Roger Ritchie Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 If the police ask for something you can give it to them, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 If the police ask for something you can give it to them, No you can't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaddy_Ender Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 If the police ask for something you can give it to them, Would they need some sort of court order ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBosch Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 I like the "he had to flee to Colombia in search of another club" line. Like his life was in danger if he couldnt play. Seeking sporting asylum. We're forced to pay for this quality :censored:ing journalism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBosch Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Has anyone got the footage of Blatter telling the cameraman how we'd "done everything properly" with that smug, :censored: eating smirk of his? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Yes lets be careful about what we write because the report says: "Montano was asked directly if he had ever been involved in fixing or accepted money to fix any part of a football match.[/size] "I never accepted money, I never had any intention to do that, never," he said. ". I wonder what he did intend to accept then? Writing off of a debt? Or is he suggesting he's innocent, despite his remarkably vigorous attempts to demonstrate the act of cheating in the video. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 1:25 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_Og Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 FWIW- the club may have been in breach of Data Protection by revealing where he was. Especially over the phone. To the police on request? Bollocks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 "The police ask an employer for the home address of one of its employees as they wish to find him urgently in connection with a criminal investigation. The employee is absent from work at the time. The employer had collected the employee’s personal data for its HR purposes, and disclosing it for another purpose would ordinarily breach the first and second data protection principles. However, applying those principles in this case would be likely to prejudice the criminal investigation. The employer may therefore disclose its employee’s home address without breaching the Act." While not exactly the same circumstances, I think the above confirms Barry the director did nothing wrong DPA wise. https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/exemptions/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 (edited) "The police ask an employer for the home address of one of its employees as they wish to find him urgently in connection with a criminal investigation. The employee is absent from work at the time. The employer had collected the employees personal data for its HR purposes, and disclosing it for another purpose would ordinarily breach the first and second data protection principles. However, applying those principles in this case would be likely to prejudice the criminal investigation. The employer may therefore disclose its employees home address without breaching the Act." While not exactly the same circumstances, I think the above confirms Barry the director did nothing wrong DPA wise.https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/exemptions/ Except that he wasn't at home. It also wouldn't prejudice the criminal investigation. All the Director had to do was ring him back and say the police are looking for you, find yourself a lawyer and hand yourself in. The Director didn't tell the police Montano's home address, which I believe was somewhere near the Greengates roundabout, they told the cops the address of where he was, and did so having found out that information without revealing why they were after that information. Montano wasn't likely to commit another crime, nor was he likely to be a risk to public safety. I wonder if the police even provided the club with a warrant for that information, my money is that they didn't have to. FWIW wasn't Montano on Police Bail at the time- connected to his rape charge? Therefore the police already had his home address? Edited January 27, 2015 by rudemedic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 "The police ask an employer for the home address of one of its employees as they wish to find him urgently in connection with a criminal investigation. The employee is absent from work at the time. The employer had collected the employees personal data for its HR purposes, and disclosing it for another purpose would ordinarily breach the first and second data protection principles. However, applying those principles in this case would be likely to prejudice the criminal investigation. The employer may therefore disclose its employees home address without breaching the Act." While not exactly the same circumstances, I think the above confirms Barry the director did nothing wrong DPA wise. https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/exemptions/ Far be it for me not to criticise Barry - no, really - but I don't think there's much hear so long as they did things the right way in the dismissal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaddy14 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 To terminate someone's employment, they have to commit gross misconduct. Bringing the club's name into disrepute was evident from the video and press coverage at the time. This is a criminal issue of guilt or innocence. It merely needs the club to have decided that "on the balance of probability" that Montana had brought our name into disrepute. If it turns out he was not proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt (the legal threshold), it doesn't affect the employment decision. So, doesn't matter what the police eventually decide, it was what went on at the time of the sacking and Latics acted correctly in my view, especially as I watched the game and saw the video! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oh Heck C-Beck Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Fair enough that video might not be permissible in a court of law for regarding proof of spot fixing, but I fail to see how he can sue the club about getting sacked when he is on video admitting to trying to spot fix. Would a restaurant not be able to sack an employee if they said they were pissing in the milk on video? Or do you need to forensically analyse the milk for this to happen? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinevillawill Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 (edited) The spot-fixing saga has given me no hope in the British 'justice system'. There is damming video evidence that Montano was involved in organised bunging, yet the case against all accused gets thrown out of court due to the collapse of a completely separate trial involving X-Factor's Tulisa?! Right... This, backed up by the Evans case, then opens the door for Montano to paint a picture of himself as the innocent party and OAFC as a hypocritical corporate monster. Time for judicial reform. Edited January 28, 2015 by pinevillawill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Burns Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 The spot-fixing saga has given me no hope in the British 'justice system'... Time for judicial reform. And so Ched all of us Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 (edited) FWIW- the club may have been in breach of Data Protection by revealing where he was. Especially over the phone. If he wasn't at his address on record and he wasn't at work and as he wasn't likely to commit a crime with a risk of public safety the unnamed Director (although I bet we would all guess the same person) should have advised him to hand himself in when he spoke to him. That trick of finding out where he was and then telling the police is certainly "Not doing things the right way" That Director is a #badgrass The club has certainly left itself open for the 'double standards' claim, but they wouldn't necesserily need any consent to be given for them to give out an address to the police, particularly as the club would perhaps deem it necessary for him to be investigated. Edited January 28, 2015 by jimsleftfoot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BP1960 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 I should imagine there could be more to the dismissal than the video for the Latics to take such an action. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie_J Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 The spot-fixing saga has given me no hope in the British 'justice system'. There is damming video evidence that Montano was involved in organised bunging, yet the case against all accused gets thrown out of court due to the collapse of a completely separate trial involving X-Factor's Tulisa?! Right... This, backed up by the Evans case, then opens the door for Montano to paint a picture of himself as the innocent party and OAFC as a hypocritical corporate monster. Time for judicial reform. Agreed. But the club made itself a very easy target for this with the embarrassing Ched Evans saga. The media wouldn't be half as interested in what Montano had to say otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Ritchie Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 No you can't. Yes, you can. Would they need some sort of court order ? No it is within the exemptions of the Data Protection Act. Basically the police can bypass the data protection if a crime has been committed or they believe they can prevent a crime. Basically they can do what they want. The same way they can access everyone's facebook profiles to see if they incriminate themselves regardless of their privacy settings. Exemptions: 29Crime and taxation.(1)Personal data processed for any of the following purposes— (a)the prevention or detection of crime, (the apprehension or prosecution of offenders, or ©the assessment or collection of any tax or duty or of any imposition of a similar nature, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ritchierich Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 watching that video again sickens me. having been at MK Dons do i question our players in that game?? frankly, Montano should be banned by the FA regardless of a criminal conviction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.