Ceiling could do with another coat!
-
The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...
Ex-Spurs Player Jermaine Jenas: Pundit
- Thread starter AaronLenin
- Start date
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
Ceiling could do with another coat!
Dick splash just a few months ago on here!
“Attention of an unwanted nature” is illegal? Alrighty then. I guess the criminal charges are imminent. Better not stop someone on the street either!
I guess I, as a lawyer, still have a lot to learn.
Incredible how people hand out ‘agrees’ to cocksure nonsense on here…
Context is important, no?
Every day is a school day.
Not really.
“Attention of an unwanted nature” is illegal? Alrighty then. I guess the criminal charges are imminent. Better not stop someone on the street either!
I guess I, as a lawyer, still have a lot to learn.
Incredible how people hand out ‘agrees’ to cocksure nonsense on here…
Do yo not think it's (extremely) likely that the BBC will have consulted their fleet of lawyers before sacking the bloke (rather than merely suspended him pending further investigation)?
..............Does that not suggest that they have fairly compelling evidence of an illegal offense being committed.
Thank you for your insightful response.
1) No, not as regards the statement you replied to.
Saying that “attention of an unwanted nature” equals harassment and is criminal is a simple misinterpretation of a rule. That’s the ‘R’ in your FIRAC analysis. You don’t need anymore context to conclude that his final legal analysis would be wrong.
2) He provided the context, no?
“Whatever it is” - i.e also an “inviting” text - is and always has been illegal according to the poster… Which is also wrong.
Now, Jenas may have been a creep towards women on the workplace and he can rightly fuck off then. But then write that. Why make false statements about someone I personally hold dear - the law?
“Attention of an unwanted nature” is illegal? Alrighty then. I guess the criminal charges are imminent. Better not stop someone on the street either!
I guess I, as a lawyer, still have a lot to learn.
Incredible how people hand out ‘agrees’ to cocksure nonsense on here…
He may well have not committed a crime ; as you rightly point out .
And tbf no-one has accused him of doing so . But clearly the BBC have been advised by their ( presumably) well - informed legal advisers that what he did was enough to “ bust “ him .
JJ won’t go to jail obvs ; but he’s clearly made a career-ending/changing mistake.
I hope he learns and grows.And manages to do something even more useful to society than hosting the One Show and opining on MOTD .
I completely agree, mate (except for the bold part, which was exactly what the poster I replied to did).
I was merely making a point re: the law.
As you were!
As you said... I guess I, as a lawyer, still have a lot to learn.Thank you for your insightful response.
1) No, not as regards the statement you replied to.
Saying that “attention of an unwanted nature” equals harassment and is criminal is a simple misinterpretation of a rule. That’s the ‘R’ in your FIRAC analysis. You don’t need anymore context to conclude that his final legal analysis would be wrong.
2) He provided the context, no?
“Whatever it is” - i.e also an “inviting” text - is and always has been illegal according to the poster… Which is also wrong.
Now, Jenas may have been a creep towards women on the workplace and he can rightly fuck off then. But then write that. Why make false statements about someone I personally hold dear - the law?
Harrasment isn’t unwanted attention.
I'm no legal expert but I very much suspect that "unsolicited communication" to a confirmed female complainant means he's texted her something he shouldn't have. It might just be a "fancy a fuck", it might have been a picture of his tallywhacker, or somewhere inbetween.
Whatever it is, it's attention of an unwanted nature. That's called harassment, which has always been illegal in civilised society. When it comes sexualised, it's sexual harassment. Which, if proved, usually gets you sacked in any job. It's not about being "woke", it is about not being a dirty pervert to people you work with.
Amazed you have to explain this to people.
It’s persistent, aggressive attention with a view to causing distress.
As you said... I guess I, as a lawyer, still have a lot to learn.
Well I was simplifying for the stupid people on here that don't see what the big deal is.
Harassment is typically multiple instances and ongoing. But I can tell you now even if it was just one text message of a picture of his knob, he'd be done for sexual harassment despite it only being the once.
*Politics tut tut
"Whatever it is" menaing between a picture of his knob or an invitation to fuck. Whatever it is that caused him to lose his job.Thank you for your insightful response.
1) No, not as regards the statement you replied to.
Saying that “attention of an unwanted nature” equals harassment and is criminal is a simple misinterpretation of a rule. That’s the ‘R’ in your FIRAC analysis. You don’t need anymore context to conclude that his final legal analysis would be wrong.
2) He provided the context, no?
“Whatever it is” - i.e also an “inviting” text - is and always has been illegal according to the poster… Which is also wrong.
Now, Jenas may have been a creep towards women on the workplace and he can rightly fuck off then. But then write that. Why make false statements about someone I personally hold dear - the law?
Obviously "thanks for the lovely slice of cake, Jan" isn't going to be cause for concern.
He's gone because of illicit communication. Friendly texts wouldn't come under that would it? Come on, think.
And I can tell you now: Not necessarily.
But thank you for lecturing the stupid people on here about what is (not) the law.
I have known of people that have lost their job for the very thing over the years.
Would they then have a case for unfair dismissal?
Or are you saying it's ok to behave in a sexual way just the once? It's not sexual harassment the first time?
You don’t need to act in a criminal manner for a dismissal to be justified. Maybe know your ABC’s before handing out lectures on law.