Jump to content

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, Spidey said:

I disagree. I think it’s really easy not to be racist, unless you don’t want to be. 

But you can / do get called a racist when your not as well 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 196
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Yes it is racist - dismissing it as not is just as much of a problem as the racism itself

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 active

14 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

Well let’s see if you still think that in a few years. All the best. 
Oh and by virtue of being white (assuming you are) you’re already racist according to many so y’know....extra good luck with not being racist. 

To be fair though, most of those people who think that are morons. Left wing versions of flat earthers

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Tommygilf said:

I think your last paragraph pretty much epitomises the issue now. If you were accused of something you hadn't done, you'd refute it as soon as possible or seek to clarify with the accuser that you didn't say/do that, both say sorry for the misunderstanding, and then move on.

This feels more like damage limitation rather than name clearance.

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, graveyard johnny said:

there was one muslim kid and one sikh kid in our school 40 years ago - i was friends with them both- racism was never an issue or even thought about as far as i remember- today its like setting up dominos just so you can knock them down - get a grip - its boring 

Good to know that because of your limited experience you've been able to comprehensively prove racism doesn't exist. Someone best call the RFL and tell them not to waste their time then.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 4
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Quite clearly somebody knows, otherwise there wouldn't be an issue!

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.? 

Edited by ELBOWSEYE
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites
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".

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Edited by ELBOWSEYE
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...