Furthermore, I would love to hear why Jimmy thinks he has done nothing wrong and is so fire proof ? I mean he has so much going against him even Perry Mason could not save Jimmy in any court hearing. The facts done lie.
CORRECT OLM. But maybe what saved Jimmy from Nigels fist was the bigger impact Jimmys actions would have for the club. ie. Bye Bye Jimmy and no more money.
Threatening violence is a criminal offence . I'm no expert in employment law but I would hazard a guess that by committing a criminal offence in the work place it would be deemed as gross misconduct . If stealing from your employer is a sackable offence then threatening violence must be also .
I would imagine Jimmy has a good case of mitigating circumstances, made to feel like an outcast, train with the kids all the comments AP made in the press last year but Jimmy had to keep quiet etc. Jimmy may have threatened to hit NP but you dont know what was said to him before it do you? None of us do. Lets look at it objectively a footballer gets found with a hooker on a preseason tour hardly a surprise is it.
That might have applied if it happened last season, but this season he's trained with the first team, been on the first team training camp and has had very positive comments made in the press by both AP and the Allam's. If anything, it would work against him now.
The fact that the Jimmy Bullard situation is now with the PFA and also the Allams Lawyers means that its a slam dunk. Whatever mitigating circumstances Jimmy thinks he may have should be interesting to know. JB is a serial rule breaker. Far to many of the city squad have have been witness to his crazy antics. The fact that Nicky Barmby came to blows with JB and Stephen Hunt was so damming of JB is just the tip of the ice berg. In any other walk of life or work place JB would have been sacked long ago. To even think JB has a case is simply silly. As for having to train with the kids so what ? that was a punishment. No different to say someone in the forces being demoted for doing wrong is it.???
I have it on good authority that the reason Jimmy cut up rough is because Nigel wouldn't tell him where his Alice band was hidden
That is true but then why so heavy handed. On preseason tours this is the kind of thing that happens in all teams over the last 40 years. Dwight Yorke s done a whole piece on it in 4-4-2 about Man U's trip after the 99 treble winning season. Why would Jimmy a non fighter obviously square up to a hard nut like NP? Come on why, obviously cos they were going to make a mountain out of a molehill. Dont get me wrong he should be fined but a suspension is ridiculous.
You can't really comment of whether the crime warranted the punishment, without knowing exactly what the crime was.
Exactly so why are most on here hanging him out to dry. Good players get handled differently, different rules apply unfortunately but true.
Where did this smacking NP thing come from? And could you clear it up, is he alleged to have 'threatened to hit' or to have actually hit NP?
Threats of violence are not always criminal. An assault consists of two possible parts - assault and battery. An assault is any act that makes the other person "apprehend immediate unlawful personal violence". This can be done intentionally or recklessly. An assault AND battery is where the assault involves contact (e.g. a punch). A conditional threat is not an assault - e.g. if you come over here mate, I'll hit ya! If JB had threatened NP it would all turn on the circumstances. A drunken threat MAY be conditional, and it may be argued NP did not actually fear immediate violence. If he was shouting at him from a distance, it aint gonna be an assault. Crimes are at the higher standard of proof (beyond reasonable doubt) and must be admitted or proven in court to become a crime (innocent until proven guilty). There is public order - and offences of threatening behaviour (likely to harrass, alarm or distress etc...) but I would guess this would hardly apply to a foreign jurisdiction. Put simply - all the blather above is conjecture, speculation, and misleading. It sounds to me like less of a criminal matter and more one of breach of contract by behaviour that breaks contractual responsibilities (going to be harder to hit home than a clear crime despite the lower standard of proof! Contract terms are often vague under legal scrutiny, and there is usually conflicting precedent as the posts above show). The lack of comment could be due to potential criminal issues, and the Sub Judice principle of not wanting to prejudice any subsequent investigation. So - unless anyone knows for sure what happened, I'd just wait and see rather than post rubbish and hot air.
