Would the three have been sacked if they were senior players. funny how there is one rule for one and not the other ie person senior.Chip off the old block.

OBV: The charges against Simpson were not dropped – otherwise he could not even have been tried, let alone convicted. What happened was that the ex-girlfriend retracted the statement she made when he was arrested, and would not support the prosecution.

Usually, this would indeed result in charges being dropped, because the prosecution would have no witnesses to call – this often happens in 'domestic' violence cases. But in this case, Simpson was still throttling the woman when the police arrived, meaning that a constable was able to give the court eyewitness evidence of the assault.

What the club will do, I can't guess. There was clearly more to the story than what came out in court. It is also implied in one trial report that LCFC's club chaplain submitted a good character reference to the court on Simpson's behalf.

comment by johngee (U5021)
posted 4 hours, 15 minutes ago
The one issue on which there can be zero tolerance is racism in any form. This is especially so in sport which by its nature and global influence carries huge responsibility.

There are , unfortunately, many footballers of different nationalities who have for too long suffered racial insults and it is absolutely right that these players suffer the appropriate discipline to show that this type of conduct has no place in football.

That this particular episode also involved events in Thailand – the country of our owners who have shown remarkable commitment not only to our club but to the wider community is even more inexcusable.


----------------------------------------------------------------------


And of course, well done Leicester City!

Yes - everyone at LCFC -except the players involved- come out of this with reputations enhanced - including the fans, who made it clear to the club and FA their demands that this conduct should not be tolerated.

Meanwhile all of us - including those who doubt his management ability - have enormous sympathy for Pearson as a parent in this situation.

Enough said ...

Those who question his management ability must have a screw loose.

I'm not sure how we can make the same judgements in the Danny Simpson case as we did the Thailand three - let alone say that it's even worse. That's unless your making a moral judgement on domestic violence rather than looking at it purely from the football club's point of view.

The simple reason is the evidence presented. There is an element of 'one word against another' in the Simpson case. Clearly the police (not the partner involved) felt there was a case to answer and the court felt the evidence was sufficient to find the defendant guilty, but not dictate a custodial sentence. As observers we can only speculate on whether this is appropriate, but it is all total conjecture. If we are saying the court's judgement is proof of guilt then surely we have to say also that it's been dealt with fairly based on the evidence presented. This is because Simpson did not video the incident and then put it on social media or email it to a friend. We can freely condemn the Thailand idiots as we know exactly what they did - we are not guessing or surmising about the severity or circumstances behind the incident.

Then there is the issue of what the football club's responsibility is in all this. The Thailand incident happened on a club tour, whilst the perpetrators were representing LCFC. There is a clear breach of code of conduct here and damage to the club's reputation. That's without getting into all the other implications of what was seen and witnessed.

It's much less cut and dried what the responsibility of the club should be in the Simpson case. What is the club's responsibility with respect to a private matter that has been dealt with by the police? I asked the question earlier whether football clubs now have a responsibility to only employ "fit and proper" people, but for what crimes is the line drawn: Assault? Drunk Driving? Speeding Conviction?

That's not to say that if Danny Simpson is a serial wife beater that I ever want him to play for LCFC again, but for all I know his Mrs. might have been hitting him around the head with a fire poker and DS might have been restraining her in self defence. Unlikely, I know, but unlike the Thailand three we don't have the benefit of graphic video evidence.

Joby - I don't profess my view to be anything other than a subjective conclusion, except for the fact that he was convicted for assault and throttling his on-off partner. The fact that she thought to withdraw her statement even despite eyewitness evidence from a police officer makes me particularly fearful for her safety, but I digress.

The problem is then not about whether the court have dealt with it or not. I'm not particularly saying that LCFC have definite grounds to sack him either as that surely depends upon his contract. My issue is simply that he's been found guilty of assault - it did happen - and yet he's still trying to appeal on the basis that she's withdrawn her statement, so implying that the damning joint evidence of the phonecall and the eyewitness account is somehow wrong. It's the appeal that's particularly galling. Had he had the grace to say: "I did wrong, I need to look at my actions, I apologise profusely", I could have accepted this a lot better - the legal system is in part about rehabilitation, he'd have served his debt to society and then come out the other side trying to be a better person. But he's not taken this opportunity because he won't/can't accept his guilt, and until he does that he can't be rehabilitated. Until that happens, I don't want to see him representing my football club and I'd rather we just paid off his contract and sent him on his way.

So did you know that the girls work for the hotel and were sent to the players rooms by the owners, who own the hotel.

It happened in Vienna when we played Red Star, in fact prozzies getting sent to players hotel rooms is standard. I have this from someone who works at the club and was asked to go but declined because he said "he couldn't trust himself" and mentioned the above.

Even if true, that doesn't change anything in my mind. If person A gave person B "permission" to go and thump person C, that doesn't mean that person B wouldn't/shouldn't get either prosecuted or thumped back.

Regardless of what some hotel manager might or might not say off the record, these guys had a general responsibility to a reasonable standard of human behaviour.

“except for the fact that he was convicted for assault”
-------------------------------------------------------------

So was Jamie Vardy – or is that one ok now because it was 8 years ago and he’s subsequently shown remorse?

To be clear I’m not arguing the case for Danny Simpson – far from it – I’m just trying to establish (in my own mind as much as anything else) what the club’s responsibility should be here both morally and legally. If you go down the moral route it’s a difficult path to tread as everyone’s morals are different as are people’s attitudes to remorse, reconciliation and rehabilitation. Let’s consider a few scenarios:

Should a player convicted of drink driving be sacked? I imagine most would say no.
What if he drunk and drove and killed a child? Most would say yes.
What about assaulting somebody in a pub fight? Most would say no.
What if he assaulted his wife? Most would say yes.
What about rape? We’d all say yes.
What if the rape conviction was overturned – would we re-employ him?
Animal cruelty?
Fraud?
Indecent Exposure?

By comparison the Thailand incident was easy. The evidence was unequivocal and it had a direct line of sight to club business and reputation.

"So was Jamie Vardy – or is that one ok now because it was 8 years ago and he’s subsequently shown remorse?"

--------

Precisely. (Although the remorse is more important than the timescale.)

It's very difficult to know where to draw the line legally, and I'm not suggesting otherwise. In fact, legally the line may be very blurry for a long time - if Dennis Wise is capable of suing for wrongful dismissal after deliberately assaulting a teammate and breaking his jaw then that suggests the bar is set very low.

So I'm not saying that, in Danny Simpson's case, the club should definitely sack him and that that would be the end of it - I don't know where they'd stand legally on that although I suspect it'd be a very close call. What I'm saying is that I, me, personally, would like the club to come to an agreement and pay him off to just go away (if a sacking isn't available) because the way things are now I couldn't stand to see him in a Leicester shirt again and I believe his continued presence in the squad continues to drag our club's name through the mud.

They didnt do anything worse than anyone else has ever done and those girls would have had far worse than having blokes suggesting they nosh them off and being called slinty eyed.

You do know that Asians refer to us as round eye yeah?

They were idiots for filming it.

Granted their mistake, as it were, was filming and sharing it. If they hadn't done that then they would have probably got away with it on the basis that nobody knew. That doesn't make it right of course, but this is the practical fact of the matter.

But similarly:
The fact that it happens doesn't make the act right.
Whether they've had worse is irrelevant - it shouldn't be this bad.
Whether Asians refer to us as round eye matters not either; that's between them and their consciences generally. If they were employed by said round eyes who took offence to such language then they'd be at their mercy just as much.
Although these things are unpleasant on their own, there was more to it than a single phrase and the act of prostitution. It's the inherent sense of degradation that's the crux of this. The Thai owners will feel that these players have brought a degree of shame upon them with their actions. Well, so do I. These players do not represent me. Same with Danny Simpson.

Arro,

I think many would disagree with you quite strongly, but that reinforces my point that everyone has a different moral benchmark. You, therefore, have to make any contractual judgements only on what the individuals have legally done wrong. In the Thailand case it was an easy issue of gross misconduct for the reasons previously stated.

From a purely personal point of view I found the incident incredibly distasteful and a frightening insight into the behaviours and attitudes of those concerned – and from that standpoint I’m delighted that there was a mechanism available that could ensure that they were removed from the football club.

Dunge,

“The Thai owners will feel that these players have brought a degree of shame upon them with their actions …..”
Once again you aren’t acting on facts as that (even if likely) is complete speculation on your part.

Funnily enough, I did toy with putting some form of qualification into that sentence, be it a "likely" or a "probably", etc. But in the end I thought it so incredibly likely that it was as good as certain and left it as is.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

I think Joby is talking much the most sense here. We just don't know enough about the Simpson event, including about why the wife withdrew her statement. The court has acted, he is free to appeal, the eventual judgement will be what it is.

Personally I don't see this as the club's business at all, they are a company, not some kind of moral arbiter, and have no responsibility for a player's private actions in his private life.

The trouble it's a different age now of every one being able to broadcast their views without knowledge. I know one LCFC legend worshiped and adored who if his exploits where to happen know would be pilloried and its not Birch or Wortho.

Joby - do you really think that's the worst abuse a prositute in Thailand has received? Have you ever been to Thailand? I'm guessing not.

Do you know that secs is Thailand's biggest source of income? Did you know that boys are forced to become women because they can make money from the secs trade? I've seen all sorts in my seven visits to the country and I'm telling you that was nothing.

I think you need to open your eyes a little and understand that people in other countries have completely different moral boundaries to you. Whether you agree with it or not, I've not met one that isn't doing it by their own choice. I've never slept with one by the way, not my cup of tea.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Re: Simpson
As mentioned above we don't know the full circumstances. We don't know how many charges were put before the court (common assault was one of them, no doubt). The victim's written statement may have contained reference to 'fears for her safety' in which case the court may have considered the aspect of 'compellability of evidence (Criminal Justice Act 2003) regardless of her withdrawing it-if the offence was so serious. CPS saw there was a case to answer with the lesser charge, pursued it, and the outcome was favourable.

Arro,

Not really quite sure why I have been asked to "open my eyes a little".

I'm fully conscious of cultural differences and was quite clear that I know very little about Thai culture. That's why I've deliberately avoided speculating on the reaction of the Thai people to this incident whilst others have speculated wildly.

My point was that you, I and everyone will have a different benchmark of tolerance to measures of morality. You are not wrong, neither am I and neither is anyone else. That's why we (the club) have to be careful to act on the facts of each matter rather than getting carried away by our own level of moral outrage. The actions of the club have to be legal and appropriate, rather than just acting as arbiter of a player's morality and character.

Joby I have the same moral outlook as you mate, I don't think its right but it's not uncommon and in reality what the lads did was nothing.

Ordering a girl to perform acts she's being paid to do and calling her a slinty eye really isn't much at all. They weren't tied up or being beaten and I bet they didnt even understand what slinty eye meant.

This is the reason why a lot of people go to Thailand so they can treat girls like that and the girls won't mind and they genuinely don't care, they just say "it's life".

Those girls weren't humiliated by what they were doing but they could have been considering a video of them was sent around, that would be humiliating.

If this hadn't been videod then nothing would have been made of it. The girls wouldn't have complained, they're used to it and its no big deal for them. They got paid very well and that's what they care about.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

I taught a Thai lad in China, his mum escaped with him when he was 14 because his family wanted him to become a woman so he could make more money. Luckily his mum was against it. Many aren't so lucky. This is common.