[Albion] "You're black and you stink" Rodriquez comment to Bong? - FA say not proven

[Mellotron]

Just a guess, as the ref consulted the 4th official but pitchside microphones?

Yeah have heard it suggested they could go back to these and turn em right up on the recording, so to speak.

 

[Creaky]

Shelvey was found guilty, and it doesn't seem to have harmed his career, so I think career defining moment is a bit strong.

Unlikely to affect his footballing career but may well affect his future prospects regarding coaching, managing and/or media work. Only time will tell.

 

[clarkey]

As an aside, and I may have missed it earlier in the thread, but does the referee not come under some scrutiny for initially suggesting Bong get back in position?

 

[Papa Lazarou]

As an aside, and I may have missed it earlier in the thread, but does the referee not come under some scrutiny for initially suggesting Bong get back in position?

It happens

http://www.goal.com/en-us/news/balotelli-booked-for-complaining-about-racist-abuse-to/1jydxera6w7kw1g8aylnlix3al

 

[Triggaaar]

I know of two women, who were charged with peverting the course of justice with false rape allegations, who were found guilty at Lewes Crown Court.

Presumably with proof that they were lying. I can't see that happening with this case.

 

[Triggaaar]

On the contrary. He has employed a barrister to defend him. There is talk of counter law suits with regards slander.

Just passing on what was reported up here around reason for extension.

Up here? Does it say that in any of the major news outlets, or is that just gossip? Try and stick to the news.

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/sp...ews/jay-rodriguez-racist-gaetan-bong-14292131

Er, I've just read that, and there's no mention of a slander case at all. What are you talking about?

 

[Triggaaar]

I don't have a link handy (nor time to go find one), but I do recall hearing / reading statements from Jay that he'd contracted a lawyer. Not just for defending the FA charge, but for making an actual counter claim.

Yeah that's not happened, just dumb fans on twitter suggesting it.

 

[Triggaaar]

I've just looked at the SFR footage on page 1 of this thread, and confirmed what I thought. When Rodriguez pinches his nose, his hand is over his mouth, so how is a lip reader going to help him?

There may be other footage.

 

[Triggaaar]

My first instinct in this whole episode was that the fact the referee included it in his match report was vital. Similar to the 'soft signal' in cricket.

Not really. Bong made a serious complaint, the ref had to include that in his report. That's not the ref saying it happened. Nothing like a soft signal.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Presumably with proof that they were lying. I can't see that happening with this case.

Yes. I replied to your comment about rape victims showing what happens when proved to be false allegations.

 

[Goldstone1976]

True as it's a criminal case as opposed to a football allegation.

Slander (also, libel) isn't criminal; It's a civil matter. "On the balance of probabilities" rather than "beyond reasonable doubt"/"sure" as a standard needed to find guilt. Also the presumption of guilt is reversed - the defendant has to prove that the alleged libel/slander either wasn't libellous/slanderous (e.g. it was true) or rely on a "fair comment" defence.

 

[The Spanish]

Find it disturbing how the local press have clearly completely decided he is innocent. Very worrying precedent.

I would say what is more worrying is being concerned and worried they are not falling into line with the modern culture regarding reactions to allegations on certain issues (which is increasingly at odds with our current legal systems principles and with the power of social media is in danger of totally re-writing those).

Not a comment on this case but it’s something that I think we are sleepwalking into.

 

[Triggaaar]

Yes. I replied to your comment about rape victims showing what happens when proved to be false allegations.

Yep, and so it should be. My point is that if a rape victim is charged simply for not having enough proof, that would be insane. Given that the FA have charged Jay, I can't see how there would be proof that Bong made it up. And finding him guilty of slander without proof would be like finding a rape victim guilty of slander - insane.

Note that the women you know of were not rape victims, which is what I was referring to.

 

[Bodian]

Slander (also, libel) isn't criminal; It's a civil matter. "On the balance of probabilities" rather than "beyond reasonable doubt"/"sure" as a standard needed to find guilt. Also the presumption of guilt is reversed - the defendant has to prove that the alleged libel/slander either wasn't libellous/slanderous (e.g. it was true) or rely on a "fair comment" defence.

The FA will only be looking at Rodriquez. So, if they find that they can't be certain that he said what is alleged - it's still some way from them saying that Bong made it up. And anything other than Bong deliberately making it up would probably come under 'fair comment'.

So, Rodriquez would probably have to prove what he did say (hence the lip reader), and then prove that Bong deliberately misheard to succeed in a slander case?

So, we could be in a strange position where the FA don't find Rodriquez guilty because they can't be sure, and then a court case may not find Bong guilty of slander because it would be difficult for them to be convinced, on balance, that he was deliberately making it up.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I know of two women, who were charged with peverting the course of justice with false rape allegations, who were found guilty at Lewes Crown Court.

Which is different. I can't see how Bong could possibly ever be found to have slandered Rodriguez.

True as it's a criminal case as opposed to a football allegation.

Slander (also, libel) isn't criminal; It's a civil matter. "On the balance of probabilities" rather than "beyond reasonable doubt"/"sure" as a standard needed to find guilt. Also the presumption of guilt is reversed - the defendant has to prove that the alleged libel/slander either wasn't libellous/slanderous (e.g. it was true) or rely on a "fair comment" defence.

I was replying to the first sentence in Papa's post - Which is different.

I can see how you'd think I was referring to slander (which I wasn't).

 

[Triggaaar]

Slander (also, libel) isn't criminal; It's a civil matter. "On the balance of probabilities" rather than "beyond reasonable doubt"/"sure" as a standard needed to find guilt. Also the presumption of guilt is reversed - the defendant has to prove that the alleged libel/slander either wasn't libellous/slanderous (e.g. it was true) or rely on a "fair comment" defence.

This is for general slander/libel. Do you know if this has been tested when the alleged slander/libel was an accusation of racism (or similar)?

Because if that was the case in court, people could go around using racist abuse, and the victims wouldn't even be able to complain unless they had proof.

 

[Triggaaar]

So, Rodriquez would probably have to prove what he did say (hence the lip reader), and then prove that Bong deliberately misheard to succeed in a slander case?

Generally in slander/libel I think the defendant needs to prove what they said/wrote (if not fair comment) is true. The claimant doesn't need to prove that the defendant knew it wasn't true.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

If Rodriquez intends hiring a lip-reader then the FA should be looking to hire one also. Else no prizes for guessing what the findings of the Rodriquez-hired lip-reader will be.

 

[sparkie]

Well Rodriguez certainly doth protest. Time will tell if he doth protest too much.

 

[sydney]

this will drag on and on and on and on and on ......i doubt it will be resolved before the end of this season ....or next ....you may pooh pooh ...or just pooh but a premier league racism scandal has so much mileage i'm pretty sure it's gonna get milked dry.