leeslover Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Maybe him and Terry will go halves on a lawyer? http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19052103 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeylandLatic Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Maybe him and Terry will go halves on a lawyer? http://www.bbc.co.uk...otball/19052103 lol what a choc-ice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Sticks and stones. It's all getting a bit silly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilStarbucksSilkySkills Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 (edited) We passed silly a long time ago. I actually think Ferdinand's remark (or more precisely the original choc-ice tweeter) has more sinister undertones than Terry calling Anton a F-ing Black C***. However, that any of this garbage is deemed to be as serious as it is being treeted, is making a mockery of this nation's laws and it's attitudes. As it stands we have very selective standards regarding freedom of speech in this country. Edited July 30, 2012 by PhilStarbucksSilkySkills Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scratch2000uk Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 I'm :censored:ing sick of hearing about racism. This country is obsessed with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsslatic Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 He's been charged by a professional organisation for bringing the game into disrepute, it's not like he's been done by the police for it. I wouldn't expect to publicly say what he said and not be reprimanded by my profession for doing so. I do wish the whole sorry affair would just be finished now but as long as stupid people say stupid things it will just drag on and on. Not the FA's fault, it's Ferdinand's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilStarbucksSilkySkills Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 The wisdom of star trek Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slystallone Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorrro Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Couldn't be arsed making a new thread. 'Landmark ruling': http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-19049495 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilStarbucksSilkySkills Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Couldn't be arsed making a new thread. 'Landmark ruling': http://www.bbc.co.uk...d-kent-19049495 Ok. I've read the whole thing, and some of the stories linked on the BBC website. I am in the dark as to why it was ruled that the player was racially discriminated against. What am I missing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorrro Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 As you weren't at the tribunal hearing, probably a lot. It is a little odd that there isn't information on the ruling, but I don't think it's anything too sinister. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilStarbucksSilkySkills Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 It's always irritating to me when I read any piece of journalism, which states allegations and/or rulings made yet makes no attempt to back them up with any evidence or witness statements beyond the circumstantial. If anyone has knows more about the "why's" of this ruling please let us know. I've read other newspaper reports on the same subject. There's more information and allegations, which if true could suggest a level of victimisation. However there is nothing that would lead me to the conclusion that there were racist motives involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorrro Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 What I will say is that the claimant usually has to work very hard to convince an employment judge of any wrongdoing, moreso when it's a discrimination claim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie_J Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 It's always irritating to me when I read any piece of journalism, which states allegations and/or rulings made yet makes no attempt to back them up with any evidence or witness statements beyond the circumstantial. If anyone has knows more about the "why's" of this ruling please let us know. I've read other newspaper reports on the same subject. There's more information and allegations, which if true could suggest a level of victimisation. However there is nothing that would lead me to the conclusion that there were racist motives involved. You seem pretty determined to dismiss the decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilStarbucksSilkySkills Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 You seem pretty determined to dismiss the decision. I never dismissed the decision. I just find it highly dubious that of all the quotes and details that have been released to the public, not one points towards racism. At the moment we only have the court's word that racism has been established. I remain to be convinced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scratch2000uk Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 (edited) Sounds like one of those cases where an employer doesn't want to employ the person any longer for whatever reason, so they try and make things difficult for them, I had that done to me, and both ex employers paid for it too. I'm not up with all the evidence here, but i guess if the tribunal found he was unfairly dismissed, then the racial discrimination element, has been accepted as a contributing factor, hardly surprising is it.? Edited July 31, 2012 by Scratch2000uk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted July 31, 2012 Author Share Posted July 31, 2012 Sounds like one of those cases where an employer doesn't want to employ the person any longer for whatever reason, so they try and make things difficult for them, I had that done to me, and both ex employers paid for it too. I'm not up with all the evidence here, but i guess if the tribunal found he was unfairly dismissed, then the racial discrimination element, has been accepted as a contributing factor, hardly surprising is it.? It's common for the race card to be thrown in but if it was unfounded you can counter-claim for costs against any winning on the upheld parts of the claim. Often leaves the claimant wishing their hadn't thrown the kitchen sink at the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scratch2000uk Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 According to the report the Gillingham player was sacked for aggressive behaviour and racism, I guess Gillingham's mistake was that they didn't report it to the police, more fool them, I know what i would have done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scratch2000uk Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 It's common for the race card to be thrown in but if it was unfounded you can counter-claim for costs against any winning on the upheld parts of the claim. Often leaves the claimant wishing their hadn't thrown the kitchen sink at the case. Given that tribunals are quite cheap when comparing them with civil litigation, court costs, it's probably worth throwing in the racist card, and the kitchen sink ( no pun intended ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slystallone Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 I cant help but think that one glaring point has been totally overlooked in all the evidence. McCammon is gash. I think AH realised that, and wanted him out. On £1,700 a week, he (MM) wasn't going to go anywhere so, AH decided to make his life difficult to force him out. Cer-blam. Race card thrown in and lawsuits ensues. All the while, no-one seems to mention that they wanted him out, not because he was black - but becuase he was basically a big, :censored:e lump of a footballer. Seems strange to me that wasn't their whole defence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted August 1, 2012 Author Share Posted August 1, 2012 Given that tribunals are quite cheap when comparing them with civil litigation, court costs, it's probably worth throwing in the racist card, and the kitchen sink ( no pun intended ) If 80% of the time it took the defence was for reason X, and you show that reason X was completely unjustifiable, then you have an arguable claim for 80% of the costs of your expensive legal fees for the whole case against the award granted, even if the 20% caused the case to be awarded. Judges tend not to like having a whole load of :censored: thrown at them in the hope that something will stick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scratch2000uk Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 An employer has to prove they didn't break any employment laws in the way they treated the employee, They couldn't, because they tried making things difficult for him, There must have been sufficient evidence to suggest this was the case, If an employee then claims it's a race issue, How can the tribunal panel readily dismiss this claim, when they have already found, that the employer treated him unfairly. That's what i, don't find surprising. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted August 1, 2012 Author Share Posted August 1, 2012 I finally got around to reading the original - it seems like the club included racism in the sacking, therefore it's come back in the appeal. Silly. They should have made note of the bloke's allegations of racism through the correct channels and separated it from other disciplinary procedures. It sounds more like they said, "We aren't racist, he's the racist," and he said the same back. 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.