Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Costello 77 said:

The courts certainly do operate on a different basis ..a much higher threshold of evidence for starters..

The civil courts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 game ban & £50k fine for one adult male calling another adult male a name. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rickygoo said:

It's the basis of the whole civil law system. It's not saying the criminal court was wrong  - they operate on a different basis.

 

Do you think they're going to/should rip up the British legal system because a few Wednesday fans kick off? 

No, but I don't see how any organisation can have more authorisation than the law of the land.

Kangaroo court is how it is.

 

 

Screenshot_20190906-113407.jpg

Edited by A12owl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, torres said:

9 game ban & £50k fine for one adult male calling another adult male a name. 

 

 

ALLEGEDLY 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, handworth52 said:

lets hope an awful 3 months don't turn into an awful 12 months, as the way we are been run and treated ,we might get our ground shut! 12 points deduction and that in turn sees us relegated and be in such a meltdown that in league 1 we have to sell every player of value . the sad thing is this doomsday scenario is looking like it could be a reality. what we need is leadership on and off the pitch and communication we are getting neither.  I doubt even lee bullen knows whats going off. 

 

 

E93957A6-3028-4365-B187-96EBCC0FC87E.png

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rickygoo said:

It's the basis of the whole civil law system. It's not saying the criminal court was wrong  - they operate on a different basis.

 

Do you think they're going to/should rip up the British legal system because a few Wednesday fans kick off? 


An EFL panel is not the British legal system. Asking for the EFL to require a higher burden of proof than one person's word against another has nothing to do with the British legal system.

Workplace disciplinary procedures in ordinary businesses all over the country require less proof than a court of law but usually more than one person's word against another. This would be especially true if there were other witnesses who did not hear what was said. It would be extremely difficult to justify an official reprimand of any severity. In this case there were other players and the referee present but only one person heard it and seemed to be unsure of exactly what was said at first.

The most laughable aspect to me is the contention by the panel that none of the words FF used could ever possibly be mistaken for the n word. I don't speak Spanish but Google translate audio stresses the hard g sound in "verga" so I can absolutely see why it could be mistaken for the n word.

Sorry for digressing a bit back to the (de) merits of the case. My point was really to say that you don't have to rip up the whole legal system to ensure that the EFL's disciplinary hearings are fair, transparent and sufficiently evidence based.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, torres said:

9 game ban & £50k fine for one adult male calling another adult male a name. 

 

 


it isn't just a name though is it if he did say it.

My problem with it is the way that they arrived at their conclusion as I partly said in the previous post. If he did say it then he deserves the punishment but I'm not sure there is enough proof that he did on reading the transcript.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, the mighty wednesday said:


it isn't just a name though is it if he did say it.

My problem with it is the way that they arrived at their conclusion as I partly said in the previous post. If he did say it then he deserves the punishment but I'm not sure there is enough proof that he did on reading the transcript.

 

It is just a name. 

 

A grown man was upset about being called a name that he told on FF like a 5 year old. 

 

How come the abuse Bruce and Ashley have had hasn’t been brought up??

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sonofbert2 said:

 

 

E93957A6-3028-4365-B187-96EBCC0FC87E.png

 

Just been given a free sausage roll, it works!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, torres said:

 

It is just a name. 

 

A grown man was upset about being called a name that he told on FF like a 5 year old. 

 

How come the abuse Bruce and Ashley have had hasn’t been brought up??

 

 


If you are a grown man yourself I can't see why you don't understand that it is not just a name to the people on the receiving end of it.

Pearce may have been mistaken, he may have made the story up but if it was actually said then he was right to report it. It is a word which carries more meaning than a mere name

Bruce and Ashley are irrelevant to this. I don't know what abuse you are referring to but I'd agree there is a line that shouldn't be crossed in any form of banter/abuse - racist or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Castleford Owl said:

Loses appeal. Farcical.

I agree Castleford Owl. Forestieri has been found guilty by the FA after a criminal law trial found him Not Guilty of the same charge on the same evidence.. How can the actions of the FA be lawful? In my view it amounts to libel in defaming the player after he was acquitted in Court.  Try making a public declaration stating that someone was guilty of a crime after they'd been found not guilty and seeing how long it takes for the libel lawyers to start swinging round your neck.  How is it then that the FA are able to get away with it?  Presumably because they think they're above the law and no-one has challenged them on it yet.  Imagine if Fernando was a direct employee of the FA and they took this action against him, under the same circumstances.  An employment tribunal would have a birthday!!  Don't underestimate DC suing the FA on this with the decision of the Criminal Court under his belt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Sheff6 said:

I agree Castleford Owl. Forestieri has been found guilty by the FA after a criminal law trial found him Not Guilty of the same charge on the same evidence.. How can the actions of the FA be lawful? In my view it amounts to libel in defaming the player after he was acquitted in Court.  Try making a public declaration stating that someone was guilty of a crime after they'd been found not guilty and seeing how long it takes for the libel lawyers to start swinging round your neck.  How is it then that the FA are able to get away with it?  Presumably because they think they're above the law and no-one has challenged them on it yet.  Imagine if Fernando was a direct employee of the FA and they took this action against him, under the same circumstances.  An employment tribunal would have a birthday!!  Don't underestimate DC suing the FA on this with the decision of the Criminal Court under his belt.

Tell OJ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, rickygoo said:

Tell OJ.

 

OJ was found Guilty in a Civil Court, following his not guilty verdict in a Criminal Court, but we're not at that Civil-Court stage yet with FF.  The football authorities have found Fernando guilty but they're not a Civil Court - and on what basis have they found him guilty? Have they set the bar at Beyond all Reasonable Doubt, like the Criminal Court. who found him Not Guilty?  If they have, they're in contempt of that official court ruling which uses the same criterion. Have they based their verdict on the Balance of Probabilities like a Civil Court does? Nobody knows for sure and and the football authorities haven't published their corporate handbook on it as far as I know..

 

If I was SWFC's  lawyers I would take a long hard look at the possible infringement of Employment Law by the football authorities disciplinary process. True, FF is not a direct employee of Wednesday's; he's a contractor, but he's been disciplined by a body governing his workplace activities and with it the denial of benefits his skills bring to his contractual employer over an extended period.  These tribunals take a long hard critical look at how corporate decisions are reached in disciplining people in the workplace, believe me. They have to be watertight to pass muster. 

 

And if they are found wanting (any bets on whether the football authorities procedures of any kind would be found wanting?) in any way, the Tribunal usually finds for the plaintiff. I hope so. It would cut the legs off the disciplinary verdict. I hope DC has the courage to go for it.  It probably wouldn't avert FF being suspended, because court proceedings like this take ages, but at least it would eventually stop the kangaroo court activities of the football authorities and give DC and FF some satisfaction, a restoration of character to club and player, and possibly lead to compensation.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Sheff6 said:

 Have they based their verdict on the Balance of Probabilities like a Civil Court does? Nobody knows for sure and and the football authorities haven't published their corporate handbook on it as far as I know..

 

We do know for sure. From the ruling itself - "Pursuant to Regulation 8, General Provisions, The FA Disciplinary Regulations 2018/19 (‘Disciplinary Regulations’), the standard of proof is the civil standard, namely the balance of probabilities."

 

In terms of the process - we will be affiliated to the FA and will have to abide by their rules I guess.  They will have the right to discipline the player if we want to continue to participate in competitions as a member club of the FA. 

 

The judge in the criminal case said that the Mansfield player -  “believed he was called a n****r”. However, he 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 judgement unlikely, that Mr Pearce was mistaken.” Therefore, he found himself not sure that the case was proved.   

 

That was "proved" to a criminal law level not civil which put the FA into a tricky place  The original judge did also say FF was consistent and credible too but his statement was pretty clear - suggesting that there was a case to answer based on a civil level of proof. 

 

http://www.thefa.com/-/media/files/thefaportal/governance-docs/discipline-cases/2019/the-fa-v-fernando-forestieri---15-july-2019.ashx

 

It does seem harsh at face value but them's the rules. I don't think there's a vendetta against us or FF. They were boxed into bringing the case and then it was down to the tribunal. And if the tribunal believed there was a 51% chance FF was guilty - then under the rules he's guilty. We can read the evidence but we weren't in the tribunal so we can't comment on how that evidence was delivered. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, rickygoo said:

It does seem harsh at face value but them's the rules. I don't think there's a vendetta against us or FF. They were boxed into bringing the case and then it was down to the tribunal. And if the tribunal believed there was a 51% chance FF was guilty - then under the rules he's guilty. We can read the evidence but we weren't in the tribunal so we can't comment on how that evidence was delivered. 

 

Thanks for the clarification on that. The FA/EFL have made a decision then based on Civil Law but that's the 'front end' of it.  There must be a policy and procedural process they follow that backs that up relating to how they gather evidence and how they consider it.  It should specify how each member of the panel is qualified to do their job and the training they should receive including refreshers and updates.  Are the training records all up to date and does the process all join up properly or are there anomalies. Has the procedure itself been reviewed and renewed according to policy.  If not, the procedure's out of date and invalid.

 

If all that is squeaky clean, and it's a big if, has the process been followed to the letter, including allowance for testimony given by someone whose 1st language is not English. The devil's in the detail when it comes to an employment tribunal, which I think would be DC's best line of attack.  Sounds nit-picking, but when someone's public reputation and livelihood is at stake (possibly affecting future employment), believe me good lawyers will ferret into every mortal  part of the disciplinary process applied and if there are any cracks at all, they'll seek them out to discredit it and those who applied it.  I've seen some apparently nailed on cases thrown out because of seemingly small procedural irregularities, mainly because the stakes are so high for the person involved.  Establishment judges who sit on these tribunals also have an inherent suspicion of corporate disciplinary processes purporting to follow official judicial procedure. If it doesn't pass muster to their satisfaction, it's usually game over for those bringing the case against the individual.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sheff6 said:

 

Thanks for the clarification on that. The FA/EFL have made a decision then based on Civil Law but that's the 'front end' of it.  There must be a policy and procedural process they follow that backs that up relating to how they gather evidence and how they consider it.  It should specify how each member of the panel is qualified to do their job and the training they should receive including refreshers and updates.  Are the training records all up to date and does the process all join up properly or are there anomalies. Has the procedure itself been reviewed and renewed according to policy.  If not, the procedure's out of date and invalid.

 

If all that is squeaky clean, and it's a big if, has the process been followed to the letter, including allowance for testimony given by someone whose 1st language is not English. The devil's in the detail when it comes to an employment tribunal, which I think would be DC's best line of attack.  Sounds nit-picking, but when someone's public reputation and livelihood is at stake (possibly affecting future employment), believe me good lawyers will ferret into every mortal  part of the disciplinary process applied and if there are any cracks at all, they'll seek them out to discredit it and those who applied it.  I've seen some apparently nailed on cases thrown out because of seemingly small procedural irregularities, mainly because the stakes are so high for the person involved.  Establishment judges who sit on these tribunals also have an inherent suspicion of corporate disciplinary processes purporting to follow official judicial procedure. If it doesn't pass muster to their satisfaction, it's usually game over for those bringing the case against the individual.   

Although your post is very good.. you've managed to swerve around the main point..

It's a group of individuals who are paid by businessmen who've sat in "judgment" over somebody who's only connection with them is that their employer is reliant on that company to be able to carry out their activities.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Sheff6 said:

 

Thanks for the clarification on that. The FA/EFL have made a decision then based on Civil Law but that's the 'front end' of it.  There must be a policy and procedural process they follow that backs that up relating to how they gather evidence and how they consider it.  It should specify how each member of the panel is qualified to do their job and the training they should receive including refreshers and updates.  Are the training records all up to date and does the process all join up properly or are there anomalies. Has the procedure itself been reviewed and renewed according to policy.  If not, the procedure's out of date and invalid.

 

If all that is squeaky clean, and it's a big if, has the process been followed to the letter, including allowance for testimony given by someone whose 1st language is not English. The devil's in the detail when it comes to an employment tribunal, which I think would be DC's best line of attack.  Sounds nit-picking, but when someone's public reputation and livelihood is at stake (possibly affecting future employment), believe me good lawyers will ferret into every mortal  part of the disciplinary process applied and if there are any cracks at all, they'll seek them out to discredit it and those who applied it.  I've seen some apparently nailed on cases thrown out because of seemingly small procedural irregularities, mainly because the stakes are so high for the person involved.  Establishment judges who sit on these tribunals also have an inherent suspicion of corporate disciplinary processes purporting to follow official judicial procedure. If it doesn't pass muster to their satisfaction, it's usually game over for those bringing the case against the individual.   

Clearly a topic you know a lot about. We obviously have no knowledge of the FA’s internal mechanisms and rules etc. They may be whiter than white - no pun intended. 

 

The real politik as well is I really don’t see Chansiri pursuing, or encouraging, a legal case against the FA.  Even though he is adept at exploiting loopholes.

 

My main gripe in this is people linking FF with SAG, FFP and the EFL to imply there is a vendetta against us. Playing the victim card that many on here accuse Scousers of playing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Costello 77 said:

Although your post is very good.. you've managed to swerve around the main point..

It's a group of individuals who are paid by businessmen who've sat in "judgment" over somebody who's only connection with them is that their employer is reliant on that company to be able to carry out their activities.

 

 

Very good point. To be honest I did consider that, especially when I looked down the list of occupations of those involved, but you're right I did swerve round it   We all know you're right though and the collective noun for them is probably a 'Lack of Principles'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Sheff6 said:

 

Very good point. To be honest I did consider that, especially when I looked down the list of occupations of those involved, but you're right I did swerve round it   We all know you're right though and the collective noun for them is probably a 'Lack of Principles'.

They might have high principles Sheff.. what they don't have is any kind of authority outside of a business arrangement..

Share this post


Link to post
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...