H_B Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Poor attempt at deflecting there. You're normally better than that. Eh, no. I'm trying to educate you here. I don't think you understand the difference between a criminal and a civil case. To help you out, have a think about the John Terry case. 1) What happened in the criminal case? 2) Did he incur an FA ban and fine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haggis pakora Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Not quite. They might agree that Tonev said something. They might think Logan misheard what was said. It's possible that both players are telling the truth as they see it. Omfg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross. Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Eh, no. I'm trying to educate you here. I don't think you understand the difference between a criminal and a civil case. To help you out, have a think about the John Terry case. 1) What happened in the criminal case? 2) Did he incur an FA ban and fine? I understand perfectly the difference. We are not discussing that aspect of it though. I asked why the police would only prosecute if they had a second form of evidence beyond the word of one person against another. You didn't answer my question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross. Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 This didn't happen in the street and neither is it a police investigation. Another absolutely shameful attempt at whataboutery and deflection. You also completely failed to answer the question that was asked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 I asked why the police would only prosecute if they had a second form of evidence beyond the word of one person against another. Uh, I did answer your question. They are carrying out a criminal investigation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross. Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Uh, I did answer your question. They are carrying out a criminal investigation. Why wouldn't they rely on the word of one person against another? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casual Bystander Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Because Tonev's explanation to the club was that he did not say the words that were alleged to have been said. You spoken to Tonev to confirm that position? So, hopefully after the appeal the information may well be in the public domain. Why should they publish this? They haven't in any other case. Is it just because some Celtic fans don't accept the outcome? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross. Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Omfg. Going back to my original point as you have, I'm not sure why it's so hard to believe this is a possibility. That said, given the label that is given to this type of situation is a "mondegreen", I'm not surprised you wouldn't be willing to accept it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rainbowrising Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Why wouldn't they rely on the word of one person against another? They can't. It's a core point of scots law on criminal cases that corroboration (two witness accounts) is required. It's not required in civil law cases. Corroboration in scots law goes back centuries, the police are bound by it Some people say it should be changed but that's another matter. Tonev was done with regards to civil not criminal law. Going round in endless circles here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross. Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 They can't. It's a core point of scots law on criminal cases that corroboration (two witness accounts) is required. It's not required in civil law cases. Corroboration in scots law goes back centuries, the police are bound by it Some people say it should be changed but that's another matter. Tonev was done with regards to civil not criminal law. Going round in endless circles here. That's exactly what will happen, and it is also completely away from the point I actually made, which I suspect is what H_B and StandFree were trying to achieve in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom McB Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 There are two mutually exclusive positions here; either Celtic (as a club) consider Tonev innocent and thus Logan a liar, or it considers Tonev a racist. As both Delia and the club have officially stated Tonev is innocent then it can only mean they think Logan is lying. It's all too obvious why Celtic are trying to fit in the cigarette paper thin gap between them appealing and Tonev appealing and that is so they can distance themselves from the fallout. There is a third one, Tonev was misheard. Here to help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greenlantern Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 You spoken to Tonev to confirm that position? No. But the club has spoken to him, hence their statement. Why should they publish this? They haven't in any other case. Is it just because some Celtic fans don't accept the outcome? Your correct. They don't need to publish this. But I would think Celtic fans would want to know why the club are disappointed by the decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Why wouldn't they rely on the word of one person against another? Because the requirement for a criminal conviction is "beyond reasonable doubt" not on the balance of probabilities. Which explains why despite being cleared in a criminal court, John Terry was still fined and banned by the FA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Then the club should tell them instead of inflaming the tin foil hat brigade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 That's exactly what will happen, and it is also completely away from the point I actually made No it isn't. Your "point" was in equating something said "in the street" and questioning why a criminal conviction requires corroboration, yet an SFA hearing does not. This has been explained to you by more than one poster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 To really blow your mind, do you know what happens in a civil case if there are 2 (TWO) witnesses, one of which says something happened and another says it didn't. How does the court decide what to determine? Let me know if you want a clue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross. Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 No it isn't. Your "point" was in equating something said "in the street" and questioning why a criminal conviction requires corroboration, yet an SFA hearing does not. This has been explained to you by more than one poster. No it isn't. My original point was that there was a 3rd option between Tonev is a racist, or Logan is a liar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 No it isn't. My original point was that there was a 3rd option between Tonev is a racist, or Logan is a liar. Yes, the "Great Boo's Up" point. That was already dealt with. You then for some reason introduced the police into the thread, for no apparent reason. It is entirely possible to determine on the balance of probabilities a "he said, she said" situation, based on the credibility of witnesses. This of course doesn't mean that beyond reasonable doubt something happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 They don't need to publish this. But I would think Celtic fans would want to know why the club are disappointed by the decision. The names and addresses of those who sat on the disciplinary panel should be published. Celtic fans have a right to politely question the people who made the decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 The names and addresses And any religious affiliations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.