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

[Easy 10]

Lip service, let's see what actually happens. They had no choice but to investigate

And rightly so.

If Rodriguez is found not guilty though, it doesn't mean that the FA have merely paid lip service to it. It'll simply be because, following the investigation, there was not enough evidence to find him guilty of the charge. All very unsatisfactory from Bong's point of view IF indeed thats how it plays out, but what else can you do when its just one persons word against another, if nobody else heard what was said ?

 

[Easy 10]

No it doesn’t at all dispite what BG has said. I am aware of numerous criminal proceedings that have taken place against players from a wide range of levels of football. Punching a player off the ball being one example where the receiving player got a broken jaw. The other party was criminally prosecuted successfully. I’m also aware of numerous occasions where people have been questioned and it’s been left there with no prosecution.
A lot does depend on the circumstances. For example a bad tackle that may break a leg is part of the game.
In the case of Rodriguez he could go to a civil court to clear his name if he felt it was appropriate. It wouldn’t change the decision of the FA so personally I think he will whatever the decision is he or bong will just have to accept it as I don’t see a civil court coming to any different conclusion if presented with the same evidence

Agreed with most of that. But in the civil court, the weight of responsibility falls on the prosecution to prove guilt, not the defense to prove innocence. If they find Rodriguez guilty then the FA could uphold their own charge / verdict I suppose, but a magistrates court might well deliver a different verdict - as indeed they did, when they found John Terry not guilty of racially abusing Anton Ferdinand, only for the FA to find him guilty and go ahead with their own charge / ban / fine on him anyway.

 

[Fade to Bruno]

I genuinely believe that he said 'your breath stinks' and Bong has misheard him. IF he did say 'you're black and you stink' then as awful as that is, that is a very weak insult. It's like something a kid would say on a playground, not a grown man trying to insult somebody.

 

[Triggaaar]

I would imagine he could take Bong to civil court for slander to claim damages

He could but, if he was found guilty by the FA, he'd very foolish to - the burden of proof would be on him.

I thought that with slander/libel cases the burden of proof was on the defendant to prove that what they're saying is true. If the FA find him guilty, that on it's own won't be proof.

 

[Gwylan]

I thought that with slander/libel cases the burden of proof was on the defendant to prove that what they're saying is true. If the FA find him guilty, that on it's own won't be proof.

That's true if there's any doubt about the defamatory statement but no-one's claiming that "you're black and you stink" isn't defamatory - what's in doubt is what was said. With slander, it has be proved that Bong was deliberately setting out to harm Rodriguez - I think he'd find that difficult.

 

[Hillian1]

Didn't big Dunc get sent to the slammer for headbutting someone?

 

[Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo]

Didn't big Dunc get sent to the slammer for headbutting someone?

Yes, 3 months for head butting another player on the field of play. Ben Thatcher was investigated by the police for a couple of on field incidents but I don’t think he was ever charged.

 

[Triggaaar]

That's true if there's any doubt about the defamatory statement but no-one's claiming that "you're black and you stink" isn't defamatory - what's in doubt is what was said.

No, defending yourself against slander/libel will generally be about whether someone did or didn't do/say something. For example, you can't say that a celebrity was shagging around unless you can prove it.

With slander, it has be proved that Bong was deliberately setting out to harm Rodriguez - I think he'd find that difficult.

Ok, I don't know about that bit.

 

[Gwylan]

No, defending yourself against slander/libel will generally be about whether someone did or didn't do/say something. For example, you can't say that a celebrity was shagging around unless you can prove it.

But in libel there's no doubt as to what's been written so there can be no dispute about it.

Saying a celebrity is shagging around BTW isn't necessarily libellous. If the celebrity was well known for his/her promiscuous lifestyle, then it wouldn't be defamatory. If someone is a Christian campaigner who talks much about fidelity, it most certainly would be. In that case, yes, it would be up to the defendant to prove the statement was true.

But that's not the situation here.

I must admit that my knowledge of slander is a bit limited - I'm well up on libel law but slander is a bit of new area, but I'm pretty sure that Rodriguez would find it hard to make a case against Bong.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I was searching for any news on this. I saw this article from Birmingham Live.

The wording of the charge by the FA is Rodriguez was charged with using ‘abusive and/or insulting words which included a reference to ethnic origin and/or colour and/or race’ by the FA in February.

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/west-brom-bong-jay-rodriguez-14516472

It's possible that the FA will still find Rodriguez guilty for the abusive and/or insulting words, without the racial element. That isn't to say it didn't happen but the 'you stink and the gesture' are insulting in their own right.

 

[blockhseagull]

Could be three weeks until a verdict ?

Jesus, the FA are an utter joke.

 

[martin tyler]

Agreed with most of that. But in the civil court, the weight of responsibility falls on the prosecution to prove guilt, not the defense to prove innocence. If they find Rodriguez guilty then the FA could uphold their own charge / verdict I suppose, but a magistrates court might well deliver a different verdict - as indeed they did, when they found John Terry not guilty of racially abusing Anton Ferdinand, only for the FA to find him guilty and go ahead with their own charge / ban / fine on him anyway.

Those were slightly different.
Terry had criminal charges brought he won on the basis that they couldn’t prove 100% in relation to the case but you rightly said FA didn’t really care and found him guilty anyway. Don’t think any civil action was ever taken.
If JR went to court for a civil matter he would be having to prove that Bong not beyond all reasonable doubt but on the balance of probabilities is lying. Seems difficult to do as if that happened Bong would say that is what I thought I heard. Like wise JR will say I didn’t say that I said this.
Personally I assumed there was some other evidence that resulted in him being charged by the FA as in the similar case with Hokgate and Firmino where one said something and the other disagreed no charges were brought although that could be down to the fact that there were plenty of others there and no one heard it

 

[rippleman]

Could be three weeks until a verdict ?

Jesus, the FA are an utter joke.

Nothing new there then!

 

[Triggaaar]

But in libel there's no doubt as to what's been written so there can be no dispute about it.

You're confusing different points. Bong accused Jay of doing something. His accusations have been broadcast, so if he was lying, that would be libel. In a libel case, he could have to prove that Jay said what he'd been accused of.
Just like someone accusing a celeb of putting it about. They'd have to prove it.

Saying a celebrity is shagging around BTW isn't necessarily libellous. If the celebrity was well known for his/her promiscuous lifestyle, then it wouldn't be defamatory.

But we're clearly talking about the occasions where said celebrity isn't known for such a lifestyle.

If someone is a Christian campaigner who talks much about fidelity, it most certainly would be. In that case, yes, it would be up to the defendant to prove the statement was true.

But that's not the situation here.

Why not? Looks the same

I must admit that my knowledge of slander is a bit limited - I'm well up on libel law but slander is a bit of new area

If Bong were lying, it would be libel, not slander, because of the nature of how it's been broadcast.

 

[Gazwag]

If Bong were lying, it would be libel, not slander, because of the nature of how it's been broadcast.

Isn't libel written and slander spoken, therefore Bongs statement on French tv spoken

 

[Leighgull]

Well. That scuttles Rodriguez chance of a move to the Albion when WBA go down.

 

[Triggaaar]

Isn't libel written and slander spoken, therefore Bongs statement on French tv spoken

No. If it's spoken on tv, then broadcast, it's libel.

 

[Audax]

Libel / slander differentiation isn't as relevant today as it once was. While there's still a bit of a difference, recent changes of the law for defamation mean that it's a lot easier to just talk about defamation and not worry too much about the libel/slander issue.

Of interest in the recent changes to the defamation law is that it is now easier to mount a successful defence. In Bong's case, should Rodriguez pursue a case, the defence is a relatively easy one to predict: he holds an honest and reasonable belief that the claim he made is the truth. Rodriguez would need to disprove that, and that would likely require him to prove that Bong intended to do harm through making an untrue claim / statement.

 

[Bodian]

No. If it's spoken on tv, then broadcast, it's libel.

It's not just Bong though - the broadcaster (and production company if it's different) can also be held liable.

 

[Weststander]

Libel / slander differentiation isn't as relevant today as it once was. While there's still a bit of a difference, recent changes of the law for defamation mean that it's a lot easier to just talk about defamation and not worry too much about the libel/slander issue.

Of interest in the recent changes to the defamation law is that it is now easier to mount a successful defence. In Bong's case, should Rodriguez pursue a case, the defence is a relatively easy one to predict: he holds an honest and reasonable belief that the claim he made is the truth. Rodriguez would need to disprove that, and that would likely require him to prove that Bong intended to do harm through making an untrue claim / statement.

You can't have your tort and eat it.