kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,354
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Mar 29, 2022 7:18:48 GMT
This place is more unkind than before. Yes. I think you are right There is no need to think too much, just read many of the threads. I will add that it seems many, in real life, have become more intolerant and more pushy.
|
|
|
Post by fatherjackhackett on Mar 29, 2022 8:44:52 GMT
At this point can I just point out that not that long ago we had a star Centre Forward who was charged with rape.
We gave him 100% unequivocal backing. So what’s changed in the presumption of innocent until proven guilty?
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,517
|
Post by eppinggas on Mar 29, 2022 11:20:11 GMT
At this point can I just point out that not that long ago we had a star Centre Forward who was charged with rape. We gave him 100% unequivocal backing. So what’s changed in the presumption of innocent until proven guilty? Who was that father? I honestly don't recall that story. Was he formally charged? Innocent until proven guilty, of course. I would have 100% wanted him (whoever it was, however important his goals may have been) suspended pending the outcome of the court case.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Mar 29, 2022 12:06:53 GMT
At this point can I just point out that not that long ago we had a star Centre Forward who was charged with rape. We gave him 100% unequivocal backing. So what’s changed in the presumption of innocent until proven guilty? Who was that father? I honestly don't recall that story. Was he formally charged? Innocent until proven guilty, of course. I would have 100% wanted him (whoever it was, however important his goals may have been) suspended pending the outcome of the court case. It was Ellis, who was questioned, but never arrested or charged as best to my recollection
|
|
|
Post by One F in Dunford on Mar 29, 2022 12:30:11 GMT
Who was that father? I honestly don't recall that story. Was he formally charged? Innocent until proven guilty, of course. I would have 100% wanted him (whoever it was, however important his goals may have been) suspended pending the outcome of the court case. It was Ellis, who was questioned, but never arrested or charged as best to my recollection I thought it was Junior Agogo. It went to trial where he was found Not Guilty.
|
|
|
Post by Bath Gas on Mar 29, 2022 12:35:48 GMT
It was Ellis, who was questioned, but never arrested or charged as best to my recollection I thought it was Junior Agogo. It went to trial where he was found Not Guilty. Ellis was questioned, but there were no charges as there was not sufficient evidence. Unfortunately his details got into the Bristol Post, which should not have happened.
|
|
|
Post by lavalamp on Mar 29, 2022 12:37:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by fatherjackhackett on Mar 29, 2022 12:52:57 GMT
It was Ellis, who was questioned, but never arrested or charged as best to my recollection I thought it was Junior Agogo. It went to trial where he was found Not Guilty. Correct. Can’t remember any mass boycotts then. Just shows the total hypocrisy of the current situation (including my own sometimes).
|
|
|
Post by One F in Dunford on Mar 29, 2022 13:03:40 GMT
I thought it was Junior Agogo. It went to trial where he was found Not Guilty. Correct. Can’t remember any mass boycotts then. Just shows the total hypocrisy of the current situation (including my own sometimes). Agreed, and the alleged event happened whilst “on duty” while Rovers were staying in a “team hotel” before an away game.
|
|
Angas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,068
|
Post by Angas on Mar 29, 2022 13:06:00 GMT
Alleged. With no previous history or doubts as to character. Whereas Barton ...
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Mar 29, 2022 13:33:49 GMT
I thought it was Junior Agogo. It went to trial where he was found Not Guilty. Correct. Can’t remember any mass boycotts then. Just shows the total hypocrisy of the current situation (including my own sometimes). That is all very true, but we are talking 17 years ago. I would like to think In some respects it's a positive (not always obviously) that times and attitudes have changed I would hope that if a player was in the same situation as Agogo was today, they would be suspended and not considered for selection. That would be as much for their own good personally I would hope that in 17 years going from 22 to 39 years old I see things differently than I would back then. Not that I am boycotting anything currently, but each person can make up their own mind
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,517
|
Post by eppinggas on Mar 29, 2022 14:52:53 GMT
I thought it was Junior Agogo. It went to trial where he was found Not Guilty. Correct. Can’t remember any mass boycotts then. Just shows the total hypocrisy of the current situation (including my own sometimes). Genuinely - this is (old) news to me. Maybe I wasn't spending so much time on football forums back in the day. As PP has said, if a player was accused of this now - he would have to be suspended. If he wasn't, I would boycott the Club. Love a boycott, I do. I would hope that I would have had the same moral stance 17 years ago. And I'm not saying that Father Jack is a hypocrite. Changing your opinion is perfectly valid. Free country and all that.
|
|
dinsdale
Andy Rammell
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 495
|
Post by dinsdale on Mar 29, 2022 15:06:02 GMT
At this point can I just point out that not that long ago we had a star Centre Forward who was charged with rape. We gave him 100% unequivocal backing. So what’s changed in the presumption of innocent until proven guilty? Ive made this point 20+ times but will continue until people listen. Its not about assuning guilt its about the fact that a manager of a football club charged with domestic violence whilst on bail for abh against another manager with a massive history of violence wasnt suspended. That is wrong and is not in line with what other clubs or employers do. Additionally TG got club employees to go on a massive pro JB publicity campaign and the club referred to it as a victimless crime. Again this isnt as simple as you like to paint it. Additionally the fans response for me has permanently damaged our standing as a club. As for the case the victim acknowledged she got hurt after they got oissed and had a row initially pleading with the police to remove JB and accusing him of assault. This isnt a good look
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2022 16:00:30 GMT
Alleged. With no previous history or doubts as to character. Whereas Barton ... I am still to be convinced as to why this case is in the public domain. Same as I feel that any case shouldn't be in the public domain until a guilty verdict. (perhaps someone cleverer than me can explain) Why is it in the public interest until guilty / not guilty verdict? Example of some previous high profile cases. Cliff Richard being one of the best examples. Too late, damage done on that one. Other examples post Saville. Is it not the reason why 'previous' is not divulged in jury cases until after the verdict? As otherwise a jury will be influenced by that history rather than the specific facts of the case? And is that not a clear principle here i.e a view is being formed based on 'previous' rather than the case? So why do we even know about it?
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,517
|
Post by eppinggas on Mar 29, 2022 16:30:47 GMT
Alleged. With no previous history or doubts as to character. Whereas Barton ... I am still to be convinced as to why this case is in the public domain. Same as I feel that any case shouldn't be in the public domain until a guilty verdict. (perhaps someone cleverer than me can explain) Why is it in the public interest until guilty / not guilty verdict? Example of some previous high profile cases. Cliff Richard being one of the best examples. Too late, damage done on that one. Other examples post Saville. Is it not the reason why 'previous' is not divulged in jury cases until after the verdict? As otherwise a jury will be influenced by that history rather than the specific facts of the case? And is that not a clear principle here i.e a view is being formed based on 'previous' rather than the case? So why do we even know about it?Because it is in the public domain. As soon as he was formally charged, it became thus. Given Barton's previous convictions, his relatively high profile job, and his presence on social media... reporters were bound to be all over it like a cheap suit. Is it 'fair' that a high profile case would have their past previous convictions known by a JP? Probably not. Best not to have committed them in the first place I guess.
|
|
|
Post by rideintothesun on Mar 29, 2022 17:46:11 GMT
I believe that both forums had a vote on the issue of whether Barton should be suspended, and the overwhelming majority of posters agreed with my proposal that Barton should have been suspended until the matter was resolved.
For purposes of clarification, I argued that he should be suspended both for his own well-being and for the good of the club and its reputation.
The same applied to Agogo and Harrison. They should have been suspended. They weren't. This doesn't change the fact that they should have been.
I hope this clarifies the matter.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2022 17:46:48 GMT
I am still to be convinced as to why this case is in the public domain. Same as I feel that any case shouldn't be in the public domain until a guilty verdict. (perhaps someone cleverer than me can explain) Why is it in the public interest until guilty / not guilty verdict? Example of some previous high profile cases. Cliff Richard being one of the best examples. Too late, damage done on that one. Other examples post Saville. Is it not the reason why 'previous' is not divulged in jury cases until after the verdict? As otherwise a jury will be influenced by that history rather than the specific facts of the case? And is that not a clear principle here i.e a view is being formed based on 'previous' rather than the case? So why do we even know about it? Because it is in the public domain. As soon as he was formally charged, it became thus. Given Barton's previous convictions, his relatively high profile job, and his presence on social media... reporters were bound to be all over it like a cheap suit. Is it 'fair' that a high profile case would have their past previous convictions known by a JP? Probably not. Best not to have committed them in the first place I guess.
Hi Epping, hope you are well
This is in effect my question.
Why is it in the public domain - what makes it in the public interest for it to be so?
(and I dont just mean this JB case - it could be anyone)
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Mar 29, 2022 17:59:22 GMT
Alleged. With no previous history or doubts as to character. Whereas Barton ... I am still to be convinced as to why this case is in the public domain. Same as I feel that any case shouldn't be in the public domain until a guilty verdict. (perhaps someone cleverer than me can explain) Why is it in the public interest until guilty / not guilty verdict? Example of some previous high profile cases. Cliff Richard being one of the best examples. Too late, damage done on that one. Other examples post Saville. Is it not the reason why 'previous' is not divulged in jury cases until after the verdict? As otherwise a jury will be influenced by that history rather than the specific facts of the case? And is that not a clear principle here i.e a view is being formed based on 'previous' rather than the case? So why do we even know about it? I hold the same view as you and find it astonishing that so often people are named and shamed by the media before a jury has decided whether they are innocent or guilty. But here in the USA it is far worse and it seems that almost every evening news bulletin includes a person paraded in some sort of custody attire and with their numbers on their names (cool for cats) with the heavy inference they are guilty. But I've yet to see a bulletin which includes " Mr C whom we featured on here after he was arrested six months ago was found not guilty today".
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Mar 29, 2022 18:07:43 GMT
At this point can I just point out that not that long ago we had a star Centre Forward who was charged with rape. We gave him 100% unequivocal backing. So what’s changed in the presumption of innocent until proven guilty? Ive made this point 20+ times but will continue until people listen. Its not about assuning guilt its about the fact that a manager of a football club charged with domestic violence whilst on bail for abh against another manager with a massive history of violence wasnt suspended. That is wrong and is not in line with what other clubs or employers do. Additionally TG got club employees to go on a massive pro JB publicity campaign and the club referred to it as a victimless crime. Again this isnt as simple as you like to paint it. Additionally the fans response for me has permanently damaged our standing as a club. As for the case the victim acknowledged she got hurt after they got oissed and had a row initially pleading with the police to remove JB and accusing him of assault. This isnt a good look what he said simples, innit?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2022 19:09:58 GMT
Ive made this point 20+ times but will continue until people listen. Its not about assuning guilt its about the fact that a manager of a football club charged with domestic violence whilst on bail for abh against another manager with a massive history of violence wasnt suspended. That is wrong and is not in line with what other clubs or employers do. Additionally TG got club employees to go on a massive pro JB publicity campaign and the club referred to it as a victimless crime. Again this isnt as simple as you like to paint it. Additionally the fans response for me has permanently damaged our standing as a club. As for the case the victim acknowledged she got hurt after they got oissed and had a row initially pleading with the police to remove JB and accusing him of assault. This isnt a good look what he said simples, innit?No, not really.
Anything but (generally, not just this JB case)
Plenty of people have been shown to be not guilty in courts, but have the stain of being 'outed' in the media before that and the 'no smoke without fire' etc.
Talking generally here.
Christopher Jefferies?
And then to have the added insult of of being suspended from work before having a say in court?
Imagine anyone on here being subject to false allegation. How would you feel?
And, without making it trivial, if we got to the play off final is it ok to make a load of allegations against the other teams best players on the basis they should all get suspended as a matter of course? - which is what some seem to be advocating.
Found guilty ? throw the book etc, obviously
|
|