Saint in Paradise Posted 26 October, 2011 Share Posted 26 October, 2011 THERE will be no charges following the incident that left Saints defender Dan Seaborne unconscious in a pool of blood. The police and Crown Prosecution Service say they have studied all the evidence and no charges will be brought. Full story is only in today's Daily Echo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toomer Posted 26 October, 2011 Share Posted 26 October, 2011 More importantly how is Dan Seaborne doing on his road to recovery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 26 October, 2011 Share Posted 26 October, 2011 Seems a bit odd, are they saying he got what was coming to him? Surely not!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan The Flames Posted 26 October, 2011 Share Posted 26 October, 2011 Seems a bit odd, are they saying he got what was coming to him? Surely not!! Thats not a defence, there is either no evidence, no chance of a conviction or it was an accident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eharty9 Posted 26 October, 2011 Share Posted 26 October, 2011 I do know Dan is now playing golf again! so hopefully on the road to recovery ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JRM Posted 26 October, 2011 Share Posted 26 October, 2011 I think there may be an implication that the bouncer was acting in self defence / it was an accident throwing seaborne out who fell? and the injurues sustained were from a fall rather than a punch etc? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Martini Posted 26 October, 2011 Share Posted 26 October, 2011 If the bouncer was acting in self-defense wouldn't Seaborne be charged? I guess there's just not enough evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exit2 Posted 26 October, 2011 Share Posted 26 October, 2011 Is it really a suprise that no charges are being brought? From various accounts of people that were there, I think we all knew that nothing would come of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Saint Posted 26 October, 2011 Share Posted 26 October, 2011 Crown Prosecution Service are satisfied the man used "reasonable force" when he pushed the footballer and accept he acted in self defence. Police also rule out any action against Seaborne over the incident adding that there was no counter allegations lodged by the suspect and he had not been harmed. Looks like a blue line has been drawn! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickG Posted 26 October, 2011 Share Posted 26 October, 2011 serious head injuries, unfortunately happen fairly frequently when drunks fall on pavements. May have been low level assaults, pushing, ejection, etc - my guess is minor / justified contact and awkward fall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junior Mullet Posted 26 October, 2011 Share Posted 26 October, 2011 serious head injuries, unfortunately happen fairly frequently when drunks fall on pavements. May have been low level assaults, pushing, ejection, etc - my guess is minor / justified contact and awkward fall. Just out of interest, why guess? Plenty of us know what happened - he was pushed away and fell. If a drunk gets up in my face I will push him away, thus removing a reasonablly perceived threat of physical assualt. The law is very clear that I may do this. I can take pre-emptive action and do not need to wait until I am assualted myself. The fact that the person is so sozzled they fall over is not my problem - they brought it on themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 26 October, 2011 Share Posted 26 October, 2011 Just out of interest, why guess? Plenty of us know what happened - he was pushed away and fell. If a drunk gets up in my face I will push him away, thus removing a reasonablly perceived threat of physical assualt. The law is very clear that I may do this. I can take pre-emptive action and do not need to wait until I am assualted myself. The fact that the person is so sozzled they fall over is not my problem - they brought it on themselves. Which is as I said, he got what was coming to him, very poor show really, self-inflicted injury. I'd sack him, so would my employers,happens all of the time actually. Strange isn't it,a supermarket check-out girl can get sacked for picking up an unused promotional offer that a client left behind but a footballer can deprive his employer of his services for 6 months or so because of stupid drunken behaviour and he's considered as some sort of fallen hero. No sympathy with the man to be honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 26 October, 2011 Share Posted 26 October, 2011 Which is as I said, he got what was coming to him, very poor show really, self-inflicted injury. I'd sack him, so would my employers,happens all of the time actually. Strange isn't it,a supermarket check-out girl can get sacked for picking up an unused promotional offer that a client left behind but a footballer can deprive his employer of his services for 6 months or so because of stupid drunken behaviour and he's considered as some sort of fallen hero. No sympathy with the man to be honest. Never been drunk and nearly fallen in your early 20s, really? Only difference between you me and Dan Seabourne is likely luck and an uneven paving slab. Yes he may well have been an arse when ****ed, as are many people in life and at work who dont have the alcohol excuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 26 October, 2011 Share Posted 26 October, 2011 Never been drunk and nearly fallen, really? Only difference between you me and Dan Seabourne is likely luck and an uneven paving slab. Yes he may well have been an arse when ****ed, many people in life and at at work dont have the alcohol excuse. I've never missed a day's work through drunkeness no, in fact in 38 years of career I've only had one sick day. On this I do not live in a glass house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 26 October, 2011 Share Posted 26 October, 2011 Which is as I said, he got what was coming to him, very poor show really, self-inflicted injury. I'd sack him, so would my employers,happens all of the time actually. Strange isn't it,a supermarket check-out girl can get sacked for picking up an unused promotional offer that a client left behind but a footballer can deprive his employer of his services for 6 months or so because of stupid drunken behaviour and he's considered as some sort of fallen hero. No sympathy with the man to be honest. Equally, said checkout girl might not get sacked, and footballer could. What's your point ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 26 October, 2011 Share Posted 26 October, 2011 Equally, said checkout girl might not get sacked, and footballer could. What's your point ? Point is the check-out girl in question will get sacked for a trifle that actually costs her employers nothing and the footballer in question won't for what to me is a gross misconduct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_clark Posted 26 October, 2011 Share Posted 26 October, 2011 Crown Prosecution Service are satisfied the man used "reasonable force" when he pushed the footballer and accept he acted in self defence. Police also rule out any action against Seaborne over the incident adding that there was no counter allegations lodged by the suspect and he had not been harmed. Looks like a blue line has been drawn! Sounds like a bouncer with common sense to me - accepts that these things happen from time to time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liebherr driver Posted 26 October, 2011 Share Posted 26 October, 2011 Point is the check-out girl in question will get sacked for a trifle that actually costs her employers nothing and the footballer in question won't for what to me is a gross misconduct. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_clark Posted 26 October, 2011 Share Posted 26 October, 2011 Point is the check-out girl in question will get sacked for a trifle that actually costs her employers nothing and the footballer in question won't for what to me is a gross misconduct. Possibly because you can find another check out girl anywhere, any time at no extra cost whereas if you sack a footballer it costs you hundreds of thousands of pounds to replace him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micky Posted 26 October, 2011 Share Posted 26 October, 2011 Dan Seaborne incident - closed. ____________ Move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VectisSaint Posted 26 October, 2011 Share Posted 26 October, 2011 serious head injuries, unfortunately happen fairly frequently when drunks fall on pavements. May have been low level assaults, pushing, ejection, etc - my guess is minor / justified contact and awkward fall. They should put that material that you get in kids playgrounds outside night clubs, then when stupid drunks who cannot cope with drinking too much fall over as they emerge they might not sustain such serious injuries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John McGrath's Jockstrap Posted 26 October, 2011 Share Posted 26 October, 2011 Frankly, I don't really care. He is (was) a highly paid professional who couldn't handle his drink....hence the CPS decision. The major plus is that the other young lads at the club have hopefully watched and learnt from a sad incident. I think the club are also at fault for not properly coaching their younger players that they should avoid these situations at all costs whilst highly paid employees and representatives of the club. If he wants to get p*****d and play football go and play non league football......and that is probably what awaits him.....a waste for him and for the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theyin Posted 27 October, 2011 Share Posted 27 October, 2011 Perfect oppo for a 'role model' footballer to come out and give a bit of guidance to kids to warn them of the pitfalls of getting so twa tted and being a big I am. No? Didn't think so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chocco boxo Posted 27 October, 2011 Share Posted 27 October, 2011 Seaborne became abusive then became Airborne! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dimond Geezer Posted 27 October, 2011 Share Posted 27 October, 2011 Which is as I said, he got what was coming to him, very poor show really, self-inflicted injury. I'd sack him, so would my employers,happens all of the time actually. I'm no legal eagle, but I don't think an employee can be sacked for being off sick, no matter how the employee was injured. I sort of speak from experience. I had the snip a few years ago & was off work for 2 days (1 for the op & 1 for recovery). My employer told me I had to take 2 days leave as it was my choice to have the op. I queried this with a barister friend, he told me that as it was elective surgery I should take the first day as leave & the second as sick, as I was unable to work. He actually said, to paraphrase "you can phone in sick with a hangover, it doesn't matter how you get sick or injured, the fact is that you are". So I would be surprised if Saints could sack a player for getting injured in his free-time. Now if he was disobeying club orders that may be a different matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 28 October, 2011 Share Posted 28 October, 2011 Point is the check-out girl in question will get sacked for a trifle that actually costs her employers nothing and the footballer in question won't for what to me is a gross misconduct. The point is that you're making up circumstances to suit your argument and have no evidence whatsoever to support your case that this happens every single time - as your argument is without any kind of nuance. I would say that every case will stand or fall on the evidence presented, and employers generally will take a variety of other factors into consideration. I'd also say the distinction in whether someone keeps their job over an indiscretion would be whether someone is good at their job and how easily they might be replaced balanced against cost and the need to set an example to other employees, rather than just cost per se. Of course, if you don't agree with that, what you're actually saying is that you don't agree that unskilled jobs which anyone can do will have less job security than a skilled professional with years of experience, which is an interesting, if idiotic, position. Link to comment 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