|
Post by gasgomarchingin on Jul 29, 2021 9:11:15 GMT
It looks like the statement has now been removed from the official website. I see the duck reckons it was there for 48 hours, I thought longer. That vile statement was allowed to fester. It brought in negative publicity from the footballing (and wider world), and even the dullards running our Football Club most have known what the reaction was. It shows an utter lack of professionalism and leadership at Bristol Rovers FC. Every member of the Board should hang their head in shame. Wael Al-Qadi is weak. He has a weak senior management team around him. Mistake after mistake will continue to happen. It's almost more embarrassing taking it down after all that time.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2021 9:16:54 GMT
Well if JB does return to the dugout that will test his deaf ears. He is going to get grief home and away. Will he be hidden in the ground to oversea the game? It is inconceivable that he is in the dugout before the cases. The innocent until proven guilty is a great sentiment but not applicable, in my view, in this case. Do we really want a very decisive atmosphere with all the young and impressionable close by? Why on earth is innocent until guilty not proven not applicable in this case? It might not be in the minds of those home fans who hate him and would happily trash the club they love to prove a point, however the founding tenet of British law hasn’t, to my certain knowledge, been re-written to accommodate B*****’s situation. Getting a grip springs to mind here. Here we go again. Accept the unacceptable or you aren't a real supporter. It's the people who haven't spoken out and who aren't taking a stand against this disgusting appointment that are harming the club. But of course, the bulk of responsibility sits with the owner.
|
|
|
Post by emperorsuperbus on Jul 29, 2021 9:18:39 GMT
Well if JB does return to the dugout that will test his deaf ears. He is going to get grief home and away. Will he be hidden in the ground to oversea the game? It is inconceivable that he is in the dugout before the cases. The innocent until proven guilty is a great sentiment but not applicable, in my view, in this case. Do we really want a very decisive atmosphere with all the young and impressionable close by? Why on earth is innocent until guilty not proven not applicable in this case? It might not be in the minds of those home fans who hate him and would happily trash the club they love to prove a point, however the founding tenet of British law hasn’t, to my certain knowledge, been re-written to accommodate B*****’s situation. Getting a grip springs to mind here. LOL! At what point in the last 20 years was he ever innocent? okay let’s ignore ALL the previous - still Suspension till the courts report is the only sane option in this situation, two very serious violent assault charges concurrently ongoing, one of them the very sensitive wife beating public and media take keen interest in, the other is attacking a rival manager from behind, for a member of staff whose also in your senior leadership team in a community business in the entertainment industry with punters coming through the door. what part of the penny isn’t dropping for you? What are you saying isn’t true or bigged up? Long term Reputational damage to your business? And to the employers personally? Dividing and losing the fan base and losing advertising revenue can be a long term commercial and financial hit? Distraction the team doesn’t need for morale and performances? Suspension till the cases are over, Hill as acting manager is the only sane option to manage and mitigate the situation.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2021 9:22:33 GMT
Santa's Grotto seems like a happy memory compared to this
|
|
|
Post by emperorsuperbus on Jul 29, 2021 9:36:29 GMT
Why on earth is innocent until guilty not proven not applicable in this case? It might not be in the minds of those home fans who hate him and would happily trash the club they love to prove a point, however the founding tenet of British law hasn’t, to my certain knowledge, been re-written to accommodate B*****’s situation. Getting a grip springs to mind here. Here we go again. Accept the unacceptable or you aren't a real supporter. It's the people who haven't spoken out and who aren't taking a stand against this disgusting appointment that are harming the club. But of course, the bulk of responsibility sits with the owner. what happened to innocent till proven guilty. All this woke nonsense and B***** hating is going to wreck our chances of going up, that’s where the blame now lies for on field failure. 🤣 I’m ignoring them now. I don’t think they are serious accounts with serious thinking behind them.
|
|
|
Post by alftupper on Jul 29, 2021 9:40:45 GMT
Santa's Grotto seems like a happy memory compared to this Absolutely. He was a rubbish Santa too. I never did get the blow up Halle Berry doll, I asked for.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2021 9:50:16 GMT
Santa's Grotto seems like a happy memory compared to this Absolutely. He was a rubbish Santa too. I never did get the blow up Halle Berry doll, I asked for. I got her but she kept going down on me.
|
|
TaiwanGas
Paul Bannon
Tom Ramasuts Left Foot.
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 1,350
|
Post by TaiwanGas on Jul 29, 2021 10:26:23 GMT
Absolutely. He was a rubbish Santa too. I never did get the blow up Halle Berry doll, I asked for. I got her but she kept going down on me. Ah, the Grotto!, at least it still continues to provide a source of amusement and catalyst to sport a few funnies!.
|
|
|
Post by gasgomarchingin on Jul 29, 2021 11:05:43 GMT
|
|
|
Post by The Concept on Jul 29, 2021 11:20:46 GMT
Well if JB does return to the dugout that will test his deaf ears. He is going to get grief home and away. Will he be hidden in the ground to oversea the game? It is inconceivable that he is in the dugout before the cases. The innocent until proven guilty is a great sentiment but not applicable, in my view, in this case. Do we really want a very decisive atmosphere with all the young and impressionable close by? Why on earth is innocent until guilty not proven not applicable in this case? It might not be in the minds of those home fans who hate him and would happily trash the club they love to prove a point, however the founding tenet of British law hasn’t, to my certain knowledge, been re-written to accommodate B*****’s situation. Getting a grip springs to mind here. I don't think anyone disagrees with the saying 'Innocent until proven guilty'. However, it's all about the way it's been used - people have come out with 'Innocent until proven guilty' (including the club), in defence against the argument that JB should be suspended until the case has been concluded. Suspending an employee in these circumstances isn't an admission of guilt. Far from it - it's generally standard practice.
|
|
|
Post by baselswh on Jul 29, 2021 11:26:57 GMT
|
|
|
Post by CabbagePatchBlues on Jul 29, 2021 11:30:09 GMT
Does that mean they've caught the nasty piece of work who beat his wife up?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2021 11:35:50 GMT
It's almost more embarrassing taking it down after all that time. That's how I feel. Withdrawal after refusing to withdraw for forty-eight hours disgrace and humiliation just comes across as standing by it and draws more bad attention. I would love to know who at the club crafted the CPS quote. It's a leadership and a resignation issue. Misquoting a CPS brief to convey that what we know are allegations of grabbing a woman by the throat then kicking her head on the floor describe 'a victimless crime' in order to minimise the allegations, this backfired totally. Either delete and apologise as soon as you see what your employee published, or leave it their as a historical statement superceded by a new statement completely withdrawing its predecessor, apologising for it, and noting disciplinary or management changes taken to remedy and to prevent recurrence. But leaving it forty-eight hours, and twenty-four hours after half apologising (while defending the indefensible), before quietly removing it without update... humiliating.
|
|
|
Post by CabbagePatchBlues on Jul 29, 2021 11:43:57 GMT
Why on earth is innocent until guilty not proven not applicable in this case? It might not be in the minds of those home fans who hate him and would happily trash the club they love to prove a point, however the founding tenet of British law hasn’t, to my certain knowledge, been re-written to accommodate B*****’s situation. Getting a grip springs to mind here. I don't think anyone disagrees with 'Innocent until proven guilty'. However, it's all about the way it's been used - people have come out with 'Innocent until proven guilty' (including the club), in defence against the argument that JB should be suspended until the case has been concluded. Suspending an employee in these circumstances isn't an admission of guilt. Far from it - it's generally standard practice. It's all been said before but bears repeating: it's the job of the court to pass judgement on him, not the club, so innocent until proven guilty doesn't come into it where the club is concerned. He's been done for so many acts of violence in his life and has two court cases pending for assault - one on his wife when he allegedly kicked her on the head - so letting him come back into the fold is just diabolical.
|
|
dido
Predictions League
Peter Aitken
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,883
|
Post by dido on Jul 29, 2021 11:53:03 GMT
Does that mean they've caught the nasty piece of work who beat his wife up? Was she beaten up as well, then?
|
|
|
Post by rideintothesun on Jul 29, 2021 12:09:43 GMT
I don't think anyone disagrees with 'Innocent until proven guilty'. However, it's all about the way it's been used - people have come out with 'Innocent until proven guilty' (including the club), in defence against the argument that JB should be suspended until the case has been concluded. Suspending an employee in these circumstances isn't an admission of guilt. Far from it - it's generally standard practice. It's all been said before but bears repeating: it's the job of the court to pass judgement on him, not the club, so innocent until proven guilty doesn't come into it where the club is concerned. He's been done for so many acts of violence in his life and has two court cases pending for assault - one on his wife when he allegedly kicked her on the head - so letting him come back into the fold is just diabolical. The issue isn't the previous cases. Even if this was the only incident he had ever been involved in, suspension would still be the appropriate choice. Wales took the right approach with Giggs. In B*****'s case, there is arguably an even greater justification for suspension, as he is facing two court cases! Suspend him and let him focus on preparing to defend himself. It isn't just right for him, as it is in the club's interests as well. It was already noted that B***** appeared detached and removed before the incident came to light. Now we know why. If he is not here in mind, then there is no point in having him here in body. The club still haven't clarified why they have taken a decision that is contrary to standard practice and common sense.
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,191
|
Post by eppinggas on Jul 29, 2021 12:23:39 GMT
It's all been said before but bears repeating: it's the job of the court to pass judgement on him, not the club, so innocent until proven guilty doesn't come into it where the club is concerned. He's been done for so many acts of violence in his life and has two court cases pending for assault - one on his wife when he allegedly kicked her on the head - so letting him come back into the fold is just diabolical. The issue isn't the previous cases. Even if this was the only incident he had ever been involved in, suspension would still be the appropriate choice. Wales took the right approach with Giggs. In B*****'s case, there is arguably an even greater justification for suspension, as he is facing two court cases! Suspend him and let him focus on preparing to defend himself. It isn't just right for him, as it is in the club's interests as well. It was already noted that B***** appeared detached and removed before the incident came to light. Now we know why. If he is not here in mind, then there is no point in having him here in body. The club still haven't clarified why they have taken a decision that is contrary to standard practice and common sense. The senior management at Bristol Rovers FC don't really 'do' standard practice, and they patently do not have a shred of common sense between them.
|
|
|
Post by CabbagePatchBlues on Jul 29, 2021 12:46:40 GMT
The issue isn't the previous cases. Even if this was the only incident he had ever been involved in, suspension would still be the appropriate choice. Wales took the right approach with Giggs. In B*****'s case, there is arguably an even greater justification for suspension, as he is facing two court cases! Suspend him and let him focus on preparing to defend himself. It isn't just right for him, as it is in the club's interests as well. It was already noted that B***** appeared detached and removed before the incident came to light. Now we know why. If he is not here in mind, then there is no point in having him here in body. The club still haven't clarified why they have taken a decision that is contrary to standard practice and common sense. The senior management at Bristol Rovers FC don't really 'do' standard practice, and they patently do not have a shred of common sense between them. I used that to highlight just what a headbanger he has always been. Listening to what his fans have to say you'd think he was the victim not the perpetrator. Most of them also believe he's going to get us back up at first attempt and it's us so-called haters who are to blame if we don't. A mental age of eight just like him I reckon. And WTF is woke? Are they aware that the opposite to woke is unwoke?
|
|
absent
Joined: February 2021
Posts: 306
|
Post by absent on Jul 29, 2021 12:53:01 GMT
It's almost more embarrassing taking it down after all that time. Misquoting a CPS brief to convey that what we know are allegations of grabbing a woman by the throat then kicking her head on the floor describe 'a victimless crime' in order to minimise the allegations, this backfired totally. To the best of my knowledge (the tweet by the Evening Standard journalist), it wasn't misquoted and was literally what was said in court, which was presumably a mistake that the club repeated without realising. If the court had said 'victimless prosecution', and the club had repeated it, it would still have been a very weak statement, but it would not have been as offensive.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2021 13:19:21 GMT
To the best of my knowledge (the tweet by the Evening Standard journalist), it wasn't misquoted and was literally what was said in court, which was presumably a mistake that the club repeated without realising. If the court had said 'victimless prosecution', and the club had repeated it, it would still have been a very weak statement, but it would not have been as offensive. Fine lines here. Happy to toe them. You're right about the facts, I'm sure. What was said in court was clearly clumsy. It was misquoted as in misusing a quote of misspoken words, out of context, to convey what was not the position of the CPS at all. You are very kind to suggest that someone at the club spent all day crafting a statement that repeated victimless crime 'without realising'. Unless this was written by a staffer, in which case that's woeful supervision, this was not an accident in my view. Who really wrote that statement on the club's behalf most interests me. You're getting soft these days, absent. EDIT to rideintothesun: The club put themselves in an impossible situation. B***** should absolutely have been suspended this weekend upon learning he was charged and to be tried for violent crime, pending the outcome of the trial. The problem was that this logic would mean he should have been suspended for the previous charges to be tried for violent crime too, and since the club had decided to employ the suspect in full knowledge of these pre-existing charges to be tried for violent crime... they couldn't. Talk about a mess.
|
|