After the Fulham game a group of nine football (purportedly Charlton) supporters were alleged to have committed a public order offence on a train, during the homeward journey. Nine suspects were subsequently arrested following an investigation by British Transport Police with the help of Charlton Football club. When the suspects were arrested by police, Sky TV cameras were present and filming the events as well as a club representative.
In a match programme following these events Stephen Kavanagh wrote an article condemning their behaviour and threatening to ban them from all future Charlton matches. Then Matt Fricker (whoever he is) wrote and article in the News Shopper (online version) also condemning them and expressing his satisfaction with the clubs actions.
This week we read that one of our youth team players has been accused of raping a twelve year old girl. The clubs reaction to this has been to keep very quiet. No Sky TV crew were present at his arrest, no condemnation of this crime has been published by the club and no threats of further action should he be found guilty have been made. I have deliberately not used the young mans name here for obvious reasons.
These alleged crimes are very different in nature but, they have one thing in common and that is that they will be dealt with by the British justice system. I am a firm believer in (I have cut and paste the Latin here as I don’t speak it, please forgive inaccuracies) Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat, which is the presumption of innocence. The clubs action in the case of the youth team player is right and proper, the young man should expect no less from us or his employer. The fact that it has already been reported in the press is in my opinion prejudicial.
The actions of the club with regard to the other matter however are less than adequate. No breach of the subjudice rules has taken place because the matter will not be “under judgement” until such time as charges are brought. The Leveson Inquiry is discussing such matters with regard to the press at the moment; one would hope that Sky TV and the News Shopper’s action will in future be regulated. It would be nice to think that in future the club also acts in a manner conducive to jurisprudence, after all we are all supposed to be equal under the law are we not?
If the club feel that they wish to make a stand against such behaviour as is alleged of the nine, then surely they could do so once a court has decided guilt. I am most irked by the differing responses to these situations but, I dare say most of you could not care less.
0
Comments
I doubt if TV would have been charltons choice,it seems increasingly a ploy of the police to invite the media along to see "The Good Work Being Done."
"Jurisprudence is the science and philosophy of law, basically the logic by which we are governed. This logic seems to have passed our dear club by and political correctness has taken its place, aided and abetted by that well known clown Rick Everett, club communications manager and Labour Party candidate. I smell hypocrisy and yet again he is at the heart of it."
And on another thread about the arrests for alleged racial offensive singing you posted
"Stephen Kavanagh has been nothing but trouble since he arrived but, this is too far. I’d like to see some sort of protest against the clubs involvement. I’d also like to know what is supposed to have been sung and who pointed the finger.
It is interesting looking at other boards around the country there is a lot of support for the lads but not on our own Charlton Life. Those middle class tossers could well stop me going."
Seems as well as being factually wrong about Rick's role at the Club you decided that what you could get away with posting among "friends" on that other site had to be toned down for a place where RicK Everitt and other club employees are likely to read it.
And that everyone on Charlton Life is a middle class tosser. Welcome aboard Loco.
The club would not have been responsible for any TV cameras at the train arrests, that would have been arranged by the Police Media Unit.
What really doesn't sit well with me is the Sun naming the player accused of this horrible crime. As far as I'm aware, he hasn't actually been charged with anything as things stand. I thought that being 17 himself, he's classed as a minor so they are not allowed to name him without a courts approval (and certainly not before a conviction) but as the sun seem to know the law better than I do, I'll assume they've not actually broken any rules.
However, if it all turns out to be untrue, what of the player? he's been named and mud sticks...................
Yes the personal statements about Mr Everitt do put a more personal slant to the piece but I think it's wrong to try and denigrate it by pointing out those differences - everyone writes differently for different audiences.
The essence of what it said here is, in my opinion, very interesting.
It's hard to think of another principle of law which is so poorly understood and so regularly misapplied that this one. A person is not innocent of a crime until proved guilty. He is either innocent or he is guilty. However a court may only pass sentence once he is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt by a jury.
Any person not sitting on the jury and who is not a judge is entitled to take whatever view they want of a person's innocence or guilt. That includes both the club and the police.
Whether the club made a sensible decision in choosing to use the opportunity to send out a message on its stance on racism is another matter. I can see that there is an argument that sky cameras etc were OTT
The club was actively involved in the investigation regarding the "CAFC 9" and has informed us all via statements that they not only worked with the police but had there own ongoing investigation by club staff following complaints from us the rest of the fans. This fact means that they have more information on the alleged crimes and wanted to show a very public message that CAFC take this sort of crime very seriously.
The club however where not likely to be involved in any stage of the police investigation that led to the arrest for the other matter. Making any comment with out any facts could well make any case collapse. Given the nature of this case (which to almost all of us, if not us all is far more serious in its nature) let the police, cps and then courts deal with this and then and only then can/should the club comment.
In the other matter, how did the newspaper get hold of the details it seems to have available to it? Surely information such as the name of an arrested person, some of the other details given and that an offence has been denied can only have come from the police? How does the leaking of such information help anybody, particularly the complainant? Surely not the BiB taking bungs from journalists again?
Now it's popcorn time and to check a 'Henry Irving' isn't following me on twitter......
Also (as much IF the accused are guilty of the alledged they should be punished for it) I would not be coming back to the club ever again had they turned up on my doorstep with the police and tv cameras before being found guilty of anything if I was completely innocent of it.
Interesting double standard.
It maybe dressed up as a comparison of different approaches to jurisprudence but that is not the motive behind this.
One involves an alleged public order offence of alleged racist chanting on a train, witnessed by plenty of people and captured on CCTV and then widely publicised - including on here.
The other is an alleged sexual assault with - as far as has been reported - the complainant as the only witness.
They are as far apart as possible.
Interesting that Loco has basically come on here stirring and that he now counts himself as a middle class tosser.
Chunes as an example says 'Those guys on the train must have a watertight case against them.'
I'd rather wait for the court to judge thanks.