Jump to content
TheMortonForum.com

cmdc

Members
  • Posts

    5176
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

cmdc last won the day on April 27 2021

cmdc had the most liked content!

About cmdc

  • Birthday 10/24/1982

Profile Information

  • Location
    Greenock

Recent Profile Visitors

14958 profile views

cmdc's Achievements

253

Reputation

  1. Don’t think that’s fair. It’s open to anyone to stand. Two people did, and the members voted for them. If people want fresh faces the opportunity is there, but someone has to take it by putting themselves forward or encouraging others to stand.
  2. This video might be of interest to anyone who wants to know more about (or who doesn’t yet know about) our Team Talk project. It’s a really brilliant thing.
  3. Correct. Doesn’t apply to accounting (and some other areas of employment) as an exemption to the Act but does apply to football which is not exempt.
  4. The answer to this (be[ing] specific) is the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.
  5. No idea, and it isn't relevant. We did sign Lithgow and so as a potential employer his conviction was irrelevant to Morton and as an employee his conviction is irrelevant to his treatment by the club. There is no duty on fans to agree with the signing or to treat him in any particular way (albeit some of what has been said about him is borderline actionable), but there absolutely is such a duty on Morton as his employer. Which is your right - but (thankfully) you can't lawfully achieve that and my personal view is it is inconsistent to talk about moral bankruptcy and also to single someone out for a hard time who is rehabilitated.
  6. The bit in bold is the only relevant part to the signing. The club can't take his spent conviction into account or treat him differently on the basis of his spent conviction (such as strongly suggesting/requiring him to make/allow a statement on his behalf). There's a bit of a Conservative/Daily Mail approach to justice here that legal rights and rehabilitation should give way in the face of public pressure - but that's the whole point of this law in the first place: so that a spent conviction doesn't follow a rehabilitated person for the rest of their lives.
  7. In which case your issue is really with the law/policy on rehabilitation rather than with fan ownership or the club.
  8. And if you adopt that approach because he has a spent conviction then it is illegal. Just because you lie about your illegal act doesn't make it legal (or moral or ethical). I don't see the consistency in saying with one hand that the club is morally bankrupt and with the other that the club should lie to evade the law.
  9. I'm not sure how the rights of the victims are relevant here - he was convicted, punished, and the conviction is now spent. Once again, he is a rehabilitated person in the eyes of the law. You don't have to like the fact, but it is illegal for the club to treat him any differently because of a spent conviction. That's not 'my case for his rights' - that's what the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 and various cases on the right to privacy tells us (and tells the club as his employer).
  10. No idea who the club's advisers are or if they have taken legal advice. But really it is up to the individual to determine what is in his best interests, not you, me or the club. That's his right and it is protected by law.
  11. As I said above, the fact it is in the public domain doesn't by itself undo his right to privacy. A legal right to rehabilitation has in fact been achieved and the right to privacy does in fact (in this universe/the real world) include spent convictions. This is the whole point.
  12. The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, the right to privacy etc aren't works of literary fiction. They are actual laws that create actual rights and obligations here in the real world. And they begin not with the club and not with fans' concerns but with the principle that the individual is rehabilitated, has the right to be treated as though no offence has been committed, and has a reasonable expectation of privacy that extends to spent convictions. And they would be pretty flimsy rights if a small number of people in a football club fan base can undermine them (not all unreasonably - though some of it clearly is) by talking about it on terraces or on a forum. In fact, that's a significant part of the reason why the law is necessary in the first place. Some of this I'm sure is inevitable, but the individual's rights first, and the the employer’s obligations second, are the most important factors here. Indeed, from the club's perspective in law there should be nothing to say because he is entitled to be treated by them as though no conviction occurred. That might put them in an awkward spot but it is what it is.
  13. Highly unlikely given the nature of the offence and the time that has passed.
  14. It not so much about the club or the fan base. In fact, as far is the club is concerned, any spent convictions should be irrelevant to the decision to sign him or their treatment of him having done so. It’s about the individual who has a right in law to be considered rehabilitated and treated as such, including by his employer. You talk about a strategy but the whole point is, there shouldn’t be one because a spent conviction is one that (in law) is treated as though it never happened.
  15. Yes, though there might be a period of overlap where a conviction is spent but the individual remains on the register and depending on length of sentence or specific court order (which don’t seem to apply here) then the conviction might never be spent.
×
×
  • Create New...