£2.3 million to Keogh

[ramAnag]

OMG, I'm a child. You are the one who goes off on one, if your name is used, or teachers get a mention.

Think about it, I'm talking about satisfying your analogy.
Again, your lack of knowledge does come forward, with that last statement.
Any worker in a factory, will have terms and conditions regarding sickness/pay/absenteeism/ codes and conduct built into the contract offered you.
You can't just change the rules to suit, a situation like DCFC did, whether satisfying your morals or not.
I told you, remove the emotion and stick to the legal bits.

But yes, in the outside world, they would have been fired or on minimum/statutory sick pay.
But that applies to the 2 your brushing to one side as well.
In fact, if morality and code of conduct came into it. Those 2 brought the club into much breech of conduct regarding DCFC's good name.
Take you blnkers off. It's gone through court, not your moral codes on a forum and he won.
QED

1. I think I’ve reacted to the teacher jibes once...when you and the angry Brentford chap launched your ill fated campaign years ago. Other than that I genuinely don’t see the relevance...in the same way as I don’t mention what you do/used to do for a living.

2. Of course I recognise that people have terms and conditions of employment and I wasn’t aware that I was trying to change any rules.

3. You brought factory workers into it...and then go on to agree, ‘in the outside world they would have been fired or on minimum/statutory sick pay’. You seem to be making my point.

4. I’m not brushing the other two ‘to one side’ at all. Their case was handled by the courts...they paid their price, and maybe still are, according to the law of the land. The incident didn’t result in either of them being unable to work which is the difference.

5. Keogh’s case couldn’t be handled in the same way because, apparently, he hadn’t broken the law. He was however the one who could no longer work.

6. It’s a forum...we’re allowed to discuss morality and morality v legality even. You’ve already conceded that in the real world Keogh’s actions, which resulted in him being unable to work/represent the club he was captain of, would have led to him being fired or on reduced pay. Perhaps you’d be so good as to now explain why, in his situation, it is morally right for him now to receive huge compensation when he was initially in the wrong?

[Trickytreesreds]

1. I think I’ve reacted to the teacher jibes once...when you and the angry Brentford chap launched your ill fated campaign years ago. Other than that I genuinely don’t see the relevance...in the same way as I don’t mention what you do/used to do for a living.

2. Of course I recognise that people have terms and conditions of employment and I wasn’t aware that I was trying to change any rules.

3. You brought factory workers into it...and then go on to agree, ‘in the outside world they would have been fired or on minimum/statutory sick pay’. You seem to be making my point.

4. I’m not brushing the other two ‘to one side’ at all. Their case was handled by the courts...they paid their price, and maybe still are, according to the law of the land. The incident didn’t result in either of them being unable to work which is the difference.

5. Keogh’s case couldn’t be handled in the same way because, apparently, he hadn’t broken the law. He was however the one who could no longer work.

6. It’s a forum...we’re allowed to discuss morality and morality v legality even. You’ve already conceded that in the real world Keogh’s actions, which resulted in him being unable to work/represent the club he was captain of, would have led to him being fired or on reduced pay. Perhaps you’d be so good as to now explain why, in his situation, it is morally right for him now to receive huge compensation when he was initially in the wrong?

Oh come RA please.

How or when was morality the deciding factor in a court of law?
I have just told you. Keogh, probably did break codes of conduct rules. So did the other two. But you seem to think that to punish them differently is perfectly ok?
The others were prosecuted for driving offences criminally. Keogh wasn't.
Yet Keogh was disciplined to an extreme by the club Internally, yet the other two were not.

That has been the argument in court. HE WON!
Can you seriously not see that?

I'LL SAY IT AGAIN. THEY ALL SHOULD HAVE BEEN SACKED.
But 2 were of marketable value, the other wasn't.
Perhaps in light of the current financial threats books wise, you can understand why. To have wiped off 2 assets would have made the books even worse.

Morality had bugger all to do with it.

[ramAnag]

Oh come RA please.

How or when was morality the deciding factor in a court of law?
I have just told you. Keogh, probably did break codes of conduct rules. So did the other two. But you seem to think that to punish them differently is perfectly ok?
The others were prosecuted for driving offences criminally. Keogh wasn't.
Yet Keogh was disciplined to an extreme by the club Internally, yet the other two were not.

That has been the argument in court. HE WON!
Can you seriously not see that?

I'LL SAY IT AGAIN. THEY ALL SHOULD HAVE BEEN SACKED.
But 2 were of marketable value, the other wasn't.
Perhaps in light of the current financial threats books wise, you can understand why. To have wiped off 2 assets would have made the books even worse.

Morality had bugger all to do with it.

Christ on a bike, Tricky...where have I ever suggested ‘morality was the deciding factor in a court of law’?

I accepted first thing this morning, even though it now feels like about a week ago, that Swale knows more about employment law than me and my only real argument has been that - disappointingly - RK, who should have been a Derby hero, is morally in the wrong and that Mel Morris has every reason to feel let down.

You’re now shouting ‘THEY SHOULD ALL HAVE BEEN SACKED’. How the hell would that have worked? Can you sack someone for breaking the law if it doesn’t impact on their ability to do their job? In certain circumstances certainly, but generally speaking...I doubt it.

Should you be able to sack someone when, as a result of their inappropriate and irresponsible behaviour, they become unavailable for work? In my opinion...yes...but that’s all it is...my opinion. For those reasons I believe, objectively and morally...but not, I accept, legally, that DCFC have been hard done to.

I also believe, in the words of Mr. Bumble, that ‘the law is frequently an ass’ and that this is one of those occasions.