Bullard's agent

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Exactly - hence why it is more likely to be a contractual breach (e.g. indulging in "behaviour which if proven may amount to criminal in the relevant jusrisdiction").

See - more speculation.

All depends on what happened (and has happened before), and EXACTLY what is written in the employment contract.
We don't know - so nothing more to say...
 
Steve7 said:
NFUNo2 said:
Threatening violence is a criminal offence .
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

If it happened abroad then fair enough it's a non starter.

I wasn't there , obviously, but if he has threatened violence and it was on these shores then there is a reasonable chance he has committed an offence under section 4 of the public order act .
 
According to BBC.co.uk. Where does this leave us/him? I know, it's another Jimmy thread!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back