Jump to content

Kamara Statement


JamieD

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 430
  • Created
  • Last Reply
42 minutes ago, Toronto2Glasgow said:

Utterly sickening that a player can be treated like this in 2021 and the general response, outside of his own support, is “prove it”. 


If it was Kamara’s word against Kudela’s word then I could understand people arguing that there might have been something lost in translation or what not, but the fact that Zungu clearly heard it, and immediately reacted like Kamara did and almost instantly repeated what Kudela said to the referee should make it obvious, if it wasn’t already, what happened and what was said.

I have no doubt that a couple of Slavia’s players probably heard it too, but they will never admit that, but Zungu being a witness should make it easy for UEFA to nail Kudela.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JamieD said:

Look, for some bizarre reason I'm going to take this post seriously and ask you what you think is more likely - that a player ran over to someone, covered his mouth and whispered in his ear "you fucking guy", or that our two players who did hear it are NOT oscar-worthy actors who made this all up for no reason?

Oh, here we go another self-righteous virtue signaler. Jumping off at the deep end.

I’ve explicitly stated twice that I  100% believe he said it. But just because you, me and everyone else believes he did it, and it seems extremely unlikely that he didn’t say it, that doesn’t mean we can condemn him without concrete evidence.

This is a serious allegation levelled at this guy. And, once again, for your sake, I believe he did say that to Kamara. But right now the evidence (as credible as it is) is two guys saying he did it and one guy saying he didn’t. Given the serious repercussions for him I would think that any institution, if it were ever to feel confident in its conviction, would need more than that.

I would’ve thought someone like you would appreciate due process no matter what the crime. But does that just go out the door because it’s a disgusting racist comment so that you can virtue signal?

For the third time, I believe he did it, he’s a piece of shit for saying it, and sincerely hope someone on his team comes out and says he heard it as well so that he can get punished for it. But I just think convicting someone on the basis of two people saying they heard him say it is dangerous ground.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DBBTB said:


If it was Kamara’s word against Kudela’s word then I could understand people arguing that there might have been something lost in translation or what not, but the fact that Zungu clearly heard it, and immediately reacted like Kamara did and almost instantly repeated what Kudela said to the referee should make it obvious, if it wasn’t already, what happened and what was said.

I think there is a damn good chance the 2 black Slavia players heard it too. You see they just stand there and don't instantly try to defend their team mate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Toronto2Glasgow said:

Utterly sickening that a player can be treated like this in 2021 and the general response, outside of his own support, is “prove it”. 
 

heartbroken for Kamara, and every player of colour, who are constantly reminded that racism is not only alive in football, but it is supported. 

That's not true.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BigDak said:

Oh, here we go another self-righteous virtue signaler. Jumping off at the deep end.

I’ve explicitly stated twice that I  100% believe he said it. But just because you, me and everyone else believes he did it, and it seems extremely unlikely that he didn’t say it, that doesn’t mean we can condemn him without concrete evidence.

This is a serious allegation levelled at this guy. And, once again, for your sake, I believe he did say that to Kamara. But right now the evidence (as credible as it is) is two guys saying he did it and one guy saying he didn’t. Given the serious repercussions for him I would think that any institution, if it were ever to feel confident in its conviction, would need more than that.

I would’ve thought someone like you would appreciate due process no matter what the crime. But does that just go out the door because it’s a disgusting racist comment so that you can virtue signal?

For the third time, I believe he did it, he’s a piece of shit for saying it, and sincerely hope someone on his team comes out and says he heard it as well so that he can get punished for it. But I just think convicting someone on the basis of two people saying they heard him say it is dangerous ground.

There is, I'm sure you know, a difference between saying "there should still be due process", which you didn't say, and "everything is just conjecture" which you did. The latter is simply not true. I certainly don't think Kudela or anybody should be found guilty on an individual's say so. Contrary to what you claim, that isn't the only choice here unless a Slavia player accuses him too. That's not how it works. How it works is, if a credible allegation is made - and this is credible, as there was a witness - then an investigation is undertaken and the credibility of the accused and the accuser are tested. Who can sincerely believe the credibility of Kudela, the one who admits insulting Kamara, outweighs Kamara?

It has nothing to do with virtue signalling. What you said is bollocks and would be bollocks even if I was myself a proud racist.

Link to post
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, MarzM said:

I think there is a damn good chance the 2 black Slavia players heard it too. You see they just stand there and don't instantly try to defend their team mate.

If they came forward it would absolutely nail the player, but they won’t I suspect.

Link to post
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, BigDak said:

Oh, here we go another self-righteous virtue signaler. Jumping off at the deep end.

I’ve explicitly stated twice that I  100% believe he said it. But just because you, me and everyone else believes he did it, and it seems extremely unlikely that he didn’t say it, that doesn’t mean we can condemn him without concrete evidence.

This is a serious allegation levelled at this guy. And, once again, for your sake, I believe he did say that to Kamara. But right now the evidence (as credible as it is) is two guys saying he did it and one guy saying he didn’t. Given the serious repercussions for him I would think that any institution, if it were ever to feel confident in its conviction, would need more than that.

I would’ve thought someone like you would appreciate due process no matter what the crime. But does that just go out the door because it’s a disgusting racist comment so that you can virtue signal?

For the third time, I believe he did it, he’s a piece of shit for saying it, and sincerely hope someone on his team comes out and says he heard it as well so that he can get punished for it. But I just think convicting someone on the basis of two people saying they heard him say it is dangerous ground.

Its clear you believe he said it but your last sentence is completely wrong in Scotland as convicting someone on the basis of two people saying it is corroboration and Scot’s law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, JamieD said:

There is, I'm sure you know, a difference between saying "there should still be due process", which you didn't say, and "everything is just conjecture" which you did. The latter is simply not true. I certainly don't think Kudela or anybody should be found guilty on an individual's say so. Contrary to what you claim, that isn't the only choice here unless a Slavia player accuses him too. That's not how it works. How it works is, if a credible allegation is made - and this is credible, as there was a witness - then an investigation is undertaken and the credibility of the accused and the accuser are tested. Who can sincerely believe the credibility of Kudela, the one who admits insulting Kamara, outweighs Kamara?

It has nothing to do with virtue signalling. What you said is bollocks and would be bollocks even if I was myself a proud racist.

Is your last paragraph one of those sneaky attacks where you throw an accusation at someone but when they pick up on it you stand back and say “no, that must just be your guilty conscience” because you haven’t outright accused me?

OK, I retract my statement saying it’s ALL conjecture. That’s not what I meant. But I’m sure you will agree that only the statements from Kamara and Zungu (which I believe) are suitable evidence that Kudela did this - for now at least.

So I’ll admit my initial wording re: conjecture was stupid as I didn’t mean everything was conjecture. But what else was bollocks?

The picture I saw initially of those Slavia scum bags  was them holding up a banner with “Kamara - just a n” and the rest was blanked out. Now it didn’t take any imagination to assume what was actually written and this turned out to be true from the full picture later released. But if it turned out that the banner hadn’t said that then we’d all have jumped to conclusions albeit based on common sense and what was likely.

So the comparison with Kudela is that aside from the statements from Kamara and Zungu, the other evidence is Kamara’s reaction, the over the top statements from Slavia and the bullshit story put forward by Kudela (“hey, fucking guy”) which is so implausible that it seems like an outright lie. 

From all of that I believe he did say it. But I don’t want to be a hypocrite and if it was one of our players accused of that, or even me, then I’d want something more than the testimony of another person before ruining someone’s life.

The credibility of the two should/would be taken into account but it won’t (and arguably shouldn’t) be enough to convict.

I actually don’t know what we’re debating here because we both believe Kudela said it and hope for further evidence to come out. I’ve never once said I don’t think he said it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Bad Robot said:

Its clear you believe he said it but your last sentence is completely wrong in Scotland as convicting someone on the basis of two people saying it is corroboration and Scot’s law.

It’s not really, mate. 
 

Yes, the two pieces of evidence corroborate each other but it would still need some sort of recording of the actual crime i.e. audio of someone calling Kamara a monkey. It actually needs to be proven that the crime happened. And, unfortunately, we don’t have that.

For example, it wouldn’t be enough for two people to say you punched someone in the face if there were no marks on the persons face, no marks on your hand and there was no CCTV of someone fitting your description punching the person in the face.

Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, BigDak said:

It’s not really, mate. 
 

Yes, the two pieces of evidence corroborate each other but it would still need some sort of recording of the actual crime i.e. audio of someone calling Kamara a monkey. It actually needs to be proven that the crime happened. And, unfortunately, we don’t have that.

For example, it wouldn’t be enough for two people to say you punched someone in the face if there were no marks on the persons face, no marks on your hand and there was no CCTV of someone fitting your description punching the person in the face.

Mate, that's rubbish. It would be enough. Two witnesses that a court believes are credible would be regarded as sufficient to convict.

Add to that the visual evidence we have in this case of the conduct of the Prague player and the reaction of Kamara, as well as the credibility of their published defence, and there's bags of evidence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, BigDak said:

It’s not really, mate. 
 

Yes, the two pieces of evidence corroborate each other but it would still need some sort of recording of the actual crime i.e. audio of someone calling Kamara a monkey. It actually needs to be proven that the crime happened. And, unfortunately, we don’t have that.

For example, it wouldn’t be enough for two people to say you punched someone in the face if there were no marks on the persons face, no marks on your hand and there was no CCTV of someone fitting your description punching the person in the face.

@Blue Nosed Babe I’m of the believe that 2 witness statements are the evidence along with the cupping of the hand but maybe our resident lawyer can clarify 

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Inigo said:

Mate, that's rubbish. It would be enough. Two witnesses that a court believes are credible would be regarded as sufficient to convict.

Add to that the visual evidence we have in this case of the conduct of the Prague player and the reaction of Kamara, as well as the credibility of their published defence, and there's bags of evidence.

I don’t believe it would be due to the fact there is no evidence that the crime actually occurred.

The problem here is that apart from Kamara and Zungu saying so there’s no evidence of the crime actually occurring. The rest of the arguments being put forward are circumstantial/conjecture.

Its like if a woman accused a man of rape and her friend said she seen it too. They would still need evidence of the rape actually having happened.

I might be wrong. Maybe they’ll use some sort of reasonableness test but I still don’t know if it’s strong enough evidence for two people to say they heard him say it.

If he had previous for doing something like this and this was the 4th time he’d been accused then that might do it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DBBTB said:


If it was Kamara’s word against Kudela’s word then I could understand people arguing that there might have been something lost in translation or what not, but the fact that Zungu clearly heard it, and immediately reacted like Kamara did and almost instantly repeated what Kudela said to the referee should make it obvious, if it wasn’t already, what happened and what was said.

I have no doubt that a couple of Slavia’s players probably heard it too, but they will never admit that, but Zungu being a witness should make it easy for UEFA to nail Kudela.

 

I think the fact Zungu seems to have heard it is very important as otherwise it is one word against another which is rarely acted upon by authorities as it is open to abuse by unscrupulous players seeking an advantage.

The simultaneous reaction from both players says it all as far as I’m concerned.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BigDak said:

I don’t believe it would be due to the fact there is no evidence that the crime actually occurred.

The problem here is that apart from Kamara and Zungu saying so there’s no evidence of the crime actually occurring. The rest of the arguments being put forward are circumstantial/conjecture.

Its like if a woman accused a man of rape and her friend said she seen it too. They would still need evidence of the rape actually having happened.

I might be wrong. Maybe they’ll use some sort of reasonableness test but I still don’t know if it’s strong enough evidence for two people to say they heard him say it.

The footballing authorities in this country have used balance of probabilities type standards before in this type of incident. The fact a second player heard it and immediately reacted so strongly should be more than enough in this instance

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BigDak said:

I don’t believe it would be due to the fact there is no evidence that the crime actually occurred.

The problem here is that apart from Kamara and Zungu saying so there’s no evidence of the crime actually occurring. The rest of the arguments being put forward are circumstantial/conjecture.

Its like if a woman accused a man of rape and her friend said she seen it too. They would still need evidence of the rape actually having happened.

I might be wrong. Maybe they’ll use some sort of reasonableness test but I still don’t know if it’s strong enough evidence for two people to say they heard him say it.

If he had previous for doing something like this and this was the 4th time he’d been accused then that might do it.

The evidence it occurred is the two credible witness statements.

Christ, convictions can happen based on one credible witness and corroborating circumstantial stuff.

A crime doesn't have to be caught on CCTV or a microphone to be regarded as having occurred. Witness statements can be regarded as as valid as footage or DNA evidence or whatever. In the case you mention, if the court believed the two women, yes, it'd be enough to convict. Easily. You're simply wrong here, mate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, folkestoneger said:

The footballing authorities in this country have used balance of probabilities type standards before in this type of incident. The fact a second player heard it and immediately reacted so strongly should be more than enough in this instance

Yeah, the fact that the stadium was empty as well should be used to back up Zungu saying he heard it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Bigdave30 said:

If Kamara goes into McGregors ear tomorrow at half time and calls him a ‘dirty fenian bastard’ these mobs would be well out the woodwork.

Humza would be green lighting candlelight vigils and Rangers as an organisation would be feeling the full force of the law and governing bodies.

I don’t think the club should be held responsible for a players actions unless it can be shown they encouraged the behavior. While defending their player looks bad it is what most clubs would do until a charge was proven. If it is and they continue to support the player then that is a different matter

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Upcoming Events

    • 30 March 2024 15:00 Until 17:00
      0  
      Rangers v Hibernian
      Ibrox Stadium
      Scottish Premiership

×
×
  • Create New...