Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Inspector Lestrade said:

 

 

He had to go on the evidence.

 

I never mentioned  anything about a vendetta, your destroying an argument I never made or even agree with( at this point). 

The vendetta etc was re a general feeling about this case on here.

 

The key is the reference to criminal standard proof. The judge did look at the evidence and broadly seems to be saying I think he did it but it's not beyond reasonable doubt - so he might not have therefore I have to acquit him. The FA don't work to that level of proof. He probably did it is the basis of guilt in civil law.  Just the way it is. You might not like it but it's not new or exceptional - it's just the way the courts and UK law operate. They aren't going to change that because an obscure footballer gets accused of racism.  

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

The vendetta etc was re a general feeling about this case on here.

 

The key is the reference to criminal standard proof. The judge did look at the evidence and broadly seems to be saying I think he did it but it's not beyond reasonable doubt - so he might not have therefore I have to acquit him. The FA don't work to that level of proof. He probably did it is the basis of guilt in civil law.  Just the way it is. You might not like it but it's not new or exceptional - it's just the way the courts and UK law operate. They aren't going to change that because an obscure footballer gets accused of racism.  

 

Agree but my point is that they should take the lead from the courts.

 

When the courts find footballers guilty of a crime you never see the FA/EFL reward the player or find them not guilty, they take the lead from the courts. 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

 

Agree but my point is that they should take the lead from the courts.

 

When the courts find footballers guilty of a crime you never see the FA/EFL reward the player or find them not guilty, they take the lead from the courts. 

Because if you're guilty by criminal standards you'll be guilty by civil standards too. The converse doesn't apply.

 

Share this post


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

Because if you're guilty by criminal standards you'll be guilty by civil standards too. The converse doesn't apply.

 

 

the best of both worlds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Inspector Lestrade said:

 

Agree but my point is that they should take the lead from the courts.

 

When the courts find footballers guilty of a crime you never see the FA/EFL reward the player or find them not guilty, they take the lead from the courts. 

 

I think the FA would have left it to the courts normally but when its a sensitive subject as racism they have to be seen to be taking a stand.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, matthefish2002 said:

 

I think the FA would have left it to the courts normally but when its a sensitive subject as racism they have to be seen to be taking a stand.

 

Especially in the current climate. Football clearly has issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, matthefish2002 said:

 

I think the FA would have left it to the courts normally but when its a sensitive subject as racism they have to be seen to be taking a stand.

 

No they dont they can simple say a court has found them not guilty and we will take our lead from them.  Not rocket science

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, rickygoo said:

Depends how deep his pockets are.  FFP isn't just an EFL thing- all the major footballing bodies have their own version of it. It's up to the clubs  - which are the entities that make up the EFL - to comply with the rules or face the consequences if they don't. 

Should be a level playing field across all leagues including PL. Otherwise biased to PL clubs or is it supposed to be that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Inspector Lestrade said:

 

No they dont they can simple say a court has found them not guilty and we will take our lead from them.  Not rocket science

Exactly, I tend to think that if the courts say not guilty that's the end of it. If not why have a court system if we decide justice based on thinking sooner guilty rather than evidence based.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Harrysgame said:

Exactly, I tend to think that if the courts say not guilty that's the end of it. If not why have a court system if we decide justice based on thinking sooner guilty rather than evidence based.

 

Who says it's not evidence based? It's just a differing level of proof based on the evidence. The differing levels of proof required in civil and criminal cases is long established. It wasn't invented to catch FF out. It's just a difference between probably guilty and guilty without reasonable doubt.Civil courts use  a lower standard of proof that criminal ones.  

 

Are you saying the entire foundation of British justice should be amended so FF gets off a 6 match ban?   I sense a touch of Contrary Maryism. 

Edited by rickygoo
  • Like 2
  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

Who says it's not evidence based? It's just a differing level of proof based on the evidence. The differing levels of proof required in civil and criminal cases is long established. It wasn't invented to catch FF out. It's just a difference between probably guilty and guilty without reasonable doubt.Civil courts use  a lower standard of proof that criminal ones.  

 

Are you saying the entire foundation of British justice should be amended so FF gets off a 6 match ban?   I sense a touch of Contrary Maryism. 

 

No it's just common sense.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Inspector Lestrade said:

 

No it's just common sense.  

It really isn't. The civil justice system would have to be totally overhauled  - something no-one except supporters of FF seem to be calling for. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, rickygoo said:

It really isn't. The civil justice system would have to be totally overhauled  - something no-one except supporters of FF seem to be calling for. 

 

So he gets found not guilty of a crime, then found guilty by a bunch of laymen using their own rules so now marked as a racist on their say so.  

 

Doesn't seem like justice to me.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


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

It really isn't. The civil justice system would have to be totally overhauled  - something no-one except supporters of FF seem to be calling for. 

 

FF wasn't convicted with the civil justice system. He was convicted with the EFL make it up as you go along system.

Share this post


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

 

FF wasn't convicted with the civil justice system. He was convicted with the EFL make it up as you go along system.

FA, FA, FA, FA God dammit. 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Inspector Lestrade said:

 

So he gets found not guilty of a crime, then found guilty by a bunch of laymen using their own rules so now marked as a racist on their say so.  

 

Doesn't seem like justice to me.

A judge would disagree. I'll take his his or her opinion ta. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hookowl said:

 

FF wasn't convicted with the civil justice system. He was convicted with the EFL make it up as you go along system.

But in principle the imposition of a penalty by the EFL is subject to review within the civil justice system. If there were a case that there was breach of natural justice, or manifest unreasonableness, for example, it might have been possible to challenge this. 

 

It's hard to see this is the case, and indeed there was no appeal.

 

Again, the point isn't so much whether the EFL was right or wrong. It's bafflement that people seem to think that a decision of this kind is going to mirror a decision in criminal law. There really is nothing unusual or remarkable about what happened

 

 

  • Agree 2

Share this post


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

 

FF wasn't convicted with the civil justice system. He was convicted with the EFL make it up as you go along system.

Thanks M'Lud. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, thewookieisdown said:

But in principle the imposition of a penalty by the EFL is subject to review within the civil justice system. If there were a case that there was breach of natural justice, or manifest unreasonableness, for example, it might have been possible to challenge this. 

 

It's hard to see this is the case, and indeed there was no appeal.

 

Again, the point isn't so much whether the EFL was right or wrong. It's bafflement that people seem to think that a decision of this kind is going to mirror a decision in criminal law. There really is nothing unusual or remarkable about what happened

 

 

or the FA WTF:

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...