Madine - did you overreact?

[Hamburg Blade]

That goes 8 3/4 of the 9 yards. The rest is easy.

You need to turn down a jury summons if one drops through the letterbox.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

If Billy can move on, who the fuck are we to hold some sort of whiter than white moral stance?

People who are able to make up our own minds?

 

[Nicolaus_Copernicus]

You need to turn down a jury summons if one drops through the letterbox.

He wouldn't get one.

 

[Akinbiyi]

People who are able to make up our own minds?

So are you offended on behalf of Billy then?

 

[Hamburg Blade]

So are you offended on behalf of Billy then?

Don't you understand the concept of being able to think for yourself?

 

[Akinbiyi]

Don't you understand the concept of being able to think for yourself?

Yes, I just don’t understand who you’re offended about Gary Madine on behalf of. I assume he’s done nothing to you personally.

 

[Pinchy]

That was the link I put up. It says the charge was dropped. The post I was questioning claimed he had been convicted of assaulting his wife. This article shows that he wasn't.

He agreed to be bound over for a breach of the peace involving his wife. That’s why she was named in the order. A breach of the peace occurs as a result of conduct related to harm which was actually done or likely to be done to a person or, in his/her presence, their property.

That definition, together with the defendant’s acceptance of such conduct, takes us to the conclusion that he assaulted his wife; an assault being the use (battery) or threat of (simple assault) immediate violence towards another person.

In addition doubtless the attending police officers could give evidence. After all, they arrested the suspect for, at the very least, a breach of the peace.

There is no actionable libel here.

 

[Pinchy]

You need to turn down a jury summons if one drops through the letterbox.

I could, but why do you suggest I need to?

 

[Hamburg Blade]

He agreed to be bound over for a breach of the peace involving his wife. That’s why she was named in the order. A breach of the peace occurs as a result of conduct related to harm which was actually done or likely to be done to a person or, in his/her presence, their property.

That definition, together with the defendant’s acceptance of such conduct, takes us to the conclusion that he assaulted his wife; an assault being the use (battery) or threat of (simple assault) immediate violence towards another person.

In addition doubtless the attending police officers could give evidence. After all, they arrested the suspect for, at the very least, a breach of the peace.

There is no actionable libel here.

Are you saying he has been convicted for beating his wife up, which was the claim I called in to question.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

Yes, I just don’t understand who you’re offended about Gary Madine on behalf of. I assume he’s done nothing to you personally.

Obviously you don't, otherwise you wouldn't keep claiming I'm offended on behalf of somebody else.

 

[JJ Sefton]

There’s a lot of short memories here.

 

[Redhead]

In the context of dialogue about Gary Madine you said all players were role models for kids. You went on to say that in the Sunday League you would see the kids acting out the good and bad of professional football. So, I ask again, what ‘bad’ would they be acting out concerning Gary Madine? It’s not a trick question.[/QUOTE

Once again read the post.

Relating to Madine being a poor role model clearly his personal catalogue of off the field activities is no role model for any young child.

When I said young players mimic football players on a Sunday it was in general terms. I did not highlight Madine as an individual case.

My point is quite clear. Football players are role models on and off the pitch.

In Madine case I can’t really say I have followed his career with particular interest to say if he is a role model on the pitch but what I can say is he certainly is not one off it.

I know you are not one for grass routes football or any budding sufc academy player but if you were, you would see young kids mimic what they see in today’s professional game. Good or bad.
You tell me what’s bad in the game. Diving, swearing, spitting, cheating, time wasting, professional fouls maybe...... or do you not see any of that going on.

 

[Greenwich Blade]

As this thread is going so well, with love, peace, and Kum ba Yah being sung at every new page, I'm adding my post from another discussion elsewhere on here.

I asked my brother-in-law (the only Wednesdayite in the family) if he ever recalled Madine being a good footballer. He described him as "a thug on and off the pitch, a bully, scored some decent goals, but I don't think we ever thought of him as a good 'footballer' as such."

I explained that something has changed then, because there was more to him than just a good centre-forward these past few games.

 

[snootyfenooty]

That was the link I put up. It says the charge was dropped. The post I was questioning claimed he had been convicted of assaulting his wife. This article shows that he wasn't.

The post you was questioning said nothing of the sort, read it again. The link which was helpfully provided explains the circumstances of the case and the conviction. It wasn't for hiding her shoes. This example, and the other regarding Gazza (which you didn't challenge) were provided to illustrate the blind eye that is turned towards these compared with Madine. It wasn't provided to denigrate TC, he was and still is a hero of mine. You cannot help but feel that had this occurred in the present climate of faux outrage he would have been hung out to dry by the less enlightened members of this forum.

I could add a couple more - Boycott was convicted for slapping his missus around and lets not forget Ian Botham's, sorry Sir Ian Botham's dalliance with class A drugs. Both are sporting icons and are revered, locally in the former's case and nationally in the latter's. My post was purely about the bile spewed towards Madine when there are comparable and worse examples which abound and are not even worth a mention these days.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

The post you was questioning said nothing of the sort, read it again. The link which was helpfully provided explains the circumstances of the case and the conviction. It wasn't for hiding her shoes. This example, and the other regarding Gazza (which you didn't challenge) were provided to illustrate the blind eye that is turned towards these compared with Madine. It wasn't provided to denigrate TC, he was and still is a hero of mine. You cannot help but feel that had this occurred in the present climate of faux outrage he would have been hung out to dry by the less enlightened members of this forum.

I could add a couple more - Boycott was convicted for slapping his missus around and lets not forget Ian Botham's, sorry Sir Ian Botham's dalliance with class A drugs. Both are sporting icons and are revered, locally in the former's case and nationally in the latter's. My post was purely about the bile spewed towards Madine when there are comparable and worse examples which abound and are not even worth a mention these days.

I didn't mention Gazza because I don't really care about him, he doesn't play for United, though I'm not entirely sure you're right in saying that the country loves him, or whatever you said. You again repeat that he has been convicted - he hasn't. He was bound over to keep the peace, that's not a conviction, nor was it for beating his wife. There is no comparison between being bound over to keep the peace and convictions for assualt, which is the comparison you are trying to make.

 

[Sheffsteel]

There is no comparison between being bound over to keep the peace and convictions for assualt, which is the comparison you are trying to make.

The posters on Mumsnet forum would very much agree. Being bound over for assaulting the wife/ girlfriend is morally much worse that being convicted for serious assault against another man when out drunk in a bar. I don’t like Madines history either so won’t be buying him a drink or being friendly if I see him out, would deliberately ignore him but whilst he’s playing then I’ll support the team.

 

[Roygbiv]

I said he wasn't good enough to run the risk of splitting the fans. Now I wear Gary Madine pyjamas and the think fans can go suck a lemon.

 

[itsinyerblood]

I said he wasn't good enough to run the risk of splitting the fans. Now I wear Gary Madine pyjamas and the think fans can go suck a lemon.

And they call you 'weirdo'.......stupid uh?

 

[snootyfenooty]

You again repeat that he has been convicted - he hasn't. He was bound over to keep the peace, that's not a conviction, nor was it for beating his wife.

He was convicted for breach of the peace and bound over for 12 months to be of good behaviour, especially towards his wife. You can spin it however you like mate, I really don't know what you're trying to prove here.

 

[Jim Chimmerney]

There’s a lot of short memories here.

Twas always going to be the case, play well and the majority forgive and forget everything else, if it had gone the other way, and who knows, there's always a time bomb ticking round the corner, it'll all come flooding back.

 

[Worksop II]

I can't believe he has got away with pinching 2 of Billy's goals ..............

 

[Pinchy]

Are you saying he has been convicted for beating his wife up, which was the claim I called in to question.

No I’m not. I’m saying your claim that it was a libellous accusation to say he was, is incorrect. He accepted the conduct and a mandatory order was made against him by a criminal court. The difference between that and a conviction could not remotely be a cause of action in defamation.

 

[cc1]

Even if it’s Bladey Claptrap? Is it okay if I think Sharp is a bit of a twat? I don’t of course, but supposing I did? Each to their own opinion, eh?

Anyone who isn’t enjoying by the Madine Redemption and the way Gaz is playing for us, lives a bitter and twisted existence in some dark and dreary corner of S2.

The lad wanted to join us. He didn’t have to. He’s playing superbly. I was delighted when he scored yesterday. I cheered his name and sang his song. I loved it. I much prefer him to Sharp, Woodward, Currie and Badger.

The last sentence is untrue, but it’s no dafter than some of the embarrassing, juvenile bollocks emanating from the Bladey Blades. I have a reality check for them. The vast majority of fans are right behind our centre-forward. They like the way he plays. They like the way he competes. They are surprised by, and like, his football skills. He doesn’t need to win over a tiny, bitter, twisted, ultra-parochial bunch who would prefer one of our own players to fail.

Madine Redemption - whatever Gandalf

Nonsense as ever, you silly Billy

 

[Hamburg Blade]

He was convicted for breach of the peace and bound over for 12 months to be of good behaviour, especially towards his wife. You can spin it however you like mate, I really don't know what you're trying to prove here.

I'm not trying to prove anything. Just having a discussion. You made a point I don't agree with. You're lumping different people who've done different illegal things and been given different penalties into one basket and suggesting they should be considered the same. Madine put people in hospital for no reason at all and got sent to prison for it. I don't see why we can't judge that on its own merits and why we should have to adopt some kind of all-or-nothing stance for everybody. If that's how you see it, fair enough, though I'm sure you've a limit yourself.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

No I’m not. I’m saying your claim that it was a libellous accusation to say he was, is incorrect. He accepted the conduct and a mandatory order was made against him by a criminal court. The difference between that and a conviction could not remotely be a cause of action in defamation.

It strikes me that, in that case, libel law isn't much cop, if he pleads guilty to a breach of the peace and now he can't stop people going round saying he's a convicted wife beater, but if that's how the law works then that's how it works.

 

[Pinchy]

It strikes me that, in that case, libel law isn't much cop, if he pleads guilty to a breach of the peace and now he can't stop people going round saying he's a convicted wife beater, but if that's how the law works then that's how it works.

It wasn’t just any old breach of the peace. He was charged with assault on his wife. At court it was compromised as a breach of the peace and he agreed to be bound over (that’s not a conviction).

Importantly he was also bound over to be of good behaviour to his wife. That couldn’t happen these days because the ECHR has since ruled that there is no legal definition of ‘good behaviour’ so any such bind-over is bad for uncertainty and unlawful. An order to ‘keep the peace’ remains lawful because we have a definition of breach thereof.

Would Currie’s reputation be diminished, in the eyes of right-thinking people, any more by a claim that he was convicted of assault upon his wife (not strictly true) than a claim that he was bound over to keep the peace and to be of good behaviour towards his wife (both true and both requiring his consent)?

Taken together, looking at the terms of the order and given that a breach of the peace involves use of or an immediate threat of violence, it is difficult to conceive any other conclusion but that he assaulted (not necessarily by beating) his wife.

Anyone sued would no doubt seek further evidence by way of contemporaneous police reports and statements from the arresting officers. No solicitor would advise an action for defamation in those circumstances. It would be doomed to fail and very costly (legal aid not available) indeed.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

It wasn’t just any old breach of the peace. He was charged with assault on his wife. At court it was compromised as a breach of the peace and he agreed to be bound over (that’s not a conviction).

Importantly he was also bound over to be of good behaviour to his wife. That couldn’t happen these days because the ECHR has since ruled that there is no legal definition of ‘good behaviour’ so any such bind-over is bad for uncertainty and unlawful. An order to ‘keep the peace’ remains lawful because we have a definition of breach thereof.

Would Currie’s reputation be diminished, in the eyes of right-thinking people, any more by a claim that he was convicted of assault upon his wife (not strictly true) than a claim that he was bound over to keep the peace and to be of good behaviour towards his wife (both true and both requiring his consent)?

Taken together, looking at the terms of the order and given that a breach of the peace involves use of or an immediate threat of violence, it is difficult to conceive any other conclusion but that he assaulted (not necessarily by beating) his wife.

Anyone sued would no doubt seek further evidence by way of contemporaneous police reports and statements from the arresting officers. No solicitor would advise an action for defamation in those circumstances. It would be doomed to fail and very costly (legal aid not available) indeed.

Thank you for the explanation. So the comment wasn't libelous, though it's still necessary to join the dots to go from guilty plea to wife beater. I know most discussions on TC on here result in posts saying how he's a bit of a rude bloke, especially towards children, and it's true that most people are happy to judge someone according to their abilities on the pitch and ignore their actions off it, as snootyfenooty was referring to. I'm not one for hero worship anyway, but for me, TC has dropped down a little in my estimation knowing he beats his wife, but even so I still see a difference to the Madine situation. Perhaps we shouldn't have named a stand after him though.