Sign in to follow this  
MorayJaggie

Riccardo Calder Assault

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Buster said:

What has his ability or promise got to do with anything?

He has brutally attacked another person without provocation.  What sort of message does it send out if we as a club give any hint that such behaviour is acceptable?

This attitude that footballers should be afforded some kind of privilege and forgiveness beyond that which would be afforded to anyone else and that the better a player the more privilege the should  be afforded is bu11shit.

The club would have been aware he was in court today and if they weren't prepared for this outcome, then more fool them.

If they believe in the community values they like to wax lyrical about then this will be the easiest decision our CEO has ever had to make and Calder will already have had his marching orders.

Absolutely nobody is giving any hint that Calder's behaviour is acceptable.  Absolutely nobody is saying  that footballers should be treated more favourably than anyone else or that better players should be treated more favourably still.  What some people are clearly saying is that footballers should be treated far less favourably than the rest of us.

Your prejudice on this matter is clear when you say the attack was without provocation.  How do you know that?  Were you in the courtroom and did you hear Calder admit there was no provocation?  Of course, provocation does not excuse his actions, but it may explain why he flipped.

You talk of community values, but one important value in a community is to support the rehabilitation of offenders.  The courts will punish him as part of the due legal process but you seem to feel he should also be punished by the club and the community and thrown out of his chosen career.  He needs to accept the punishment of the courts, but what purpose does it then serve to punish him for the rest of his life?  I would hope and expect that Calder is utterly ashamed at what he has done and is now full of remorse.  The responsibility of a caring society is to support people who have offended and try and ensure they don't offend again.  People who are given a second chance are often the very ones who then become very active themselves in supporting community projects, often atoning for their own wrongs many times over.

That is why I don't think the club should make any rushed decisions here. I don't think it is in anybody's interests to kick Calder out Professional Football.  It may well be that it is best if he plies his trade elsewhere, but that is a decision for the club in the light of all the facts.

  • Agree 2
  • Disagree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this person was a teacher, police officer, nurse etc would you be happy with them teaching your children upholding the law or treating your wounds at your most vulnerable? They are all dismissed, sacked when these things happen. ALSO suspended before a court case starts. He is in a position where he is a role model to many youngsters and as such should hold himself above the rest of us. He has brought the club into disrepute by a horrendous despicable behaviour and that is sufficient to terminate his contract. And sorry but I cannot support a person who  chooses to beat a woman to the extent he did. Your views on crime is amazing have you ever being the victim of crime? People lose their jobs everyday for drink driving, having traces of drugs in their system etc etc. Why should he be different. 

28 minutes ago, DoofersDad said:

Absolutely nobody is giving any hint that Calder's behaviour is acceptable.  Absolutely nobody is saying  that footballers should be treated more favourably than anyone else or that better players should be treated more favourably still.  What some people are clearly saying is that footballers should be treated far less favourably than the rest of us.

Your prejudice on this matter is clear when you say the attack was without provocation.  How do you know that?  Were you in the courtroom and did you hear Calder admit there was no provocation?  Of course, provocation does not excuse his actions, but it may explain why he flipped.

You talk of community values, but one important value in a community is to support the rehabilitation of offenders.  The courts will punish him as part of the due legal process but you seem to feel he should also be punished by the club and the community and thrown out of his chosen career.  He needs to accept the punishment of the courts, but what purpose does it then serve to punish him for the rest of his life?  I would hope and expect that Calder is utterly ashamed at what he has done and is now full of remorse.  The responsibility of a caring society is to support people who have offended and try and ensure they don't offend again.  People who are given a second chance are often the very ones who then become very active themselves in supporting community projects, often atoning for their own wrongs many times over.

That is why I don't think the club should make any rushed decisions here. I don't think it is in anybody's interests to kick Calder out Professional Football.  It may well be that it is best if he plies his trade elsewhere, but that is a decision for the club in the light of all the facts.

 

Edited by MorayJaggie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having a good knowledge of the court system and the fact the judge has deferred sentencing until 4th December generally means he/she will have requested background reports be done on Calder as they may decide that the severity of the crime merits a prison term. If he/she felt it was a minor crime they would have dealt with the sentencing there and then so they aren't looking at this as a minor punch up outside a pub on a Saturday night. That in itself should indicate the severity of the assault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MorayJaggie said:

The CPS 

The CPS prosecutor stated the high quality CCTV showed he was not acting in self defence and that is was a sustained assault. The report says they drove to a pub car park it does not mention any conversation to agree they drive there. Irrespective of anything said it does not justify the level of violence he committed towards a female. Why are you trying to find an excuse for his horrendous behaviour? Nothing can justify a male beating a female to the point she has sustained fractures, lacerations and bruising in this case. It doesn't matter what shoe he used, he hit her with it. She would have been completley justified if she had tried to hit him with it after being punched several times through her car window. The club will have the same information we do as it has been presented in evidence in court it is available for any member of the public to access.

If you read my posts, you will see that I have repeatedly stated that Calder's actions are inexcusable so please  don't accuse me of trying to make excuses for him.  Calder will be sentenced by the courts and will have to take his punishment whatever it is.  After that, it is surely in the interests of all concerned to minimise the risk of Calder re-offending.  That requires trying to have an understanding of why he behaved the way he did and supporting him (as a society) in his rehabilitation.  Trying to understand the reasons for crime is not to excuse those crimes but is a vital step in trying to prevent future crime.  Failing to support the rehabilitation of people with criminal records only leads to more crime and the distress it causes.  That's why it is important to raise issues to try to help an understanding of why Calder behaved the way he did.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Understanding why he acted in the aggressive and injurious way reported as above does not excuse his actions.  Sometimes the actions which occur at the time and date of the incident are merely a continuation of previous spats which have never been adequately resolved. Not only that but what actions of his in the past, immediate or otherwise, had made the woman so angry as to chose to  fight with him verbally to such an extent that disagreement escalated into violence? 

He apparently  had the option of not pursuing the matter from the first exchanges. Presumably he could have phoned the young woman at a later time to try to iron out the issue(s) and allowed time for reflection by two parties so that a rational and considered discussion might have taken place. But he chose to proceed at the scene and is clearly a very fit  young man who is much more able to defend himself against attack than she is....and he acted violently, apparently at least. 

If an issue between them as passionate as this cannot be resolved by discussion then they must allow things to calm down before trying again. By assaulting her he obviously lost control not only of his senses but also of his physical actions. Which does indicate that he seems to have a latent penchant for violence somewhere lurking in his heart. Men who assault women probably have other issues bearing down on their emotional bodies and therefore assault is merely an outlet for their hidden general frustration.

The club's reputation here is at stake. If they ignore the incident and take no action  they might be seen to be  avoiding responsibility for their own actions in not deciding to  part company with a player whose actions really cannot, apparently, be condoned and  which might, at a future date, bring the reputation of the club as an entity, whose standards of conduct are on a very high level, into disrepute. 

Therefore my feeling is that a warning probably would not solve his inner emotions and the club IMHO should terminate the contract with immediate effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Buster said:

For someone who states Calder's behaviour cannot be exused, you sure are making a lot of excuses.

He is not making any excuses as far as I can see but simply advocating the prudent course of waiting for the judicial process to be concluded before the club takes any final action. I agree with that.

Where I disagree with DD is that I personally find it very difficult indeed to think of any factors which may emerge at the sentencing which would persuade me that he should not have his contract terminated based on the information already in the public domain.

We already know that this was not a momentary lapse but a sustained and brutal assault on a woman who had simply accidentally damaged his car. Not the sort of conduct that can be in any way excused.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, MorayJaggie said:

Having a good knowledge of the court system and the fact the judge has deferred sentencing until 4th December generally means he/she will have requested background reports be done on Calder as they may decide that the severity of the crime merits a prison term. If he/she felt it was a minor crime they would have dealt with the sentencing there and then so they aren't looking at this as a minor punch up outside a pub on a Saturday night. That in itself should indicate the severity of the assault.

Im sure having a good knowledge of the court system in whatever capacity ,you will be aware they dont always come to the correct decision in both guilt or sentencing

I can understand everyones dismay and disappointment that this has occured, but surely we all have to careful in our judgement of the lad,especially saying his caeeer should be over etc.

I think this is where Doofers Dad is coming from, and I can understand his pov.

However I also understand the majority of views on here too.

Its a very sad situation but justice has to be done and Riccardo has been found guilty, the sentence will be passed on 4th December.

Whatever happens now and after sentence is passed,  hopefully both parties can get on with their respective lives in their chosen caeeers in the future.

This has put the club in a very difficult situation and Im sure they will be taking legal advice on how to proceed.

 

 

 

Edited by Gregor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that we (rightly) punted Lopez for gobbing on an opposition player in a reserve game I cannot see a scenario whereby we stand by someone who has been convicted of assault.

  • Agree 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, DoofersDad said:

There is absolutely nothing in what I wrote which in any way condones what Calder did.  What we shouldn't do, however, is rush to judgements when we don't know all the facts.  From the report, the facts are clearly not as clear cut as your summary would suggest.  In fact, the report paints a rather bizarre picture and there are clearly gaps which may have a bearing and which presumably will be known to the courts and will be taken into account in sentencing.

Yes he knew the victim.  He dropped her off at her car.  She then, for some reason or by accident drove her car into his.  The report doesn't say whether this incident happened at the point where he dropped her off or at some later point after they had both driven off.  The report says that following the collision they agreed to drive to a pub car park.  That means that immediately after the collision they must have had a discussion.  One can imagine he was pretty annoyed  but there is no suggestion that he was in any way threatening to her at that point, indeed, had he been, then why would she have agreed to drive to a pub car park?  There is no information in the report which says whether they got out of the cars at the point of collision - perhaps they spoke on their mobiles and agreed to drive to the car park and look at any damage there.  

At the car park Calder punched her through her car window.  When she got out of the car he is reported to have hit her with a shoe / thrown a shoe at her.  What shoe?  Did he stop to take off one of his own shoes to hit her?  Or perhaps when he went to talk to her, she tried to hit him with her shoe?  After all, many women will remove high heeled shoes for driving.  He claimed he was acting in self defence so presumably he told the court what he was claiming he was defending himself from, but that is not reported.  Did she try to hit him with the shoe which perhaps he took off her and later threw back at her. Did she say something to provoke him?  What caused him to lose the plot?  We simply don't know the answers to any of these questions.

Let's be clear.  None of the unknowns I have outlined can possibly excuse Calder's behaviour, but they may help explain it and may influence the sentencing decision.  I would expect the club will have far more  detail about the incident than we will ever know.  I hope the club will make a statement tomorrow but I would also expect them not to rush to making any decisions other than a suspension until after sentencing.

It's a serious issue but genuinely guffawing at how stupid this post is.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, RiG said:

Given that we (rightly) punted Lopez for gobbing on an opposition player in a reserve game I cannot see a scenario whereby we stand by someone who has been convicted of assault.

I could see a scenario where we do quite properly stand by a player convicted of assault. For example, if someone is perhaps assaulted in the street and lashes out once in retaliation.

However, subject to anything new that emerges at the sentencing hearing, Calder's actions appear to be much too serious for us to take that view.

It should be noted  that the Magistrates Court that heard the case referred the matter to the Crown Court for sentencing which suggests that they view  it as too serious a matter to continue to be dealt with at Magistrates Court level.

Edited by Kingsmills
  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ricky's potential and ability are irrelevant on this one. He is a footballer and should understand the code of conduct that goes along with it, as a role model we can't be seen to condone this behavior even if that negatively affects the squad. 

I'm sure after sentencing he will get a second chance in football just like other footballers have done but this should be at another club and would be done with them carefully considering it when offering a contract and accepting the risk. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, DoofersDad said:

Absolutely nobody is giving any hint that Calder's behaviour is acceptable.  Absolutely nobody is saying  that footballers should be treated more favourably than anyone else or that better players should be treated more favourably still.  What some people are clearly saying is that footballers should be treated far less favourably than the rest of us.

Your prejudice on this matter is clear when you say the attack was without provocation.  How do you know that?  Were you in the courtroom and did you hear Calder admit there was no provocation?  Of course, provocation does not excuse his actions, but it may explain why he flipped.

You talk of community values, but one important value in a community is to support the rehabilitation of offenders.  The courts will punish him as part of the due legal process but you seem to feel he should also be punished by the club and the community and thrown out of his chosen career.  He needs to accept the punishment of the courts, but what purpose does it then serve to punish him for the rest of his life?  I would hope and expect that Calder is utterly ashamed at what he has done and is now full of remorse.  The responsibility of a caring society is to support people who have offended and try and ensure they don't offend again.  People who are given a second chance are often the very ones who then become very active themselves in supporting community projects, often atoning for their own wrongs many times over.

That is why I don't think the club should make any rushed decisions here. I don't think it is in anybody's interests to kick Calder out Professional Football.  It may well be that it is best if he plies his trade elsewhere, but that is a decision for the club in the light of all the facts.

It is literally in every single employment contract that this type of thing is grounds for termination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Hiro said:

It is literally in every single employment contract that this type of thing is grounds for termination.

Depends on what you mean by "this type of thing".  Dismissal for bringing your employer's name into disrepute is probably in most contracts.  Dismissal because of criminal conviction might not be. 

We have a situation in which a person could well be treated differently by their employer because he is a first team player rather than an unknown member of backroom staff.  That's a distinction which won't exist in employment law - though there will be similar cases in the past - so if I was thinking of terminating the contract, I'd make sure that I first obtained good legal advice.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, DoofersDad said:

There is absolutely nothing in what I wrote which in any way condones what Calder did.  What we shouldn't do, however, is rush to judgements when we don't know all the facts.  From the report, the facts are clearly not as clear cut as your summary would suggest.  In fact, the report paints a rather bizarre picture and there are clearly gaps which may have a bearing and which presumably will be known to the courts and will be taken into account in sentencing.

Yes he knew the victim.  He dropped her off at her car.  She then, for some reason or by accident drove her car into his.  The report doesn't say whether this incident happened at the point where he dropped her off or at some later point after they had both driven off.  The report says that following the collision they agreed to drive to a pub car park.  That means that immediately after the collision they must have had a discussion.  One can imagine he was pretty annoyed  but there is no suggestion that he was in any way threatening to her at that point, indeed, had he been, then why would she have agreed to drive to a pub car park?  There is no information in the report which says whether they got out of the cars at the point of collision - perhaps they spoke on their mobiles and agreed to drive to the car park and look at any damage there.  

At the car park Calder punched her through her car window.  When she got out of the car he is reported to have hit her with a shoe / thrown a shoe at her.  What shoe?  Did he stop to take off one of his own shoes to hit her?  Or perhaps when he went to talk to her, she tried to hit him with her shoe?  After all, many women will remove high heeled shoes for driving.  He claimed he was acting in self defence so presumably he told the court what he was claiming he was defending himself from, but that is not reported.  Did she try to hit him with the shoe which perhaps he took off her and later threw back at her. Did she say something to provoke him?  What caused him to lose the plot?  We simply don't know the answers to any of these questions.

Let's be clear.  None of the unknowns I have outlined can possibly excuse Calder's behaviour, but they may help explain it and may influence the sentencing decision.  I would expect the club will have far more  detail about the incident than we will ever know.  I hope the club will make a statement tomorrow but I would also expect them not to rush to making any decisions other than a suspension until after sentencing.

Aye that's a really good point mate, what shoe?

Was it her shoe? Was it his shoe? Maybe it was her left shoe? Or maybe Calder just found a shoe? And what kind of shoe was it? A doc marten shoe? That would hurt, but maybe he just melted her with a nice brogue type shoe? Is a slipper a shoe? I mean if its a slipper shoe he's smashed her about with, thats important.

It's very, very important we all wait to find out the shoe details before we rush to judgment folks. We don't even know the size of shoe yet!

The state of this site sometimes, ******* embarrassing. Sack the ***** today.

  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

personally i couldn't give a toss about shoes etc. he has been found guilty of sustained assault on a female which I feel should be considered "gross misconduct" and his contract cancelled immediately .

 

 

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, snorbens_caleyman said:

Depends on what you mean by "this type of thing".  Dismissal for bringing your employer's name into disrepute is probably in most contracts.  Dismissal because of criminal conviction might not be. 

We have a situation in which a person could well be treated differently by their employer because he is a first team player rather than an unknown member of backroom staff.  That's a distinction which won't exist in employment law - though there will be similar cases in the past - so if I was thinking of terminating the contract, I'd make sure that I first obtained good legal advice.

If it was me and I was aware of the situation I'd have gained that advice long before the outcome of the trial so I knew my options immediately after the verdict wether that was guilty or not guilty.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kingsmills said:

 

Where I disagree with DD is that I personally find it very difficult indeed to think of any factors which may emerge at the sentencing which would persuade me that he should not have his contract terminated based on the information already in the public domain.

 

Actually you are not disagreeing with me on that.  I too find it very difficult to see how he can continue here but the club need to wait upon the sentencing before making that decision.  This discussion has been based solely on the Prosecution case which is clearly compelling.  Another fact which will act against Calder is that the report talks about identification not being a problem.  That suggests Calder was arrested sometime after the event.  Had Calder felt any remorse after this appalling assault then the sensible thing would have been to immediately turn himself into the police.

What the report does not address and what seems bizarre is that if the evidence of CCTV footage is as clear as reported, why did Calder not plead guilty?  He and his lawyers will have seen it.  There is either some significant bit of information which has not been reported or, in the cold light of day Calder has made an incredibly stupid decision.  If the evidence is as straightforward as folk here are assuming then his defence lawyers will have advised him to plead guilty,  If that is the case then his behaviour is even more reprehensible that we already know it to be.

So whilst the information we do know makes prospects look very grim for Calder, the club cannot react in a knee jerk fashion.  They need to base their decision on the full facts of the case, (some of which may not be known until the detail of the background checks is known) and take legal advice.  It may be there will no legal grounds for dismissing him but if that is the case, the best thing all round may well be for Calder to agree to a termination of contract by mutual consent. What we don't want to happen is for Calder to successfully sue the club for wrongful dismissal.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, MorayJaggie said:

If it was me and I was aware of the situation I'd have gained that advice long before the outcome of the trial so I knew my options immediately after the verdict wether that was guilty or not guilty.

That's a fair point.  But if you are planning to dismiss someone for bringing their employer's name into disrepute, then you have to wait to see how much publicity there is about the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, DoofersDad said:

Actually you are not disagreeing with me on that.  I too find it very difficult to see how he can continue here but the club need to wait upon the sentencing before making that decision.  This discussion has been based solely on the Prosecution case which is clearly compelling.  Another fact which will act against Calder is that the report talks about identification not being a problem.  That suggests Calder was arrested sometime after the event.  Had Calder felt any remorse after this appalling assault then the sensible thing would have been to immediately turn himself into the police.

What the report does not address and what seems bizarre is that if the evidence of CCTV footage is as clear as reported, why did Calder not plead guilty?  He and his lawyers will have seen it.  There is either some significant bit of information which has not been reported or, in the cold light of day Calder has made an incredibly stupid decision.  If the evidence is as straightforward as folk here are assuming then his defence lawyers will have advised him to plead guilty,  If that is the case then his behaviour is even more reprehensible that we already know it to be.

So whilst the information we do know makes prospects look very grim for Calder, the club cannot react in a knee jerk fashion.  They need to base their decision on the full facts of the case, (some of which may not be known until the detail of the background checks is known) and take legal advice.  It may be there will no legal grounds for dismissing him but if that is the case, the best thing all round may well be for Calder to agree to a termination of contract by mutual consent. What we don't want to happen is for Calder to successfully sue the club for wrongful dismissal.

 

 

Sentencing does not cover compelling reasons for the assault etc it only covers social background.I.e income, children, family circumstances To determine the sentence. The trial found his reasons for the assault not to be true as he said self defence. The sentencing has been delayed to move it to a higher court which cam impose a higher fine/ and or jail term. They do not take into account the reason for the assault that is what the trial is for. He has been found guilty and the club must act. The full facts of the case are concluded at the end of the trial. He knew the situation he chose to plead not guilty and by going to trial the penalty with will be more severe as he will not get any discounts for pleading guilty at any of the intermediate or pleading diets. Also during the trial once the CCTV was shown he could still have changed his plea but did not. This shows a lack of remorse or acceptance of his disgusting assault. What more does the club need to know? 

Edited by MorayJaggie
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every job i have had it says in my contract immediate grounds for dismissal will be to bring my employers name into disrepute and that if I was ever charged or arrested I needed to make my employer aware failure to do so would be grounds for immediate dismissal. If the club do not have these clauses in there contracts there is something wrong especially with the high profile in the local community of our players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, DoofersDad said:

There is absolutely nothing in what I wrote which in any way condones what Calder did.  What we shouldn't do, however, is rush to judgements when we don't know all the facts.  From the report, the facts are clearly not as clear cut as your summary would suggest.  In fact, the report paints a rather bizarre picture and there are clearly gaps which may have a bearing and which presumably will be known to the courts and will be taken into account in sentencing.

Yes he knew the victim.  He dropped her off at her car.  She then, for some reason or by accident drove her car into his.  The report doesn't say whether this incident happened at the point where he dropped her off or at some later point after they had both driven off.  The report says that following the collision they agreed to drive to a pub car park.  That means that immediately after the collision they must have had a discussion.  One can imagine he was pretty annoyed  but there is no suggestion that he was in any way threatening to her at that point, indeed, had he been, then why would she have agreed to drive to a pub car park?  There is no information in the report which says whether they got out of the cars at the point of collision - perhaps they spoke on their mobiles and agreed to drive to the car park and look at any damage there.  

At the car park Calder punched her through her car window.  When she got out of the car he is reported to have hit her with a shoe / thrown a shoe at her.  What shoe?  Did he stop to take off one of his own shoes to hit her?  Or perhaps when he went to talk to her, she tried to hit him with her shoe?  After all, many women will remove high heeled shoes for driving.  He claimed he was acting in self defence so presumably he told the court what he was claiming he was defending himself from, but that is not reported.  Did she try to hit him with the shoe which perhaps he took off her and later threw back at her. Did she say something to provoke him?  What caused him to lose the plot?  We simply don't know the answers to any of these questions.

Let's be clear.  None of the unknowns I have outlined can possibly excuse Calder's behaviour, but they may help explain it and may influence the sentencing decision.  I would expect the club will have far more  detail about the incident than we will ever know.  I hope the club will make a statement tomorrow but I would also expect them not to rush to making any decisions other than a suspension until after sentencing.

What the f**k u on?

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Extremely disappointed in Calders actions and absolutely the correct and swift decision by the club.

  • Agree 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • FB_caley_thisle_online_970x90.jpg

  • Recently Browsing   1 member