KentVillan Posted January 10, 2022 Share Posted January 10, 2022 (edited) 57 minutes ago, nick76 said: Wow, I’m slightly gobsmacked by this and not in a good way. Okay, explain. You think it's sensible to hire someone who's in the middle of a court case for sexual assault because he hasn't yet been found guilty / not guilty? Or let's look at another example. The Northern Ireland rugby players who were found not guilty of raping a woman - Paddy Jackson, etc. Do you think their clubs and sponsors were wrong to take the action they did subsequently? I'm not saying Bissouma has done anything as serious as this, but you can see that the standards of a criminal court are not the same as the standards we apply in daily life. If this gobsmacks you, then explain? Edited January 10, 2022 by KentVillan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Made In Aston Posted January 10, 2022 Share Posted January 10, 2022 59 minutes ago, PerryBarrPet said: Any idea of the conditions? No restriction on overseas travel? No fears of not responding to bail? No restrictions on travel but there are conditions (assume these are things like regularly reporting back to police). He is a footballer on 45k per week. I don't think he is going to go do a runner over a nightclub fumble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villan-scott Posted January 10, 2022 VT Supporter Share Posted January 10, 2022 This thread is like an even crapper version than normal episode of Vera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PerryBarrPet Posted January 10, 2022 Share Posted January 10, 2022 59 minutes ago, Zatman said: He is currently in Cameroon I know, this is why I questioned the bail conditions. If the legal authorities think it fine for him to travel overseas then I’m not sure how serious they view this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PerryBarrPet Posted January 10, 2022 Share Posted January 10, 2022 29 minutes ago, villabromsgrove said: This would appear to be incorrect. According to the Brighton and Hove News on January 4th, the man in his forties who was arrested with Bissouma had his bail extended until Jan 27th. But .... Bissouma was released from bail conditions and has no further requirement to report as per bail conditions. That doesn't mean that the matter is no longer under investigation but it perhaps suggests that the guy in his forties is the main focus of any further inquiries. This is a very interesting take on this. Elsewhere I have asked about bail restrictions: perhaps this is the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick76 Posted January 10, 2022 Share Posted January 10, 2022 27 minutes ago, KentVillan said: Okay, explain. You think it's sensible to hire someone who's in the middle of a court case for sexual assault because he hasn't yet been found guilty / not guilty? That wasn’t the comment I commented on This thread started with if he’s guilty we shouldn’t buy him. I completely agree with that, I think the book should be thrown at him. Your comment if you look back at what I replied to was about guilt based on suspicion and not guilt about evidence but I will pick up on some points in that and the prior post. Quote Those standards are there to set a very high bar, which ideally stops innocent people from going to prison. They're not a guideline to your social interactions and employment decisions, where usually it makes sense to go on the balance of probabilities. Quote Yes, that's harsh if Bissouma has been falsely accused, but we have no obligation to employ him, and frankly it's an unnecessary risk Quote We can make that decision on even a relatively low suspicion that he's done something wrong. “balance of probabilities”, “harsh if he’s falsely accused”, “make that decision on even a relatively low suspicion”. You are basically finding him guilty unless he can completely prove his innocence. Even worse the “relatively low suspicion” is not even relying on evidence but the “smells a bit funny” so must be true premise. I’m gobsmacked because I believe in evidence, believe in facts. If the evidence and facts says he’s done something wrong then throw the book at him, he deserves everything coming to him and more. I’m not even going to the standard of court, not needing that bar, but there needs to be something tangible to hold your hat on more than just suspicion because being falsely accused of something like this is terrible as well. All we know is that he was arrested and bailed. No charges seem to have been filed and he’s helping police with the investigation. If charges are filed then throw the book at him, if there is evidence but not enough for a conviction then we shouldn’t be interested but if no evidence is available then he should be free and this forgotten about. You can’t judge people based on “low level of suspicion”, that’s basically guessing. We know there are bad footballers, sportspeople, celebrities or just people but we also know that there are bad people that try and get things off these people. We know nothing about this case, we trust the police, we trust the club and if the club buy him whenever then fine, if they don’t for non-football reasons then fine. Our club aren’t stupid. This thread has a lot been about opinions of him being arrested which I get but when all said and done I thought we’d all agree that if no evidence or facts were found against him he would be free and he wouldn’t be tarnished with “low level suspicion” and bugger it if he falsely accused. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panto_Villan Posted January 10, 2022 Share Posted January 10, 2022 25 minutes ago, KentVillan said: Okay, explain. You think it's sensible to hire someone who's in the middle of a court case for sexual assault because he hasn't yet been found guilty / not guilty? Or let's look at another example. The Northern Ireland rugby players who were found not guilty of raping a woman - Paddy Jackson, etc. Do you think their clubs and sponsors were wrong to take the action they did subsequently? I'm not saying Bissouma has done anything as serious as this, but you can see that the standards of a criminal court are not the same as the standards we apply in daily life. If this gobsmacks you, then explain? Probably because you said in your previous post that it sucks for Bissouma if he was falsely accused, but he’ll just have to deal with it. Saying his rights aren’t infringed because he won’t be in jail also seems a bit of a stretch. You’re advocating a situation where he wouldn’t be able to work for any reputable company again because of these accusations. In some cases that might be appropriate, of course - the OJ Simpson case being an extreme case example - but at the moment all we know is he and someone else have been accused of a crime, and the other guy seems to be in more trouble. That’s not to say he’s innocent but none of us have enough information to make a decision if our own, unlike to OJ case. So your willingness to throw someone under the bus on the presumption of guilt is a bit concerning for me. You haven’t even heard what the accuser said. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KentVillan Posted January 10, 2022 Share Posted January 10, 2022 5 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said: Probably because you said in your previous post that it sucks for Bissouma if he was falsely accused, but he’ll just have to deal with it. Saying his rights aren’t infringed because he won’t be in jail also seems a bit of a stretch. You’re advocating a situation where he wouldn’t be able to work for any reputable company again because of these accusations. In some cases that might be appropriate, of course - the OJ Simpson case being an extreme case example - but at the moment all we know is he and someone else have been accused of a crime, and the other guy seems to be in more trouble. That’s not to say he’s innocent but none of us have enough information to make a decision if our own, unlike to OJ case. So your willingness to throw someone under the bus on the presumption of guilt is a bit concerning for me. You haven’t even heard what the accuser said. I said it’s harsh if we don’t sign him because he’s in the middle of this, and he later turns out to be not guilty. I think this has been misunderstood as “he’s probably guilty, and bad luck if she’s lying”. It was in response to someone banging on about innocent until proven guilty, as if we have an ethical responsibility as an employer to just ignore the criminal case until a verdict has been delivered (which no sensible employer would do). It would be absolutely nuts to sign him unless we were confident this was all dealt with and no longer in question. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted January 10, 2022 Share Posted January 10, 2022 Just now, nick76 said: That wasn’t the comment I commented on This thread started with if he’s guilty we shouldn’t buy him. I completely agree with that, I think the book should be thrown at him. Your comment if you look back at what I replied to was about guilt based on suspicion and not guilt about evidence but I will pick up on some points in that and the prior post. “balance of probabilities”, “harsh if he’s falsely accused”, “make that decision on even a relatively low suspicion”. You are basically finding him guilty unless he can completely prove his innocence. Even worse the “relatively low suspicion” is not even relying on evidence but the “smells a bit funny” so must be true premise. I’m gobsmacked because I believe in evidence, believe in facts. If the evidence and facts says he’s done something wrong then throw the book at him, he deserves everything coming to him and more. I’m not even going to the standard of court, not needing that bar, but there needs to be something tangible to hold your hat on more than just suspicion because being falsely accused of something like this is terrible as well. All we know is that he was arrested and bailed. No charges seem to have been filed and he’s helping police with the investigation. If charges are filed then throw the book at him, if there is evidence but not enough for a conviction then we shouldn’t be interested but if no evidence is available then he should be free and this forgotten about. You can’t judge people based on “low level of suspicion”, that’s basically guessing. We know there are bad footballers, sportspeople, celebrities or just people but we also know that there are bad people that try and get things off these people. We know nothing about this case, we trust the police, we trust the club and if the club buy him whenever then fine, if they don’t for non-football reasons then fine. Our club aren’t stupid. This thread has a lot been about opinions of him being arrested which I get but when all said and done I thought we’d all agree that if no evidence or facts were found against him he would be free and he wouldn’t be tarnished with “low level suspicion” and bugger it if he falsely accused. In a “he said / she said” case there is very often little evidence to go on. There might not be enough to convict in a criminal court even if the accuser is a credible witness with good standing and the accused is less believable (not saying that is necessarily the case here). However outside of the court system, when we ourselves make a value judgment, we are essentially picking a side and deciding who we believe more. It could absolutely end up being the case that we believe the accuser’s side of the story is more credible than the accused’s, even if the court has not been able to prove it to a jury beyond doubt. Obviously I’m not commenting on the case but the general principle that a ‘balance of probability’ is a reasonable standard of proof to be guided by because ultimately it’s a zero sum game, you are either saying the accused is guilty or you are saying the accuser is guilty. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PerryBarrPet Posted January 10, 2022 Share Posted January 10, 2022 9 minutes ago, nick76 said: That wasn’t the comment I commented on This thread started with if he’s guilty we shouldn’t buy him. I completely agree with that, I think the book should be thrown at him. Your comment if you look back at what I replied to was about guilt based on suspicion and not guilt about evidence but I will pick up on some points in that and the prior post. “balance of probabilities”, “harsh if he’s falsely accused”, “make that decision on even a relatively low suspicion”. You are basically finding him guilty unless he can completely prove his innocence. Even worse the “relatively low suspicion” is not even relying on evidence but the “smells a bit funny” so must be true premise. I’m gobsmacked because I believe in evidence, believe in facts. If the evidence and facts says he’s done something wrong then throw the book at him, he deserves everything coming to him and more. I’m not even going to the standard of court, not needing that bar, but there needs to be something tangible to hold your hat on more than just suspicion because being falsely accused of something like this is terrible as well. All we know is that he was arrested and bailed. No charges seem to have been filed and he’s helping police with the investigation. If charges are filed then throw the book at him, if there is evidence but not enough for a conviction then we shouldn’t be interested but if no evidence is available then he should be free and this forgotten about. You can’t judge people based on “low level of suspicion”, that’s basically guessing. We know there are bad footballers, sportspeople, celebrities or just people but we also know that there are bad people that try and get things off these people. We know nothing about this case, we trust the police, we trust the club and if the club buy him whenever then fine, if they don’t for non-football reasons then fine. Our club aren’t stupid. This thread has a lot been about opinions of him being arrested which I get but when all said and done I thought we’d all agree that if no evidence or facts were found against him he would be free and he wouldn’t be tarnished with “low level suspicion” and bugger it if he falsely accused. Excellent post, thank you. Elsewhere in this thread there was an implication that when a female accuses a male of any form of ‘interference’ then this should be taken at the highest and the male treated as though guilty. The suggestion was that Villa should not be seen as believing a man over a woman. No mention of facts either way just a presumption of guilt. All very worrying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted January 10, 2022 Share Posted January 10, 2022 1 hour ago, villabromsgrove said: This would appear to be incorrect. According to the Brighton and Hove News on January 4th, the man in his forties who was arrested with Bissouma had his bail extended until Jan 27th. But .... Bissouma was released from bail conditions and has no further requirement to report as per bail conditions. That doesn't mean that the matter is no longer under investigation but it perhaps suggests that the guy in his forties is the main focus of any further inquiries. Or that Bissouma can afford the better lawyer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panto_Villan Posted January 10, 2022 Share Posted January 10, 2022 41 minutes ago, KentVillan said: I said it’s harsh if we don’t sign him because he’s in the middle of this, and he later turns out to be not guilty. I think this has been misunderstood as “he’s probably guilty, and bad luck if she’s lying”. It was in response to someone banging on about innocent until proven guilty, as if we have an ethical responsibility as an employer to just ignore the criminal case until a verdict has been delivered (which no sensible employer would do). It would be absolutely nuts to sign him unless we were confident this was all dealt with and no longer in question. Ah, okay. Then I misunderstood your post and jumped to the wrong conclusions! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KentVillan Posted January 10, 2022 Share Posted January 10, 2022 3 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said: Ah, okay. Then I misunderstood your post and jumped to the wrong conclusions! No worries, didn’t phrase it clearly enough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mic09 Posted January 10, 2022 Share Posted January 10, 2022 If Aston Villa decide to splash a single penny on this player that means nothing is likely to come out of the trial. For me, it's a simple as that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted January 11, 2022 Share Posted January 11, 2022 13 hours ago, Mic09 said: If Aston Villa decide to splash a single penny on this player that means nothing is likely to come out of the trial. For me, it's a simple as that. There isn't a trial (yet?) for anything to come out of. But I don't understand why you think Villa have the inside track on the progress of the investigation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mic09 Posted January 11, 2022 Share Posted January 11, 2022 8 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: There isn't a trial (yet?) for anything to come out of. But I don't understand why you think Villa have the inside track on the progress of the investigation. I'd assume that we'd be discussing it with his lawyers, so we would have some knowledge into the progress of the investigation. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted January 11, 2022 Share Posted January 11, 2022 1 minute ago, Mic09 said: I'd assume that we'd be discussing it with his lawyers, so we would have some knowledge into the progress of the investigation. I mean lawyers aren't detectives, they will react to what the police do, not know how the investigation is progressing. If his lawyers *are* being fed information by someone in the police department, that would seem to me to be pretty corrupt and concerning (I suppose we shouldn't rule the possibility out). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hippo Posted January 11, 2022 Share Posted January 11, 2022 14 hours ago, Mic09 said: If Aston Villa decide to splash a single penny on this player that means nothing is likely to come out of the trial. For me, it's a simple as that. Seriously ? WTF post of the decade award. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mic09 Posted January 11, 2022 Share Posted January 11, 2022 2 minutes ago, hippo said: Seriously ? WTF post of the decade award. Post of the decade might be an overstatement I simply believe we are a well enough run club to not spend £40m on someone that we will have to sack in the next few months. We have no insider knowledge of what happened, so this will be the best indication of where the investigation stands at this point. Surely you'd agree that if we buy him tomorrow for many many $$$ and in a month he is charged with an "X" crime, we'd look like absolute plonkers? I don't think that will happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hippo Posted January 11, 2022 Share Posted January 11, 2022 2 minutes ago, Mic09 said: Post of the decade might be an overstatement I simply believe we are a well enough run club to not spend £40m on someone that we will have to sack in the next few months. We have no insider knowledge of what happened, so this will be the best indication of where the investigation stands at this point. Surely you'd agree that if we buy him tomorrow for many many $$$ and in a month he is charged with an "X" crime, we'd look like absolute plonkers? I don't think that will happen. But your assuming villa have in the inside track on a rape allegation - and have an board expert who's deemed there is no case answer. Brighton don't want to sell him anyway. So I think this is a non starter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts