Jim Prendle Posted April 30, 2021 Share Posted April 30, 2021 8 minutes ago, Maximus Decimus said: I don't necessarily agree in that it is so sensitive that they might be hoping a microphone clears it up beyond recognition before they event comment on it. Wigan might have told him to so that they are not put in an awkward position. Or...he's guilty and not wanting to incriminate himself further. My gut says that he said it, but I'm just hoping that there is a recording for clarity. Is your gut admissible as evidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommygilf Posted April 30, 2021 Share Posted April 30, 2021 2 minutes ago, Maximus Decimus said: I don't necessarily agree in that it is so sensitive that they might be hoping a microphone clears it up beyond recognition before they event comment on it. Wigan might have told him to so that they are not put in an awkward position. Or...he's guilty and not wanting to incriminate himself further. My gut says that he said it, but I'm just hoping that there is a recording for clarity. He knows what he said is my approach - and all the circumstantial evidence, including him saying nothing and his own club making a big statement on the issue with reference to how nobody will comment further, indicates to me at least that he said something. I agree that they may be saying nothing to hold out for the case to be dismissed for lack of evidence - that is a cynical but logical position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Prendle Posted April 30, 2021 Share Posted April 30, 2021 4 minutes ago, Tommygilf said: He knows what he said is my approach - and all the circumstantial evidence, including him saying nothing and his own club making a big statement on the issue with reference to how nobody will comment further, indicates to me at least that he said something. I agree that they may be saying nothing to hold out for the case to be dismissed for lack of evidence - that is a cynical but logical position. Objection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommygilf Posted April 30, 2021 Share Posted April 30, 2021 1 minute ago, Jim Prendle said: Yet again our resident Legal expert is happy to ignore the lack of available evidence, in order to facilitate his personal narrative. I insist you tell us which solicitor you work for, so that we can all avoid it. Either Savelio is telling the truth, is lying, or is mistaken. Clubb for his part has said nothing. Between Savelio and Clubb at least one person knows what happened and what was said - contrasting with your earlier statement that stated "nobody knows". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Prendle Posted April 30, 2021 Share Posted April 30, 2021 2 minutes ago, Tommygilf said: Either Savelio is telling the truth, is lying, or is mistaken. Clubb for his part has said nothing. Between Savelio and Clubb at least one person knows what happened and what was said - contrasting with your earlier statement that stated "nobody knows". What I meant to say was that nobody on here knows, and that includes you, despite your blatant attempts to crucify Clubb for the heinous crime of saying nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ELBOWSEYE Posted April 30, 2021 Share Posted April 30, 2021 Is the process in the investigation based on a criminal or civil criteria. If the latter all it needs is balance of probability not proof. I am no solicitor but this either brings in some posters opinions or throws them out as irrelevant.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Prendle Posted April 30, 2021 Share Posted April 30, 2021 2 minutes ago, ELBOWSEYE said: Is the process in the investigation based on a criminal or civil criteria. If the latter all it needs is balance of probability not proof. I am no solicitor but this either brings in some posters opinions or throws them out as irrelevant.? Regardless of it being a criminal or a civil issue, without any evidence you cannot get to a balance of probability. Unless of course the investigation is happy that Savelio is telling the truth and that Clubb is a liar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommygilf Posted April 30, 2021 Share Posted April 30, 2021 Just now, Jim Prendle said: What I meant to say was that nobody on here knows, and that includes you, despite your blatant attempts to crucify Clubb for the heinous crime of saying nothing. Well you didn't say that did you. When discussing the problems surrounding the use of words I'd have thought you'd be more careful. I don't want to crucify Clubb, indeed I've not actually advocated any specific punishment whatsoever - whilst others have called for everything up to lifetime bans. I have, however, engaged my faculties to assess that based on the available evidence and context, in all likelihood Clubb did say something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommygilf Posted April 30, 2021 Share Posted April 30, 2021 1 minute ago, Jim Prendle said: Regardless of it being a criminal or a civil issue, without any evidence you cannot get to a balance of probability. Unless of course the investigation is happy that Savelio is telling the truth and that Clubb is a liar. Clubb hasn't said anything to be accused of lying! That is precisely the point! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Prendle Posted April 30, 2021 Share Posted April 30, 2021 1 minute ago, Tommygilf said: Well you didn't say that did you. When discussing the problems surrounding the use of words I'd have thought you'd be more careful. I don't want to crucify Clubb, indeed I've not actually advocated any specific punishment whatsoever - whilst others have called for everything up to lifetime bans. I have, however, engaged my faculties to assess that based on the available evidence and context, in all likelihood Clubb did say something. No you haven't. You have based your conclusions on the fact that Clubb has not, yet, made a defence. That's not good enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Prendle Posted April 30, 2021 Share Posted April 30, 2021 1 minute ago, Tommygilf said: Clubb hasn't said anything to be accused of lying! That is precisely the point! I assume he will have his say before any judgement is made. You see, I am willing to wait for the process to be complete before I decide that he is guilty. Unfortunately, you are not willing to do that because, in your vast experience, all innocent people start spouting as soon as an allegation is made. You may well be right in your assumptions, but it's not good form to jump to them just because that's what you "think". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ELBOWSEYE Posted April 30, 2021 Share Posted April 30, 2021 7 minutes ago, Jim Prendle said: Regardless of it being a criminal or a civil issue, without any evidence you cannot get to a balance of probability. Unless of course the investigation is happy that Savelio is telling the truth and that Clubb is a liar. Jim I am not passing an opinion on if Tony Clubb is guiltily or innocent because I don't know, I can only guess. But I feel you are incorrect in your understanding of civil law, I have taken part as a witness in civil cases and the judge does not need to prove guilt or innocence he could well take the opinion that Savalio would not of reacted in that way unless he was verbally abused with a racist undertone just like the Rangers footballer recently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommygilf Posted April 30, 2021 Share Posted April 30, 2021 1 minute ago, Jim Prendle said: No you haven't. You have based your conclusions on the fact that Clubb has not, yet, made a defence. That's not good enough. And you think that's all I've based my conclusions on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidM Posted April 30, 2021 Share Posted April 30, 2021 This is better than Perry Mason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Prendle Posted April 30, 2021 Share Posted April 30, 2021 2 minutes ago, ELBOWSEYE said: Jim I am not passing an opinion on if Tony Clubb is guiltily or innocent because I don't know, I can only guess. But I feel you are incorrect in your understanding of civil law, I have taken part as a witness in civil cases and the judge does not need to prove guilt or innocence he could well take the opinion that Savalio would not of reacted in that way unless he was verbally abused with a racist undertone just like the Rangers footballer recently. If that is true, then the world has become a very dangerous place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Prendle Posted April 30, 2021 Share Posted April 30, 2021 2 minutes ago, Tommygilf said: And you think that's all I've based my conclusions on... I've no idea. If you tell me what your other evidence is, I will judge it on it's merits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyscoot Posted April 30, 2021 Share Posted April 30, 2021 9 minutes ago, ELBOWSEYE said: Jim I am not passing an opinion on if Tony Clubb is guiltily or innocent because I don't know, I can only guess. But I feel you are incorrect in your understanding of civil law, I have taken part as a witness in civil cases and the judge does not need to prove guilt or innocence he could well take the opinion that Savalio would not of reacted in that way unless he was verbally abused with a racist undertone just like the Rangers footballer recently. Yes; on balance of probabilities as opposed to beyond all reasonable doubt in criminal law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyscoot Posted April 30, 2021 Share Posted April 30, 2021 7 minutes ago, Jim Prendle said: If that is true, then the world has become a very dangerous place. This has been the case in English law for a very long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Prendle Posted April 30, 2021 Share Posted April 30, 2021 1 minute ago, andyscoot said: This has been the case in English law for a very long time. I'm sure it has, but the level of outrage has recently gone off the scale. If Elbowseye is correct, and a judge could base his decision on the accuser's reaction, then I could walk up to someone, whisper I love you in their ear, and if the person reacts in a certain way I could lose the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommygilf Posted April 30, 2021 Share Posted April 30, 2021 1 minute ago, Jim Prendle said: I assume he will have his say before any judgement is made. You see, I am willing to wait for the process to be complete before I decide that he is guilty. Unfortunately, you are not willing to do that because, in your vast experience, all innocent people start spouting as soon as an allegation is made. You may well be right in your assumptions, but it's not good form to jump to them just because that's what you "think". I actually think in these sorts of cases he'll be advised to say little, if anything, if he's told his counsel in confidence that he has said something (or its already something other players know about). As I said in another post the logical but somewhat cynical approach will be to wait to see what evidence is produced to support the allegation and see if it holds up - not so much proven innocent but not proven guilty. If he was definitely innocent I would have advised putting out a statement immediately refuting the allegations and denouncing racism in all forms. Tbh unless I was trying to avoid any repercussions altogether I'd have put put a statement apologising immediately too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert Prince Posted April 30, 2021 Share Posted April 30, 2021 35 minutes ago, Tommygilf said: He knows what he said is my approach - and all the circumstantial evidence, including him saying nothing and his own club making a big statement on the issue with reference to how nobody will comment further, indicates to me at least that he said something. I agree that they may be saying nothing to hold out for the case to be dismissed for lack of evidence - that is a cynical but logical position. In other news, a black actor, who I remember was in Dr Who and has been very popular in many other productions, has been accused of multiple sexual allegations by up to 20 women. He says he "vehemently" denies all of them. This had not stopped ITV immediately not showing the last episode of his latest show ( but perversely they will show it on internet !!). And SKY have piped up and stopped production of any of his productions. Now remind me was it innocent until proven guilty? If he is telling the truth then he will now have to wait for an age to clear his name but be smeared for fun by all and sundry in the meantime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyscoot Posted April 30, 2021 Share Posted April 30, 2021 18 minutes ago, Jim Prendle said: I'm sure it has, but the level of outrage has recently gone off the scale. If Elbowseye is correct, and a judge could base his decision on the accuser's reaction, then I could walk up to someone, whisper I love you in their ear, and if the person reacts in a certain way I could lose the case. That's not how court works at all. Claimant presents their case and evidence. Defendant does the same. Both parties are cross examined and a judge makes a decision on the likelihood that something happened. In your imagined scenario, why are you before a judge in a civil hearing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris22 Posted April 30, 2021 Share Posted April 30, 2021 I think what we can all agree on (I hope?) is that the remark as reported by Savelio was insulting and made reference to his ethnicity or perceived ethnicity. Savelio has taken offence at the reference to his ethnicity in the insulting alleged remark. Whether you believe it racist or not racist, the remark (as reported) is a problem because it is insulting and caused offence. We do not have the right to tell people what they should be and should not offended by, in my view. Wigan and Hull's joint statement pitched the right tone. We'll allow the RFL to investigate, and if racism is proven, would hope to see an adequate punishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Englebert Posted April 30, 2021 Share Posted April 30, 2021 Without picking on specific posters some of the casual racism/ignorance in this thread is pretty depressing. I completely get not wanting to throw Clubb to the wolves without a fair hearing but actively arguing that what he allegedly said is acceptable - not for me, and not by a long way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Prendle Posted April 30, 2021 Share Posted April 30, 2021 1 minute ago, Chris22 said: I think what we can all agree on (I hope?) is that the remark as reported by Savelio was insulting and made reference to his ethnicity or perceived ethnicity. Savelio has taken offence at the reference to his ethnicity in the insulting alleged remark. Whether you believe it racist or not racist, the remark (as reported) is a problem because it is insulting and caused offence. We do not have the right to tell people what they should be and should not offended by, in my view. Wigan and Hull's joint statement pitched the right tone. We'll allow the RFL to investigate, and if racism is proven, would hope to see an adequate punishment. If it is proven I would be more than happy to agree with your call for an adequate punishment. What I don’t want to see is a player crucified for something he didn’t do, and until the evidence is in we won’t know either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.