Guest BooBoo Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 ABH requires more than leaving a mark on someone. Usually involves injuries along the lines of wide spread bruising, swelling or knocking someone unconcious. It's basically giving someone a good kicking and isnt a trivial offence. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GM Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 ABH requires more than leaving a mark on someone. Usually involves injuries along the lines of wide spread bruising, swelling or knocking someone unconcious. It's basically giving someone a good kicking and isnt a trivial offence. Sounds like foreplay to me... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Revolution Number 9 Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 Someone's clearly got foreplay on the brain tbh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
biggs Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 Kick him out and show at this is not acceptable from a Pro (Barton gone now not our problem) and had loads of chances . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdckelly Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Nile-Ranger-to-learn-Newcastle-fate-after-meeting-this-week-EXCLUSIVE-article827353.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sifu Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 Bye Nile. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirkwdavis2001 Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 None of you has ever left marks on someone that you quarreled with? God bless you, then. I haven't. Am I alone in this Me neither?!?!? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 "They want to consider all the facts relating to the Ranger case and make sure that any decision is in line with the club’s disciplinary policy and employment law.” I don't see how they can sack him as every single disciplinary policy will state that the disciplinary policy must be seen to be fair. If this is the case then we've had players who have done as much as Ranger, Barton did worse and he wasn't sacked. The fact that Ranger is allowed to train shows that whatever he's done is not seen as being bad enough to warrant a suspension. If they cancel his contract then I think a Keegan type claim will hit the club as Ranger would win an unfair dismissal case. The only way the club will be able to dismiss him is if they have disciplined him every time he’s stepped out of line and if others who have done the same thing have been hit with the same disciplinary action which may be the case. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sifu Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 "They want to consider all the facts relating to the Ranger case and make sure that any decision is in line with the club’s disciplinary policy and employment law.” I don't see how they can sack him as every single disciplinary policy will state that the disciplinary policy must be seen to be fair. If this is the case then we've had players who have done as much as Ranger, Barton did worse and he wasn't sacked. The fact that Ranger is allowed to train shows that whatever he's done is not seen as being bad enough to warrant a suspension. If they cancel his contract then I think a Keegan type claim will hit the club as Ranger would win an unfair dismissal case. The only way the club will be able to dismiss him is if they have disciplined him every time he’s stepped out of line and if others who have done the same thing have been hit with the same disciplinary action which may be the case. Good point. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bimpy474 Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 None of you has ever left marks on someone that you quarreled with? God bless you, then. I haven't. Am I alone in this Me neither?!?!? Me too, mind you i'm small with the power of a fanny fart. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NewBoyPeetah Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 I would estimate that 95 percent of the people on this forum have done something worthy of ABH at some point in their life You've got to be joking. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PRL Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 I would estimate that 95 percent of the people on this forum have done something worthy of ABH at some point in their life (I certainly have), and I doubt that the club can end his contract for this. I think we really ought to just get rid at this point, but this should not be the reason why. I don't think 95% on here have knocked someone unconscious and broke their jaw though. That said, pretty similar to what Carroll did to one of our own and we cheered him and sang songs about it Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 "They want to consider all the facts relating to the Ranger case and make sure that any decision is in line with the club’s disciplinary policy and employment law.” I don't see how they can sack him as every single disciplinary policy will state that the disciplinary policy must be seen to be fair. If this is the case then we've had players who have done as much as Ranger, Barton did worse and he wasn't sacked. The fact that Ranger is allowed to train shows that whatever he's done is not seen as being bad enough to warrant a suspension. If they cancel his contract then I think a Keegan type claim will hit the club as Ranger would win an unfair dismissal case. The only way the club will be able to dismiss him is if they have disciplined him every time he’s stepped out of line and if others who have done the same thing have been hit with the same disciplinary action which may be the case. Good point. It's not. Barton didn't do worse in his time with us. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 I don't think 95% on here have knocked someone unconscious and broke their jaw though. That said, pretty similar to what Carroll did to one of our own and we cheered him and sang songs about it Ranger didn't break the lads jaw. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PRL Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 I don't think 95% on here have knocked someone unconscious and broke their jaw though. That said, pretty similar to what Carroll did to one of our own and we cheered him and sang songs about it Ranger didn't break the lads jaw. Ah, my mistake. Sure the press had it as that originally? Should have got wireside on the case? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 It's not. Barton didn't do worse in his time with us. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 That's one offence. Ranger's been charged for multiple offences. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PRL Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 That's one offence. Ranger's been charged for multiple offences. Very true, my interest was piqued by the hypothetical rather than ranger. I genuinely do think most people have had a scrap at some point in their teens or so when they have technically assaulted someone or committed abh by the very strict definition, or had it happen to them. Seems I'm possibly wrong and for the record this isn't an attempt to be the hardman as it were, I've taken the hiding rather than dished it out! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 That's one offence. Ranger's been charged for multiple offences. Barton and his brother were jailed (Bartons brothers was suspended) for what they did so it wasn't even one on to one and Ranger hasn't been found guilty. I'm not trying to defend what he's done and I wouldn't be bothered if the club did sack him, I just think he will have a defence against being sacked. As I said the club would get slaughtered if they decided now to do something with Ranger. Man City were right with the way they handled Tevez and the Mackems got it right with Bramble when they were both suspended. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 The number of offenders involved in the act is irrelevant. If the club want rid of Ranger, it'll happen - provided he's found guilty, of course. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sifu Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 Guess we'll just see Ranger suspended then. A couple of weeks should be enough to give him some sort of perspective (probably not though). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bimpy474 Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 They can't sack him yet whatever they think, he will have to be found guilty for the offences he has been charged with for them to do that, as it stands his only breaking of clubs rules is drinking 48 hours before a game, and he can't be sacked for that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 is there such a thing as uncommon or posh assault ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 The number of offenders involved in the act is irrelevant. If the club want rid of Ranger, it'll happen - provided he's found guilty, of course. I think you'll find the bit in bold isn't true. How will the club get rid of him? I think they have two choices other than terminating his contract which would be massively risky and the first is a free transfer and they'd still have to pay him until he finds a club. The other would be to pay up on his contract. They might risk sacking him and hope that they win a case against him although I doubt they'd want to lose at another tribunal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GM Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 is there such a thing as uncommon or posh assault ? Aye. It's known as a Tory government. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now