whilst he may feel it is alright [sic] to insult Mr Pearce’s mother he would not use the word ******”. “So I left with two credible witnesses who have given consistent but differing accounts as to what occurred.” He (District Judge) expressed himself sure that KP “believed he was called a ******”. However, he (District Judge) concluded that in the absence of direct corroboration of KP’s account and in light of what he called the Player’s “language difficulties”, he had “to accept it is possible, albeit it is in my judgment unlikely, that Mr Pearce was mistaken.” Therefore, he found himself not sure that the case was proved. what a utterly shocking position the District Judge put FF in with regards to the FAs wishy washy balance of probabilities Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
torres Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 2 minutes ago, mkowl said: Like others have said IF the Mansfield player perceived he had heard the word i can understand the reaction But to assign guilt on what could be a reaction based on mis hearing something without any 3rd party evidence to support the assertion is an outstanding judgement call by the commission Its that bit I just don’t get. Would you really do all this because someone called you a name? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theowlsman Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 5 hours ago, Not Jon Newsome said: Marvellous, what a pre season this has turned out to be. Hoping that out of adversity, it brings everyone together with a feck em, we’ll show them, attitude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldowl67 Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 Any chance the FA’s timing, verdict and severity of punishment has anything to do with the recent Kick it Out report on racism in football? The reported 50% increase in reported instances of racism in the game shone a very bright spotlight on the FA. It’s no great surprise to me that the FA have made an example of FF so soon after that report. They’d have been desperate for a chance to show they’re serious about stamping out racism, so the small matter of actual evidence wouldn’t have unduly troubled them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mkowl Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 Just now, torres said: Its that bit I just don’t get. Would you really do all this because someone called you a name? Tbf the word allegedly "used" I can understand and accept the reaction What I cannot agree with is that the reaction is unequivocal evidence the word was said in the first place Because if he heard it as that whether it was said or not that was going to be his reaction Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Shutt is God Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 It is quite scary that the FA can charge someone with something so serious and so in the forefront of society seemingly on the basis that someone "thought" he had said a certain word. Not even a definite yes he said that word, not one other witness coming forward saying they heard it, just basing this on the reaction of a player who "thought" they heard a racist comment. It's actually unbelievable that we live in a world where people can be judged and their character assassinated on what someone thinks they may have said. The sad thing is that racism is something which needs tackling properly and punishment needs dishing out (more than 6 games I might add) but there has to be evidence and consistency. Look at Hennessey who apparently didn't know who Hitler was whilst making a nazi salute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
owls-swfc Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 (edited) 2 minutes ago, oldowl67 said: Any chance the FA’s timing, verdict and severity of punishment has anything to do with the recent Kick it Out report on racism in football? The reported 50% increase in reported instances of racism in the game shone a very bright spotlight on the FA. It’s no great surprise to me that the FA have made an example of FF so soon after that report. They’d have been desperate for a chance to show they’re serious about stamping out racism, so the small matter of actual evidence wouldn’t have unduly troubled them. Soon after..?? .... It happened a year ago....! Edited July 31, 2019 by owls-swfc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
victorturner Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 29 minutes ago, Hirstys Salopettes said: Not at the disciplinary hearing it would seem ... He needs a better lawyer esp given all the scrapes he gets into. No wonder his football has gone downhill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
victorturner Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 1 minute ago, Carl Shutt is God said: It is quite scary that the FA can charge someone with something so serious and so in the forefront of society seemingly on the basis that someone "thought" he had said a certain word. Not even a definite yes he said that word, not one other witness coming forward saying they heard it, just basing this on the reaction of a player who "thought" they heard a racist comment. It's actually unbelievable that we live in a world where people can be judged and their character assassinated on what someone thinks they may have said. The sad thing is that racism is something which needs tackling properly and punishment needs dishing out (more than 6 games I might add) but there has to be evidence and consistency. Look at Hennessey who apparently didn't know who Hitler was whilst making a nazi salute. Would their player make it up? That's the question the FA had to consider. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now