Colin Kazim-Richards will appear in court today

[El Presidente]

Much is being made of the cost of a three day trial - if CKR would just man up and admit the offence then it could all be over in half an hour.

It's not the state who are wasting the money by prosecuting but CKR who is denying what was seen by thousands!

Or perhaps he admits what he did and has the view that it is not homophobic?

I think as football fans we have double standards, it's the same in relation to Theo Walcott, it's acceptable to dish it out but no one is allowed to give it back.

If you take a look at the 'Arsenal's new signing' thread here on NSC, it's full of casual sexism, is that acceptable?

 

[Hillian1]

Or perhaps he admits what he did and has the view that it is not homophobic?

I think as football fans we have double standards, it's the same in relation to Theo Walcott, it's acceptable to dish it out but no one is allowed to give it back.

If you take a look at the 'Arsenal's new signing' thread here on NSC, it's full of casual sexism, is that acceptable?

Yes, because she's HOT and I would very much like to sling one up her.

 

[Giraffe]

Or perhaps he admits what he did and has the view that it is not homophobic?

I think as football fans we have double standards, it's the same in relation to Theo Walcott, it's acceptable to dish it out but no one is allowed to give it back.

If you take a look at the 'Arsenal's new signing' thread here on NSC, it's full of casual sexism, is that acceptable?

You're completely right, for some reason it is wrong for players to be seen to be giving a bit back. Walcott did absolutely nothing wrong and was still slaughtered for it.

In the case of CKR he may have made gestures, who is to say they are homophobic but given he was given a large amount of abuse my very many Brighton fans who could blame him if he gave some back. That's football.

Yes, because she's HOT and I would very much like to sling one up her.

Highly unlikely that she would be interested.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

This is subjudice just as much as any other trial.

 

[Creaky]

Or perhaps he admits what he did and has the view that it is not homophobic?

I think as football fans we have double standards, it's the same in relation to Theo Walcott, it's acceptable to dish it out but no one is allowed to give it back.

It's not acceptable, neither in my opinion nor under the law, for fans, players nor anyone else to use language or actions that are homophobic.

Using the courts is often the only way that society can show how unacceptable such behaviour is - especially when many see those who object to such behaviour as being over sensitive.

On a personal basis I may not be offended but I still see homophobia as unacceptable.

 

[severnside gull]

Really ? He should have had the courage of his convictions. It is not the 1970's.

I think Hitzelspurger's point is that within football nothing much has changed since the 70's and tbh, I think he has a fair point

 

[happypig]

All you legal experts who are saying its a waste of money are, of course, aware that if found guilty he will be ordered to pay the cost of bringing the prosecution, aren't you ?
As far as I am aware, justice doesn't come with a price tag and the justice system isn't (yet) run by accountants. The CPS have decided that he has a case to answer and that there is a reasonable prospect of a conviction, why shouldn't they proceed ?
This feller is alleged to have made offensive gestures contrary to the laws of the land in front of 25000 people, how can anyone KNOW, beyond doubt, that nobody was offended ? What about a 17 year old lad, there with his dad, who is questioning his sexuality? Is it likely that he would be upset by such a gesture ?
Being on a football pitch (or in the stands watching) does not absolve someone from their legal responsibilities. There's the argument "I swear and make gestures so I can't be offended" but can you say the same for the other couple of thousand fans around you ?

 

[Rugrat]

I agree ...a three day court case does seem 'over the top', but what other alternative is there...?

Football is governed by a bunch of people that can dish out all sorts of punishment for all sorts of things and not waste public money doing so. It seems as a Manager has only got to challenge a referee's decision and he's fined. Suarez bites someone and the CPS don't get involved but he's banned and presumably got a hefty financial penalty from his club, the precedent to others (if they were dumb enough) has been established.

The FA are in a brilliant position to tackle this sort of behaviour. The complaint is made to them, the video evidence looked at and they ban the culprit for x games and impose maximum fines. I'm fairly certain it would be a more effective and certainly cheaper measure than this.

By the way I don't condone what CKR did at all and believe he should be dealt with, just not this way

 

[Giraffe]

Football is governed by a bunch of people that can dish out all sorts of punishment for all sorts of things and not waste public money doing so. It seems as a Manager has only got to challenge a referee's decision and he's fined. Suarez bites someone and the CPS don't get involved but he's banned and presumably got a hefty financial penalty from his club, the precedent to others (if they were dumb enough) has been established.

The FA are in a brilliant position to tackle this sort of behaviour. The complaint is made to them, the video evidence looked at and they ban the culprit for x games and impose maximum fines. I'm fairly certain it would be a more effective and certainly cheaper measure than this.

By the way I don't condone what CKR did at all and believe he should be dealt with, just not this way

Completely agree.

 

[Giraffe]

When taking into account the liklihood of offence though you do need some context. This was at a football match not a childrens birthday party.

All you legal experts who are saying its a waste of money are, of course, aware that if found guilty he will be ordered to pay the cost of bringing the prosecution, aren't you ?
As far as I am aware, justice doesn't come with a price tag and the justice system isn't (yet) run by accountants. The CPS have decided that he has a case to answer and that there is a reasonable prospect of a conviction, why shouldn't they proceed ?
This feller is alleged to have made offensive gestures contrary to the laws of the land in front of 25000 people, how can anyone KNOW, beyond doubt, that nobody was offended ? What about a 17 year old lad, there with his dad, who is questioning his sexuality? Is it likely that he would be upset by such a gesture ?
Being on a football pitch (or in the stands watching) does not absolve someone from their legal responsibilities. There's the argument "I swear and make gestures so I can't be offended" but can you say the same for the other couple of thousand fans around you ?

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

As far as I am aware, justice doesn't come with a price tag and the justice system isn't (yet) run by accountants.

I am not involved in the law in any way - but it always looks to be finance driven to me. I would have thought the CPS will ask themselves whether they have the budget or resources to pursue a particular case, and if they do - another case may not be taken. I would hope that is how it works - because if they have an open cheque-book there are other areas where the money would be better spent.

The CPS have decided that he has a case to answer and that there is a reasonable prospect of a conviction, why shouldn't they proceed ?

Because there are other cheaper, easier, more effective ways of achieving the same ends. Having made a decision - the last thing should be some form of Sanity Check - and even if this had got that far - it should not have passed that.

 

[happypig]

When taking into account the liklihood of offence though you do need some context. This was at a football match not a childrens birthday party.

Quite so. Far more people at a football match.

I am not involved in the law in any way - but it always looks to be finance driven to me. I would have thought the CPS will ask themselves whether they have the budget or resources to pursue a particular case, and if they do - another case may not be taken. I would hope that is how it works - because if they have an open cheque-book there are other areas the money would be better spent.



Because there are other cheaper, easier, more effective ways of achieving the same ends. Having made a decision - the last thing should be some form of Sanity Check - and even if had got that far - this should not have passed that.

Who would undertake the "sanity check" ? A qualified and experienced lawyer or a van driver on an Internet forum ?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favour of prosecuting everything just because an offence might have been committed, sometimes it is simply not in the interests of justice or not in the public interest but this case, in my very limited knowledge ( I didn't see it as I was looking elsewhere) crosses both thresholds.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

Who would undertake the "sanity check" ? A qualified and experienced lawyer or a van driver on an Internet forum ?

Well as this passed all the in-house CPS checks and balances I suggest they come and ask here and we will run a poll.

 

[Philzo-93]

And Sky Sports showed a clip of another player saying they were CKR and had to apologise profusely.

Christ they're going downhill

 

[Springal]

Looks like Kemy was in court too today

http://instagram.com/p/jJzEw8Mo1a/#

 

[Sheebo]

About time someone was made an example of for the good of football and society. Attitudes don't change otherwise.

 

[wellquickwoody]

All you legal experts who are saying its a waste of money are, of course, aware that if found guilty he will be ordered to pay the cost of bringing the prosecution, aren't you ?
As far as I am aware, justice doesn't come with a price tag and the justice system isn't (yet) run by accountants. The CPS have decided that he has a case to answer and that there is a reasonable prospect of a conviction, why shouldn't they proceed ?
This feller is alleged to have made offensive gestures contrary to the laws of the land in front of 25000 people, how can anyone KNOW, beyond doubt, that nobody was offended ? What about a 17 year old lad, there with his dad, who is questioning his sexuality? Is it likely that he would be upset by such a gesture ?
Being on a football pitch (or in the stands watching) does not absolve someone from their legal responsibilities. There's the argument "I swear and make gestures so I can't be offended" but can you say the same for the other couple of thousand fans around you ?

25,000 people? In all probability 24,500 dib not even see the alleged gesture, 300 just laughed, 195 threw more abuse back at CKR, 5 were offended, 1 screamed for a policeman!

Now which group are more important? In a democracy you could wrongly say those that did not see the gesture, in reality the 24,995 who did not take offence.

Important word that, democracy.

 

[Creaky]

25,000 people? In all probability 24,500 dib not even see the alleged gesture, 300 just laughed, 195 threw more abuse back at CKR, 5 were offended, 1 screamed for a policeman!

Now which group are more important? In a democracy you could wrongly say those that did not see the gesture, in reality the 24,995 who did not take offence.

Important word that, democracy.

Someone is stabbed at a football match, 24,999 weren't - where does democracy come into it when deciding whether to prosecute - totally spurious argument!

 

[LamieRobertson]

Football is governed by a bunch of people that can dish out all sorts of punishment for all sorts of things and not waste public money doing so. It seems as a Manager has only got to challenge a referee's decision and he's fined. Suarez bites someone and the CPS don't get involved but he's banned and presumably got a hefty financial penalty from his club, the precedent to others (if they were dumb enough) has been established.

The FA are in a brilliant position to tackle this sort of behaviour. The complaint is made to them, the video evidence looked at and they ban the culprit for x games and impose maximum fines. I'm fairly certain it would be a more effective and certainly cheaper measure than this.

By the way I don't condone what CKR did at all and believe he should be dealt with, just not this way

Why then haven't the FA done anything?

 

[Creaky]

Why then haven't the FA done anything?

There's every chance they may well do, depending on the verdict of course.