Anybody got news on AK47

[toshes mate]

Tosh. It isn't hearsay. It happened.
I have a friend who is a journalist. He has access to players. AK being removed happened.
I don't know what else to tell you.

I agree something happened and I now know you don't know any better than I do what happened.  Hearsay is hearsay and you can deny it all you like but it will not change that fact.

Where do you draw the line between hearsay and journalism then? Out of interest.

A journalist has the responsibility to advise her/his source of whether or not s/he may record the conversation, as notes or on a device, and the source's name.  That is their proof of the conversation which in this case would allow the journalist to identify the player giving the information and would note whether they were a witness or just relaying something they have heard from elsewhere - hearsay.  In a case like this the source's name would probably be really important if they were a witness who has been interviewed by the police since their evidence would be material to any proceedings and speaking to the press could/would damage that process.  If the player was relying on hearsay then it would not be used in evidence in proceedings since how could they possibly verify what they have been told?  Hearsay is anything you have heard from another which may be secondhand, third hand, fourth hand and so on, the actual state of the story being something you cannot know for certain at any time.

[Arthur]

No less likely, therefore, is the possibility that the person Kamara attacked didn't want to press charges

However, I'd strongly query whether that version of events is indeed "no less likely" than alternatives such as a significant physical attack just not having occurred at all.

Seeing as you have such doubts, I shall clarify what I imagine may have happened: I think that AK's path was blocked by a security guard and that the player used physical force to get (or try to get) past him. How much force? I don't know. But evidently not enough to merit the pursuance of a charges against the aggressor.

My view is that the likelihood that Kamara didn't lay a finger on the security guard (as you claim on page 3) is no greater. It's subjective, of course it is, but I suspect more people would form the view that I have.

I'm slightly confused because your position seems to be changing.

If your position is that AK's actions didn't "merit the pursuance of charges" (which for the avoidance of doubt, I'm interpreting to mean didn't constitute a criminal offence or what any reasonable person would call a significant "attack") then fine, we're in agreement. Whether that means all he did was gesticulate angrily (as I said) or try to push past someone blocking his path (as you said) is IMO an immaterial level of detail for this discussion. 

However I interpreted your original post ("the person Kamara attacked didn't want to press charges") to suggest a significant attack did occur, likely constituting a criminal offence, but the club chose not to press charges for economic, reputational or similar reasons. I maintain the view that that scenario is unlikely, for the reasons set out in my previous post.

Fair enough, we're in agreement.

I made an assumption that 'actually involved shouting and gesticulating' excluded physical contact. In turn, you made an assumption that 'the person Kamara attacked didn't want to press charges' didn't mean physical contact less serious than ABH. I'll leave others to decide the balance of these two assumptions.

You make a reasonable point that the difference between our views may be neither-here-nor-there when deciding whether AK should be allowed to return. I shall say, however, that my original use of your quote was not to indicate that it ought to be a decisive factor, but to point out to Sting of the North that he had endorsed your guesswork when there was an alternative scenario.

[toshes mate]

I made an assumption that 'actually involved shouting and gesticulating' excluded physical contact. In turn, you made an assumption that 'the person Kamara attacked didn't want to press charges' didn't mean physical contact less serious than ABH. I'll leave others to decide the balance of these two assumptions.

You make a reasonable point that the difference between our views may be neither-here-nor-there when deciding whether AK should be allowed to return.

I believe both points of view about whatever did happen do have merits but are, as you say, assumptions.  They also leave out some equally compelling factors. 

The penalty incident looked embarrassing for the whole Club if nothing else, and was not entirely well dealt with post match, with only Mitrovic actually putting into words what it amounted to, at the time, as a person who was directly involved. 

That was followed by the yoga story which appears to have been largely fabricated via press reporting for press reporting sake. 

We then had AK being involved in a loan to Turkey which he allegedly turned down which was once again via press reporting. 

Then comes the alleged incident which is where the pressure on AK just isn't going to be contained any longer.  Perhaps more appropriate and positive action by the Club earlier on could have saved a lot of angst for a lot of people not least AK himself.

[Statto]

I made an assumption that 'actually involved shouting and gesticulating' excluded physical contact. In turn, you made an assumption that 'the person Kamara attacked didn't want to press charges' didn't mean physical contact less serious than ABH. I'll leave others to decide the balance of these two assumptions.

Ok but let me just tweak that for you to make it clear and accurate for "others"

"I made an assumption that 'actually involved shouting and gesticulating' excluded physical contact and that if the incident did in fact involve minor physical contact, eg if he tried to push past a security guard who was blocking his way, that would make a significant difference to the issue of whether he'd committed criminal assault and/or a serious "attack". In turn, you made an assumption that 'the person Kamara attacked didn't want to press charges' didn't mean physical contact less serious than ABHmeant a criminal assault had been committed such that the person could actually have pressed charges if they'd wanted to. I'll leave others to decide the balance of these two assumptions."

[sunburywhite]

To my mind there was probably a coming together of Kamara and a security guard and Kamara could well have gotten out of his box, but I would suspect the club have "spoken" to the guard and given him a few Billy The Badger trinkets to defuse the situation

[MikeW]

Somewhere in this seemingly endless thread that is speculation based in the main, I read that he would 'tear up the wing in the Championship'.  Personally I would tear up his contract, dismiss him for gross misconduct and hope he never stains our floor again.

[toshes mate]

The following is extracted from advice to anyone who may find themselves in a situation with a private security guard on ordinary private property.
 
Private security guards do not have the same powers as police; in any attempt to remove or detain you, they must also call the police.

In addition, like other members of the public, they can only make a 'citizen's arrest' and allowed to use 'reasonable force' to prevent a crime or if they have a reasonable suspicion that an offence has been committed. They can only make a citizen's arrest if they suspect someone of an indictable offence (serious enough for trial at a Crown Court). This includes criminal damage, but not aggravated trespass (trespassing and intentionally obstructing, disrupting, or intimidating others from carrying out 'lawful activities' which is not indictable).

Police will normally arrest the trespasser in order to remove them from the scene for breach of the peace if nothing more serious.

Just looking at this in relation to AK's arrest it seems to me to indicate security personnel may have simply followed required legal practice when and if AK refused to leave the building – call the police before attempting to detain or remove him - and any altercation may therefore have occurred after that call was made. 

That may have been why the matter was dropped on investigation.  It may also explain why the police were involved in the much earlier incident involving 'the park bench' but no arrest was made. 

Just good security guards following the letter of the law, in other words. 

[hovewhite]

On this,will we ever know what happened?not sure we will.

[Mince n Tatties]

What we do know is we've had endless posts on an average if that player...Christ you'd think he was Messi the way some go on.

[Sting of the North]

What we do know is we've had endless posts on an average if that player...Christ you'd think he was Messi the way some go on.

Yes, and some others seem to think he is the spawn of satan and Fotheringham.

Now we have two more posts!

[Mince n Tatties]

What we do know is we've had endless posts on an average if that player...Christ you'd think he was Messi the way some go on.

Yes, and some others seem to think he is the spawn of satan and Fotheringham.

Now we have two more posts!

:005:

[Twig]

He is not really "average". He has one or two real strengths and several real weaknesses.  For me the latter completely outweigh the former. Let him go would be my view.

[Woolly Mammoth]

I hear he has just acquired a Boxing Punch Bag and a Speed Ball for his new training circuit.

[Southcoastffc]

FWIW  AK committed acts of violence, damaged property, and threatened a senior FFC employee. Not hearsay, but knowledge. 

[Sting of the North]

FWIW  AK committed acts of violence, damaged property, and threatened a senior FFC employee. Not hearsay, but knowledge.

Which is of course not good. However, it also doesn't add much because several reasons. We don't know what the "acts of violence" actually was, we don't know what damage was done to what property and how the damage was done, and we don't know what threat was made and within what context. So this could still be somewhere between "not serious at all" and "very serious indeed".

[Statto]

FWIW  AK committed acts of violence, damaged property, and threatened a senior FFC employee. Not hearsay, but knowledge.

Which is of course not good. However, it also doesn't add much because several reasons. We don't know what the "acts of violence" actually was, we don't know what damage was done to what property and how the damage was done, and we don't know what threat was made and within what context. So this could still be somewhere between "not serious at all" and "very serious indeed".

Exactly. Punching a wall in frustration would both be an act of violence and damage property. As for threatening an employee, was it as serious as a few weeks prior when Ranieri said he wanted to "kill" Kamara?

And of course, assuming Southcoastffc didn't witness these events himself, it is indeed hearsay.

[Ronnief]

Has anybody actually got any new news on AK47?  067.gif

[Southcoastffc]

FWIW  AK committed acts of violence, damaged property, and threatened a senior FFC employee. Not hearsay, but knowledge.

Which is of course not good. However, it also doesn't add much because several reasons. We don't know what the "acts of violence" actually was, we don't know what damage was done to what property and how the damage was done, and we don't know what threat was made and within what context. So this could still be somewhere between "not serious at all" and "very serious indeed".

Exactly. Punching a wall in frustration would both be an act of violence and damage property. As for threatening an employee, was it as serious as a few weeks prior when Ranieri said he wanted to "kill" Kamara?

And of course, assuming Southcoastffc didn't witness these events himself, it is indeed hearsay.

You seem never to believe others. Your choice.

[Statto]

FWIW  AK committed acts of violence, damaged property, and threatened a senior FFC employee. Not hearsay, but knowledge.

Which is of course not good. However, it also doesn't add much because several reasons. We don't know what the "acts of violence" actually was, we don't know what damage was done to what property and how the damage was done, and we don't know what threat was made and within what context. So this could still be somewhere between "not serious at all" and "very serious indeed".

Exactly. Punching a wall in frustration would both be an act of violence and damage property. As for threatening an employee, was it as serious as a few weeks prior when Ranieri said he wanted to "kill" Kamara?

And of course, assuming Southcoastffc didn't witness these events himself, it is indeed hearsay.

You seem never to believe others. Your choice.

No, I just don't attach much credibility to vague hearsay.
Most "others" on here don't post that.

[Southcoastffc]

FWIW  AK committed acts of violence, damaged property, and threatened a senior FFC employee. Not hearsay, but knowledge.

Which is of course not good. However, it also doesn't add much because several reasons. We don't know what the "acts of violence" actually was, we don't know what damage was done to what property and how the damage was done, and we don't know what threat was made and within what context. So this could still be somewhere between "not serious at all" and "very serious indeed".

Exactly. Punching a wall in frustration would both be an act of violence and damage property. As for threatening an employee, was it as serious as a few weeks prior when Ranieri said he wanted to "kill" Kamara?

And of course, assuming Southcoastffc didn't witness these events himself, it is indeed hearsay.

You seem never to believe others. Your choice.

No, I just don't attach much credibility to vague hearsay.
Most "others" on here don't post that.

Every once in a while I am privy to what some may find interesting. I think I was the first to post that Seri's transfer fee was far below what was being publicly touted. You had trouble believing my posts on that topic. You now seem similarly afflicted. But perhaps the answer is to scroll by.