Life ban for racial abuse

[CyderInACan]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/49161781

Can't say I blame them. Perhaps it will make some of the neanderthals think twice before spouting their disgusting views at people. 

[Monkeh]

Good,

[CotswoldRed]

The right decision.

I'll fully respect Man City's stance if they agree to do the same with their own players should a similar event involve them.

[Cowshed]

25 minutes ago, CyderInACan said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/49161781

Can't say I blame them. Perhaps it will make some of the neanderthals think twice before spouting their disgusting views at people. 

There was insufficient evidence for a criminal prosecution. Society in general works upon the principle that a crime has to be committed for an individual to be punished, society also works on the principle that offenders should not be punished for life. There has not even been a civil case.

John Terry was not held to the same standard by CFC.

[CyderInACan]

2 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

There was insufficient evidence for a criminal prosecution. Society in general works upon the principle that a crime has to be committed for an individual to be punished, society also works on the principle that offenders should not be punished for life. There has not even been a civil case.

 John Terry was not held to the same standard by CFC.

But outside of criminal issues, where the burden of proof is lower, it only has to be established that on the balance of probabilities it is so. Seems fair to me. Your point re John Terry is moot as the article does say that other miscreants were punished with varying levels of bans. 

[STeveOELlis]

*Life ban for alleged and subsequently refuted racial abuse

[phantom]

5 minutes ago, STeveOELlis said:

*Life ban for alleged and subsequently refuted racial abuse

That is a dangerous precedent to set - ALLEDGED

Surely you need proof to convict someone?

If he did it he has no place in any ground

[Cowshed]

16 minutes ago, CyderInACan said:

But outside of criminal issues, where the burden of proof is lower, it only has to be established that on the balance of probabilities it is so. Seems fair to me. Your point re John Terry is moot as the article does say that other miscreants were punished with varying levels of bans. 

Yes no crime has to be committed to have an individual banned from a football stadium via a civil court. There has been no criminal or even civil proceedings. There has been no crime. A fan has been banned for life. 

Chelsea actively supported their Captain.  

All I simply have done is highlight the arbitrary nature of Chelsea FC. Players are not held to the same standards. Double standards? Yes. 

 

 

[CyderInACan]

1 minute ago, Cowshed said:

 Players are not held to the same standards. Double standards? Yes

I don't disagree with that. 

[CotswoldRed]

10 minutes ago, phantom said:

That is a dangerous precedent to set - ALLEDGED

Surely you need proof to convict someone?

If he did it he has no place in any ground

Depends if you are talking about a criminal court. The club don't need to convict him in the common sense. They can ban whoever they wish whenever they wish. They are judge and jury. 

I'd agree there is a significant risk of some sort of miscarriage though. Would be excruciating to be banned for life having done nothing wrong. 

On a more general point, I wonder if this will extend to other "isms".

Racism, as an offence, is the media's "favourite" and will always get peoples knickers in a twist. Rightly so. 

You can, however, pretty much say anything to a disabled person, though, without anything like the same fear of redress. Mainly because it doesn't upset the keyboard warriors or red tops quite so much. 

Should a woman making a sexist comment to a player be perceived as just as bad? 

[Natchfever]

42 minutes ago, CyderInACan said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/49161781

Can't say I blame them. Perhaps it will make some of the neanderthals think twice before spouting their disgusting views at people. 

I find it odd how someone could racially abuse a black player in one breath and then presumably cheer one in the next, because he is wearing a Chelsea shirt.

Raheem Sterling doesn't appear to be well liked for some reason, but his race shouldn't be a factor in that should it.

Still a bit odd that there is a presumption of guilt though, so I agree with Phantom that it sets quite a precedent.

[Undy English]

51 minutes ago, CyderInACan said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/49161781

Can't say I blame them. Perhaps it will make some of the neanderthals think twice before spouting their disgusting views at people. 

Very unusual case in that the police dismissed it due to lack of evidence, but the club felt they had enough evidence to ban the supporter.

A dangerous precedent has now been set.

[One Team In Keynsham]

2 minutes ago, Undy English said:

Very unusual case in that the police dismissed it due to lack of evidence, but the club felt they had enough evidence to ban the supporter.

A dangerous precedent has now been set.

Do you mean the  dual standards of proof in UK where the standard for a criminal conviction is beyond reasonable doubt, and for civil cases it is the balance of probabilities (basically, more likely than not)?

No precedent, dangerous or otherwise, has been set from what I can see: it appears the evidence didn't reach the standard required for a criminal conviction, so the CPS didn't pursue, but Chelsea applied the lower common law standard in the banning process.

[And Its Smith]

Good on them. They can let in who they want. The same as I can let who I want into my house. I wouldn’t need someone to commit a crime to let him in through my front door 

[CyderInACan]

2 minutes ago, RedDave said:

Good on them. They can let in who they want. The same as I can let who I want into my house. I wouldn’t need someone to commit a crime to let him in through my front door 

Or, indeed, her 

[And Its Smith]

Just now, CyderInACan said:

Or, indeed, her 

I would always let a lady in 

[STeveOELlis]

39 minutes ago, phantom said:

That is a dangerous precedent to set - ALLEDGED

Surely you need proof to convict someone?

If he did it he has no place in any ground

The defendant was taken to court by the CPS and a lip reading/ linguist expert testified that he did not believe what was said was what was reported, and certainly not racist. Chelsea have banned him for 'breaching ground regulations'

 

Essentially, the bloke has had his name tarnished in the press and has now been banned for life - with no appeal (5 others banned for shorter terms were allowed appeal, he was not) - for swearing

[Eddie Hitler]

7 minutes ago, STeveOELlis said:

The defendant was taken to court by the CPS and a lip reading/ linguist expert testified that he did not believe what was said was what was reported, and certainly not racist. Chelsea have banned him for 'breaching ground regulations'

 

Essentially, the bloke has had his name tarnished in the press and has now been banned for life - with no appeal (5 others banned for shorter terms were allowed appeal, he was not) - for swearing

They are none of them named in the club statement or BBC story; though we all saw the video (assuming that I'm thinking of the right one).

I'm not inviting you to produce the names, though I'm sure that a search will find them, but this will soon be forgotten.

https://www.chelseafc.com/en/news/2019/07/30/statement-on-sanctions-against-people-regarding-behaviour-during

[And Its Smith]

18 minutes ago, STeveOELlis said:

The defendant was taken to court by the CPS and a lip reading/ linguist expert testified that he did not believe what was said was what was reported, and certainly not racist. Chelsea have banned him for 'breaching ground regulations'

 

Essentially, the bloke has had his name tarnished in the press and has now been banned for life - with no appeal (5 others banned for shorter terms were allowed appeal, he was not) - for swearing

I don’t understand.  The club said the lip readers said he used racist language.

”In reaching its decision, the Club took into account the denial made by the individual as well as a range of other evidence, including video evidence and evidence from two lip reading experts - both of whom advised that the individual had used words that are racially abusive.”

[One Team In Keynsham]

18 minutes ago, STeveOELlis said:

The defendant was taken to court by the CPS and a lip reading/ linguist expert testified that he did not believe what was said was what was reported, and certainly not racist. Chelsea have banned him for 'breaching ground regulations'

 

Essentially, the bloke has had his name tarnished in the press and has now been banned for life - with no appeal (5 others banned for shorter terms were allowed appeal, he was not) - for swearing

 

5 minutes ago, Eddie Hitler said:

They are none of them named in the club statement or BBC story; though we all saw the video (assuming that I'm thinking of the right one).

I'm not inviting you to produce the names, though I'm sure that a search will find them, but this will soon be forgotten.

https://www.chelseafc.com/en/news/2019/07/30/statement-on-sanctions-against-people-regarding-behaviour-during

I am more interested in seeing links to reports of the court case since the articles I have read suggest the CPS did not pursue criminal proceedings.

[maxjak]

30 minutes ago, STeveOELlis said:

The defendant was taken to court by the CPS and a lip reading/ linguist expert testified that he did not believe what was said was what was reported, and certainly not racist. Chelsea have banned him for 'breaching ground regulations'

 

Essentially, the bloke has had his name tarnished in the press and has now been banned for life - with no appeal (5 others banned for shorter terms were allowed appeal, he was not) - for swearing

I was not aware that a lip reading expert had said, that what was said, was mot racist?  In the report of the banning Chelsea state that 2 indepndent lip reading experts confirmed that the individuals language was of a racist nature. So who is to be believed?  And how can they differ so much in their opinion, I would have thought it easy enough to gauge what someone is saying, if the lip readers know their job?  Don't quite get it?

[Eddie Hitler]

5 minutes ago, One Team In Keynsham said:

 

I am more interested in seeing links to reports of the court case since the articles I have read suggest the CPS did not pursue criminal proceedings.

 

You are correct; the CPS did not take the case forward so there was no court case.

 

From the Chelsea statement:

The Crown Prosecution Service has, however, recently announced that it has elected not to initiate any criminal prosecutions.

[STeveOELlis]

23 minutes ago, Eddie Hitler said:

They are none of them named in the club statement or BBC story; though we all saw the video (assuming that I'm thinking of the right one).

I'm not inviting you to produce the names, though I'm sure that a search will find them, but this will soon be forgotten.

https://www.chelseafc.com/en/news/2019/07/30/statement-on-sanctions-against-people-regarding-behaviour-during

 

17 minutes ago, RedDave said:

I don’t understand.  The club said the lip readers said he used racist language.

”In reaching its decision, the Club took into account the denial made by the individual as well as a range of other evidence, including video evidence and evidence from two lip reading experts - both of whom advised that the individual had used words that are racially abusive.”

 

17 minutes ago, One Team In Keynsham said:

 

I am more interested in seeing links to reports of the court case since the articles I have read suggest the CPS did not pursue criminal proceedings.

 

7 minutes ago, maxjak said:

I was not aware that a lip reading expert had said, that what was said, was mot racist?  In the report of the banning Chelsea state that 2 indepndent lip reading experts confirmed that the individuals language was of a racist nature. So who is to be believed?  And how can they differ so much in their opinion, I would have thought it easy enough to gauge what someone is saying, if the lip readers know their job?  Don't quite get it?

 

6 minutes ago, Eddie Hitler said:

 

You are correct; the CPS did not take the case forward so there was no court case.

 

From the Chelsea statement:

The Crown Prosecution Service has, however, recently announced that it has elected not to initiate any criminal prosecutions.

Apologies, there was no court case, it was dropped before then:

 

The Crown Prosecution Service said today that it had concluded there was not enough evidence to prove the words used were racist said by Colin Wing, 60.

Chelsea suspended four fans from attending matches during the investigation into their behaviour during City's 2-0 loss at Stamford Bridge in December.

A CPS spokesman said: “Having carefully reviewed the evidence, including advice from a lip reading expert, we have found insufficient evidence to prove that the words used by one of the individuals were racially aggravated."

Two others will not be prosecuted for public order offences due to lack of evidence.

“This means no further CPS action can be taken."

 

[Eddie Hitler]

3 minutes ago, maxjak said:

I was not aware thay a lip reading expert had said that what was said, was mot racist?  In the report of the banning Chelsea state that 2 indepndent lip reading experts confirmed that the individuals language was of a racist nature. So who is to be believed?  And how can they differ so much in their opinion, I would have thought it easy enough to gauge what someone is saying, if the lip readers know their job?

Lip reading isn't black and white; here is a piece about the gerbil / jerboa Mastermind answer.

Quote

And professional lip-reader Tina Lannin, who studied the footage on a 56in telly, told The Sun: “I can just see her tongue move inside her mouth for the ‘L’, so I’m pretty sure she said gerbil.”

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9341741/bbc-mastermind-champion-incorrect-answer/

If that one was potentailly a court case then you can see it failing the criminal test - beyond reasonable doubt - but passing the civil test of balance of probabilities.  As this has done; though as pointed out upthread whilst Chelsea has claimed to use the civil test there is no certainty that they have done so.  They may just not have wanted somebody who behaves like that in their ground.

[Harry]

I think the CPS decided against prosecution because the only evidence is the lip-reading, and that can easily be proven inconclusive in a court. Hence not worth their bother. 

Chelsea however, have correctly banned the vile ***** because it was quite clear that he said black, not manc. We all know it, it’s just hard for them to prove it in court. 

Good riddance to the rotten ********. 

[Undy English]

1 hour ago, One Team In Keynsham said:

Do you mean the  dual standards of proof in UK where the standard for a criminal conviction is beyond reasonable doubt, and for civil cases it is the balance of probabilities (basically, more likely than not)?

No precedent, dangerous or otherwise, has been set from what I can see: it appears the evidence didn't reach the standard required for a criminal conviction, so the CPS didn't pursue, but Chelsea applied the lower common law standard in the banning process.

Sounds like you know a lot more about the law than I do my friend! 

I just find it unusual that a club can have enough evidence to ban an individual but yet it can't result in a criminal prosecution.

[Eddie Hitler]

5 minutes ago, Undy English said:

Sounds like you know a lot more about the law than I do my friend! 

I just find it unusual that a club can have enough evidence to ban an individual but yet it can't result in a criminal prosecution.

 

Similar for O J Simpson under the US system; famously found not guilty of murder of the two victims but then found guilty of their killings in a civil court and liable for $33.5m in damages.

 

In 1994, Simpson was arrested and charged with the murders of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her boyfriend, Ron Goldman. He was acquitted by a jury after a lengthy and internationally publicized trial. The families of the victims subsequently filed a civil suit against him, and in 1997 a civil court awarded a $33.5 million judgment against him for the victims' wrongful deaths.

[O'Garlandinho]

Personally think a life ban is over the top punishment in this case. The bloke has already been publicly shamed and lost his job (so I read), I’m sure lesson has been learnt and a 1 or 2 year ban would suffice.

[Robin1988]

37 minutes ago, O'Garlandinho said:

Personally think a life ban is over the top punishment in this case. The bloke has already been publicly shamed and lost his job (so I read), I’m sure lesson has been learnt and a 1 or 2 year ban would suffice.

Each to their own I guess but I don't think a year or two would suddenly turn someone into a non-racist. Don't blame Chelsea just wanting rid of him for good.

[Wanderingred]

38 minutes ago, O'Garlandinho said:

Personally think a life ban is over the top punishment in this case. The bloke has already been publicly shamed and lost his job (so I read), I’m sure lesson has been learnt and a 1 or 2 year ban would suffice.

Tend to agree. From his point of view, he deserves the chance to learn his lesson and move on. People do change.

From a wider perspective though, this has sent out a very clear and very powerful message that will hopefully get through to similarly minded cretins - zero tolerance for racism.