[Football] Some of those Burnley fans - don’t like us. Oh well !!!

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

81 posts on the original Burnley thread.

Comfortably over 200 posts on our thread about their thread.

Do we win? Will they start a thread about our thread about their thread?

Football in Lockdown 2021.

 

[AmexRuislip]

81 posts on the original Burnley thread.

Comfortably over 200 posts on our thread about their thread.

Do we win? Will they start a thread about our thread about their thread?

Football in Lockdown 2021.

Can't we just close this thread akin to yesterday's result

 

[Sid in the Sharknado]

View attachment 133529



View attachment 133530

New best mate

Rather lazy of him to copy his description of Newhaven from the town council's website

 

[dsr-burnley]

Its just fueled by the whole Bong/Rodriguez thing. Most decent fans will probably look at that whole episode & say 'unfortunately i guess we'll never know what was said' and move on. But the knuckle dragging element of their fan base have turned the 'unproven' verdict into 'proven not to be a racist' (which is not the same thing), and now to decide to call us racists for it... bizarre. Generally the largest percentage of their fanbase will be decent people, much like ours and anyone else's, but its the dickheads that stick in your mind.

Well, we don't know, do we? Literally the only evidence against Rodriguez is that one man on a football field surrounded by 30,000 fans is utterly convinced that he could not have misheard what another man who was holding his nose was saying.

When someone is being accused of racism, you need a stronger level of proof than that. It's a serious offence, and I don't think it's right to say "our man can't be wrong so their man is racist". You try it sometime when we get back in - during a noisy-ish bit of play, hold your nose and say something out of context to someone beside you. I bet there is less than 100% success rate in hearing what is said.

For those people nitpicking about "not proven" being not the same as "not guilty", they're wrong. It is the same. "Not guilty" in legal terms means that not enough evidence has been found to prove guilt so the suspect is assumed to be innocent. "not proven" in football terms, even though the burden of proof is lower and the rules of evidence are more relaxed, means the same thing.

 

[dsr-burnley]

Most of the bigger places are fine. As are a lot of the chocolate box villages. It’s the clapped out ex-industrial towns that have no culture or alternative industry to replace what Thatcher destroyed.
Shame, some of them used to be absolute treasures.

Not that it matters to the tone of debate in general, but the loss of cotton mills was nothing to do with Margaret Thatcher. The mills were gone before 1979.

 

[studio150]

For those people nitpicking about "not proven" being not the same as "not guilty", they're wrong. It is the same. "Not guilty" in legal terms means that not enough evidence has been found to prove guilt so the suspect is assumed to be innocent. "not proven" in football terms, even though the burden of proof is lower and the rules of evidence are more relaxed, means the same thing.

If they are the same why are there three options to hand down?

 

[sparkie]

Well, we don't know, do we? Literally the only evidence against Rodriguez is that one man on a football field surrounded by 30,000 fans is utterly convinced that he could not have misheard what another man who was holding his nose was saying.

When someone is being accused of racism, you need a stronger level of proof than that. It's a serious offence, and I don't think it's right to say "our man can't be wrong so their man is racist". You try it sometime when we get back in - during a noisy-ish bit of play, hold your nose and say something out of context to someone beside you. I bet there is less than 100% success rate in hearing what is said.

For those people nitpicking about "not proven" being not the same as "not guilty", they're wrong. It is the same. "Not guilty" in legal terms means that not enough evidence has been found to prove guilt so the suspect is assumed to be innocent. "not proven" in football terms, even though the burden of proof is lower and the rules of evidence are more relaxed, means the same thing.

Well they had the options of picking guilty, not proven or not guilty, so why not pick not guilty in that case ?

 

[Return of the Rev]

UP THE DOCKERS !

Blooming Newhaven Cfuds better

 

[dsr-burnley]

If they are the same why are there three options to hand down?

There aren't. This is the relevant line in the FA Disciplinary handbook.

In Scottish law, the possible verdicts are guilty, not guilty, or not proven. There, obviously, not proven means something different from not guilty.

This isn't Scottish law. English law has verdicts of guilty and not guilty; the FA hearings have verdicts of proven and not proven. (Though as I said earlier, the level of proof is based on the English civil code of balance of probabilities, not the criminal rule of beyond reasonable doubt. And the usual English rules of evidence are not followed.)

To argue that "not proven" in the FA does not mean the same as "not guilty" is as wrong as as trying to argue that "proven" is not the same as "guilty". "Not proven" means that, having taken all evidence into account, on balance of probabilities it is more likely than not that he is innocent.

DECISIONS
General
16 Where a Charge is denied, the Regulatory Commission will decide whether the Charge
is proven or not proven.

 

[dsr-burnley]

Well they had the options of picking guilty, not proven or not guilty, so why not pick not guilty in that case ?

As above, their options were "proven" and "not proven".

 

[The Fits]

This wasn't the case at previous grounds, and certainly isn't at away matches, but i do find an air of smugness at the Amex.

 

[osgood]

81 posts on the original Burnley thread.

Comfortably over 200 posts on our thread about their thread.

Do we win? Will they start a thread about our thread about their thread?

Football in Lockdown 2021.

We should have a Poll about it !

 

[Thunder Bolt]

^. Steve Foster is HB&B!!!! .
Mind. Officially. Blown.

How many more accounts does he have?

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

For those people nitpicking about "not proven" being not the same as "not guilty", they're wrong. It is the same. "Not guilty" in legal terms means that not enough evidence has been found to prove guilt so the suspect is assumed to be innocent. "not proven" in football terms, even though the burden of proof is lower and the rules of evidence are more relaxed, means the same thing.

This nitpicking is a fact in law It is not the same, it means that it is considered there's not evidence to give a guilty or not guilty verdict. Basically it is stating that the given evidence from both sides is not sufficient. It certainly does not mean guilt or no guilt. Without further evidence from either side the matter is brought to an impasse. Scottish law is about the only law of any land that allows for this and the thinking is to let it remain as the removal is likely to find more people found guilty of a crime when in fact innocent.

It is effectively an open verdict.

[B]In his evidence to the FA, Bong said he was "100% certain" Rodriguez, 28, said to him: "You're black and you stink."

Rodriguez, who had a personal hearing with the governing body on Wednesday, denied saying this, insisting it had been: "Breath ****ing stinks."

The FA employed two lip-reading experts to watch slow-motion footage of the incident.

In the reasons explaining its verdict, the FA said the "essential issue for us boiled down to one question - are we satisfied the player [Rodriguez] probably said to GB [Gaetan Bong]: "You're black and you stink'?

It said the two lip-reading experts "could not help" on this "core issue".

"The player's mouth was obscured, and neither could see sufficient to interpret his moving lips," the FA said.

"After much deliberation we were left in the position where the case distilled to the evidence of each player. We could not say that any of the other evidence or competing arguments lead us to prefer one over the other."

The FA said it was "completely satisfied" 29-year-old Bong's complaint was "made in absolute good faith" and "there has been no suggestion that this was a malicious or fabricated complaint". [/B]

Above is a statement of fact.

 

[BrianWade4]

I hate Burnley. The town, the club, the people.

It’s the game I want to win more than any other (including Caravan FC)

Always enough of a stray elbow to hurt, never enough for a sending off. And that disgusting, moany manager.....

Barton/Kayal never to be forgiven.

 

[osgood]

Not that it matters to the tone of debate in general, but the loss of cotton mills was nothing to do with Margaret Thatcher. The mills were gone before 1979.

Why let the truth interfere with local folklore !

 

[Chicken Run]

How many more accounts does he have?

I’m sure you were being sarcastic but if you weren’t I have it on extremely good authority that the OP isn’t Timmy [emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[osgood]

I hate Burnley. The town, the club, the people.

It’s the game I want to win more than any other (including Caravan FC)

Always enough of a stray elbow to hurt, never enough for a sending off. And that disgusting, moany manager.....

Barton/Kayal never to be forgiven.

Probably best you keep away for a bit then !

 

[dsr-burnley]

This nitpicking is a fact in law It is not the same, it means that it is considered there's not evidence to give a guilty or not guilty verdict. Basically it is stating that the given evidence from both sides is not sufficient. It certainly does not mean guilt or no guilt. Without further evidence from either side the matter is brought to an impasse. Scottish law is about the only law of any land that allows for this and the thinking is to let it remain as the removal is likely to find more people found guilty of a crime when in fact innocent.

It is effectively an open verdict.

.

Sorry, you're wrong. "Proven" means that the FA finds on the balance of probabilities that the offence happened. "Not proven" means that they find on the balance of probabilities that the offence did not happen. That is clearly stated in their rules. There is no middle ground.

If we were talking about Scottish law, you would be correct, because they have guilty, not guilty, and the middle ground being not proven. Three options, including a middle ground.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

Sorry, you're wrong. "Proven" means that the FA finds on the balance of probabilities that the offence happened. "Not proven" means that they find on the balance of probabilities that the offence did not happen. That is clearly stated in their rules. There is no middle ground.

If we were talking about Scottish law, you would be correct, because they have guilty, not guilty, and the middle ground being not proven. Three options, including a middle ground.

It is not what the report says from the FA they couldn't decide one way or the other.

It is irrelevant there will only ever be one person who truly knows what was said.