Jump to content
IGNORED

Kiko Casilla


phantom

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, RedRaw said:

The “white” guy, the “black” guy, the “mixed race” guy, the “Asian” guy, the “Portuguese” guy, the “filthy gas scum” guy........all terms that may be generally used by any of us to innocently  reference a person in a certain scenario.....there are no racist intentions or connotations.

Those terms are all fine and the only people saying otherwise are those who are trying to defend someone who said something actually racist...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Nibor said:

You have misunderstood.

The second paragraph only applies where you have already breached the rule in the first one.

If you bring the game into disrepute, doing so whilst referencing race will lead to a harsher punishment.

If you do not bring the game into disrepute, paragraph 2 is irrelevant.

Try actually reading.

It's not...the second paragraph describes what terminology can't be used when breaking the rule in the first paragraph.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, spudski said:

It's not...the second paragraph describes what terminology can't be used when breaking the rule in the first paragraph.

The first paragraph describes what the offence is, the second describes what is considered an aggravated version of that offence, not a completely separate one.  You can tell because it begins with a reference to the first paragraph.  This is the same sort of structure many legal ish documents are written in.  They are easy to misinterpret and that is what you are doing.

It is not true that any reference to race is a breach of a law of association, even if you don't want to trust the legalese the very notion fails the common sense test.  You can tell because Robbored believed it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Nibor said:

The first paragraph describes what the offence is, the second describes what is considered an aggravated version of that offence, not a completely separate one.  You can tell because it begins with a reference to the first paragraph.  This is the same sort of structure many legal ish documents are written in.  They are easy to misinterpret and that is what you are doing.

It is not true that any reference to race is a breach of a law of association, even if you don't want to trust the legalese the very notion fails the common sense test.  You can tell because Robbored believed it.

I actually took my quotes from a solicitor's page that was analysing the case. You are welcome to disagree with me, but you are wrong in this instance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What Casilla said was definitely unacceptable. However, it is something he is used to saying as it is not considered racist in the latin languages. What this is saying about these cultures is entirely another debate.

In summary, Casilla had been in his second month of English football, I imagine with a very low level of English, and said something discriminatory which is not considered discriminatory in his culture.

This should have been acknowledged by the FA in the process. It is clear he mistakenly said something which is racist in England but he is not a racist himself.

Negro=Black man in Spanish and does not have the same connotations as in English, I imagine that will change however in the future. 

For example look at this newspaper headline regarding US politics from El País in 2017, the centre-left Spanish Newspaper:

Quote

Sin Obama en cartel, cae el interés electoral de los negros

Literally translates to: "Without Obama in the picture, the black population's voting interest falls".

 

 

I'm torn on this, because I don't feel like anyone has come out better for it, and it could have been dealt with a lot better by the FA. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, spudski said:

I actually took my quotes from a solicitor's page that was analysing the case. You are welcome to disagree with me, but you are wrong in this instance.

Got a link then?  I'd be surprised that any solicitor is able to analyse this case given that nothing is published yet.

Are you talking about this page?

https://www.boltburdon.co.uk/blogs/falling-foul-of-the-fas-rules-when-using-social-media/

This contains your quote verbatim and has nothing to do with the Casilla case, it is talking about applying E3 to use of social media.  In any case it doesn't contradict what I am saying in the least.

I'm not wrong about what the laws say, or how I'm reading them - you can read them in full here:

http://handbook.fapublications.com/#!/book/30/chapter/s2630-rules-of-the-association/content?section=s2658-general-behaviour

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Badger08 said:

So I'm curious. For example, there are 4 players in the box all wearing identical kits. 3 are white and one black. Your defence doesn't see the black player moving across. You can't see a number in the shirt. How would would you warn your defence that he needs to be tracked? What descriptive words would you use that in your words isn't being "lazy / crass"?

I'm really interested. Serious question?

Why? Because it isn't racist? 

Weirdly I would use his name or if I didn’t know it, his number.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Badger08 said:

What happens if you don't know his name and you can't see his number?

I would point at him but I’m assuming if I can’t see his number or name he’s probably already marked and me pointing or shouting ‘ the black lad’ wouldn’t make much difference.

But if you were to shout at a teammate when I was playing,  to pick up the black guy or whatever, I would have words with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, shepton red said:

My other half is Afro Caribbean and will no longer holiday to Spain for holidays/weekend breaks due to the overt racism; outside of Barcelona.

Holiday in Portugal instead! A country of explorers proudly built on races and cultures from around the world. Albeit the result of a colonial history in Africa, the Portuguese even going back to elderly generations, embrace individuals and do not see race - crossing the border into Spain was like winding the clock back several centuries.

With that said, for everyone still enraged about not being able to say "black", I say again you need to understand what it is like to be identified and singled out by colour first, to know why labels hurt. There is an old cliché about afto-caribbean people having a chip on their shoulder about race, if you were regularly singled out you would too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the FA have today published the written reasons and a statement: http://www.thefa.com/news/2020/mar/03/kiko-casilla-written-reasons-030320

The allegations are very different to those debated here (not instructions to mark a player before a corner, not use of the word "black"), per the FA's document (the allegations are published uncensored):

Quote

The Corner was then taken in the 72nd minute of the match, and KC punched the ball clear. It is alleged by the FA that immediately thereafter KC audibly directed at JL the words ‘you f*****g n****r’.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, View from the Dolman said:

So the FA have today published the written reasons and a statement: http://www.thefa.com/news/2020/mar/03/kiko-casilla-written-reasons-030320

The allegations are very different to those debated here (not instructions to mark a player before a corner, not use of the word "black"), per the FA's document (the allegations are published uncensored):

Oh my word, I am so shocked, that lovely unbiased Leeds chap assured us he was just a poor misunderstood non english speaker...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having read it if he DID say that then he should be sacked.

What is most interesting is that 

1) Kiko’s statement was apparently inconsistent at the time and then during the investigation this counted against him.

2) The two Charlton players statements are inconsistent with the referees report but this is totally ignored.

3) The video evidence shows that Leko didn’t even react and continued his run back to his position, surely had someone said what is alleged he would have reacted.

4) Tyler Roberts actually messaged Leko after the interviews (which he was shocked at) and said he misheard.

On balance of probability he obviously said SOMETHING!

Referees should have microphones and pitch side ones as well.

IF he said the proper bad stuff then 100% sack him and never return, however there is no evidence whatsoever to be able to sack him. It would fail in court and Leeds would be sued for wrongful dismissal.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 04/03/2020 at 08:27, SPAZZA said:

Having read it if he DID say that then he should be sacked.

What is most interesting is that 

1) Kiko’s statement was apparently inconsistent at the time and then during the investigation this counted against him.

2) The two Charlton players statements are inconsistent with the referees report but this is totally ignored.

3) The video evidence shows that Leko didn’t even react and continued his run back to his position, surely had someone said what is alleged he would have reacted.

4) Tyler Roberts actually messaged Leko after the interviews (which he was shocked at) and said he misheard.

On balance of probability he obviously said SOMETHING!

Referees should have microphones and pitch side ones as well.

IF he said the proper bad stuff then 100% sack him and never return, however there is no evidence whatsoever to be able to sack him. It would fail in court and Leeds would be sued for wrongful dismissal.

 

I would imagine the guilty verdict in itself would be evidence to sack him. He has been found guilty by a disciplinary panel of using racist language. I don't think a wrongful dismissal case would fail in court. I also think - though am happy to be corrected- that, like the FA Disciplinary Panel, wrongful dismissal cases are judged on "balance of probability" rather than "evidence beyond reasonable doubt".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

I would imagine the guilty verdict in itself would be evidence to sack him. He has been found guilty by a disciplinary panel of using racist language. I don't think a wrongful dismissal case would fail in court. I also think - though am happy to be corrected- that, like the FA Disciplinary Panel, wrongful dismissal cases are judged on "balance of probability" rather than "evidence beyond reasonable doubt".

You would have thought so wouldn't you.

If I had been found guilty of doing the same on the street, I am not sure my employer would back me against the conviction of the a court if I had some week mitigating circumstances. I am in no way reveling in the idea of someone losing his job, but the word he used is 'bad' worldwide, and is completely unacceptable. Everyone deserves a second chance but only after repentance and consequences are faced. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 05/03/2020 at 12:16, Fjmcity said:

You would have thought so wouldn't you.

If I had been found guilty of doing the same on the street, I am not sure my employer would back me against the conviction of the a court if I had some week mitigating circumstances. I am in no way reveling in the idea of someone losing his job, but the word he used is 'bad' worldwide, and is completely unacceptable. Everyone deserves a second chance but only after repentance and consequences are faced. 

That’s the point, this whole thing wouldn’t stand up in a criminal court.

It is two Charlton players in a packed penalty area that heard something, it would appear nobody else heard anything (team mates and opponents regardless of ethnicity)

Without evidence (ie audio or even video with a lip reader) it would get thrown out of criminal court in half a day.

IF there was EVIDENCE then he should be thrown out of our club no questions asked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, SPAZZA said:

That’s the point, this whole thing wouldn’t stand up in a criminal court.

It is two Charlton players in a packed penalty area that heard something, it would appear nobody else heard anything (team mates and opponents regardless of ethnicity)

Without evidence (ie audio or even video with a lip reader) it would get thrown out of criminal court in half a day.

IF there was EVIDENCE then he should be thrown out of our club no questions asked.

There is evidence, two eye (ear) witnesses is evidence.  The fact that you don't like it doesn't change that.

It is vanishingly unlikely that Leko and his teammate made this up and decided to go through this painful process.

Employment issues don't need to be held to the same standard as criminal cases but actually it's not unheard of for two eye witnesses to be enough to convict people of very serious crimes... shocking though that might be?

Stop making excuses and seeking to minimise it, you've already failed once to pretend the allegation was minor.  The truth is if Leeds had any integrity at all he'd now be an ex Leeds player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 28/02/2020 at 21:11, BS4 on Tour... said:

So if he’d said, ‘mark the tall one’ or ‘mark the guy with the tattoos’ or ‘mark the ginger haired one’ or ‘mark the podgy one’ etc etc etc that would have been fine? But ‘mark the black one’ is deemed racist? Not having at a dig at you, but if that is the FA rules they are clearly wrong ....

I heard that a lot when I was playing...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SPAZZA said:

That’s the point, this whole thing wouldn’t stand up in a criminal court.

It is two Charlton players in a packed penalty area that heard something, it would appear nobody else heard anything (team mates and opponents regardless of ethnicity)

Without evidence (ie audio or even video with a lip reader) it would get thrown out of criminal court in half a day.

IF there was EVIDENCE then he should be thrown out of our club no questions asked.

Uuuummmm, speaking as a criminal lawyer, first hand witness testimony is evidence, and often compelling evidence at that. Even better if it's corroborated by a second witness, albeit not independent in this instance. On another minor point, half a day would probably be more than enough for this kind of trial, if it was to be a criminal matter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GlastonburyRed said:

Uuuummmm, speaking as a criminal lawyer, first hand witness testimony is evidence, and often compelling evidence at that. Even better if it's corroborated by a second witness, albeit not independent in this instance. On another minor point, half a day would probably be more than enough for this kind of trial, if it was to be a criminal matter. 

Then how did the other 18 players in the box (on both teams) seemingly hear nothing?

Do these two players possess superhuman hearing?

Considering there was never a point that they were the two closest people to Casilla I’d guess they’d have to......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, SPAZZA said:

Then how did the other 18 players in the box (on both teams) seemingly hear nothing?

Do these two players possess superhuman hearing?

Considering there was never a point that they were the two closest people to Casilla I’d guess they’d have to......

One explanation would be that they heard it but chose not to report it, especially plausible for those on Casilla’s team. Fairly  common to keep schtum as opposed to making waves, applicable in a variety of contexts. 

I’d argue that direction as opposed to proximity is more important where hearing is considered. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...