Eva Carniero
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
jamiemartin721  Reading 08 Jun 16 10.16am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mapletree
Personally I find blackmail abhorrent, even if it is against someone equally abhorrent And as she couldn't possibly have been awarded this kind of money from a Tribunal this had to be blackmail. Its not black mail if a) the person has reasonable grounds for making the demand The demand must be unwarranted, and the threats without just action. You not blackmail someone in a court case, any more than threatening to take them to court is illegal.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
 Mapletree Croydon 08 Jun 16 2.17pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by matthau
this is only an estimate but even if she was on 2k a week it's nowhere near your estimation and even if I'm wrong. no reason to come across as a nasty sarcy bast'd.
I can't help how I come across to you, but in my opinion you confuse irony with sarcasm. Her base salary - as it was and as she requested it should be (£400k) - is plastered all over every newspaper. £280k plus significant bonus. Looks like the Ar*e are cheapskates.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| Stuk Top half 08 Jun 16 2.19pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Chelsea are dicks, they shouldn't have buckled. I suspect they, man u and Mourinho have all decided to split the costs and get this buried. She shouldn't have got a penny, she quit.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Mapletree Croydon 08 Jun 16 2.23pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Its not black mail if a) the person has reasonable grounds for making the demand The demand must be unwarranted, and the threats without just action. You not blackmail someone in a court case, any more than threatening to take them to court is illegal.
One of the definitions is: ''demand money from (a person) in return for not revealing compromising or injurious information about that person'' As I have said above more than once, the Tribunal (not Court) would not conceivably have awarded anything like the original £1.2m already offered. Therefore the tactic was to draw the discussion into a public forum with the express intention of blackmail. Had the Tribunal hearing gone all the way to its natural conclusion she would - in my opinion - have been given an award but nowhere near the £1.2m. The tactic always had to be brinksmanship and a 'Courtroom steps' agreement. Blackmail! I so wonder what she had in her locker (possibly literally as well as figuratively).
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 08 Jun 16 5.03pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mapletree
One of the definitions is: ''demand money from (a person) in return for not revealing compromising or injurious information about that person'' As I have said above more than once, the Tribunal (not Court) would not conceivably have awarded anything like the original £1.2m already offered. Therefore the tactic was to draw the discussion into a public forum with the express intention of blackmail. Had the Tribunal hearing gone all the way to its natural conclusion she would - in my opinion - have been given an award but nowhere near the £1.2m. The tactic always had to be brinksmanship and a 'Courtroom steps' agreement. Blackmail! I so wonder what she had in her locker (possibly literally as well as figuratively). More fully Blackmail. (1) A person is guilty of blackmail if, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces; and for this purpose a demand with menaces is unwarranted unless the person making it does so in the belief—
that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand; and
that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand. (2) The nature of the act or omission demanded is immaterial, and it is also immaterial whether the menaces relate to action to be taken by the person making the demand. (3) A person guilty of blackmail shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years. You can't blackmail someone by taking them to a Tribunal, only by threatening to take them to a tribunal without having a case. You'd also have to extort a financial gain in advance (so the act of going to a tribunal, means you aren't extorting money because a third party will set the amount and judge whether you are legally entitled to it).
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 08 Jun 16 5.05pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stuk
Chelsea are dicks, they shouldn't have buckled. I suspect they, man u and Mourinho have all decided to split the costs and get this buried. She shouldn't have got a penny, she quit. Depends on what the settlement was, as to whether she quit. Constructive dismissal seems to be what happened. Of course it could be that they apologised unreservedly, and settled out of court just before she gave her statement to the court, because she had no case for sexual discrimination and harassment, but they liked her. But they'd have had her statement at least seven days in advance. Chances are they knew exactly what the probable outcome of that would be, and had previously decided that would be the point of settling - that basically she'd either have won the case or her evidence would lead to 'potentially fair greater losses' I mean what's the chance that an attractive woman working with professional premier league footballers is going to have experienced sexual discrimination and harassment. Edited by jamiemartin721 (08 Jun 2016 5.15pm)
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Y Ddraig Goch  In The Crowd 08 Jun 16 5.07pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Don't see how it can be blackmail. They have obviously f***ed up, she can prove it and I would assume that they have decided that the reputational damage could be greater than the sum they have paid out.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stuk Top half 08 Jun 16 5.12pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Depends on what the settlement was, as to whether she quit. Constructive dismissal seems to be what happened. She quit.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Mapletree Croydon 08 Jun 16 5.54pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
More fully Blackmail. (1) A person is guilty of blackmail if, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces; and for this purpose a demand with menaces is unwarranted unless the person making it does so in the belief—
that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand; and
that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand. (2) The nature of the act or omission demanded is immaterial, and it is also immaterial whether the menaces relate to action to be taken by the person making the demand. (3) A person guilty of blackmail shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years. You can't blackmail someone by taking them to a Tribunal, only by threatening to take them to a tribunal without having a case. You'd also have to extort a financial gain in advance (so the act of going to a tribunal, means you aren't extorting money because a third party will set the amount and judge whether you are legally entitled to it). You are looking at the definition of illegal blackmail, not the definition of blackmail. Not all blackmail is illegal, look it up. Our old friend Wikipedia tells us: ''It originally meant payments rendered by settlers in the Counties of England bordering Scotland to chieftains and the like in the Scottish Lowlands, in exchange for protection from Scottish thieves and marauders into England.'' This was blackmail, just not illegal blackmail. Or, if you would prefer, she used leverage unrelated to her case in order to precipitate an extreme payment that would not have otherwise been justified simply on the direct facts of the case. Edited by Mapletree (08 Jun 2016 5.57pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 09 Jun 16 9.46am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mapletree
This was blackmail, just not illegal blackmail. Or, if you would prefer, she used leverage unrelated to her case in order to precipitate an extreme payment that would not have otherwise been justified simply on the direct facts of the case. Edited by Mapletree (08 Jun 2016 5.57pm) What are the simple direct facts of the case - Just the incident? She launched a case for constructive dismissal, sexual discrimination and sexual harassment. These cases wouldn't just cover the incident on the day either. Leverage is only leverage really if it can be backed up. Also one persons leverage, is another persons evidence. I think when someone alleges something criminal, its either criminal or its not. Blackmail is a crime, and its unfair I think, to accuse people of a crime or criminal action, without them having been convicted - or in the face of overwhelming evidence. Maybe she did 'blackmail Chelsea' but they clearly believed that what she was going to testify under oath to, was far more damaging than categorically accepting fault, and apologising unreservedly, and paying the settlement.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Y Ddraig Goch In The Crowd 09 Jun 16 9.50am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Maybe she did 'blackmail Chelsea' but they clearly believed that what she was going to testify under oath to, was far more damaging than categorically accepting fault, and apologising unreservedly, and paying the settlement. Whatever she had, it would only have been heard if it was relevant to the case. If that evidence just happens to be pretty damning and potentially explosive then that is probably more of a reflection on how strong her case was rather than any sort of blackmail
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 09 Jun 16 9.55am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mapletree
You are looking at the definition of illegal blackmail, not the definition of blackmail. That's moving the goal posts though, the idea that there is blackmail that's not a crime, and blackmail that is a crime. Its like saying there is murder that isn't illegal, or rape that isn't illegal rape. To me, this sounds like the use of biased language to insinuate guilt, where no evidence of guilt can be determined. Originally posted by Mapletree
''It originally meant payments rendered by settlers in the Counties of England bordering Scotland to chieftains and the like in the Scottish Lowlands, in exchange for protection from Scottish thieves and marauders into England.'' Which is extortion, a form of blackmail. Granted the historical analogy is interesting, but it worth noting that its also the origin of the crime of blackmail and extortion. Whilst its interesting, it would of course be illegal black mail in our times. Originally posted by Mapletree
This was blackmail, just not illegal blackmail. Or, if you would prefer, she used leverage unrelated to her case in order to precipitate an extreme payment that would not have otherwise been justified simply on the direct facts of the case. See my other post. She brought three cases, not just one, and they aren't specifically limited to an exact moment in time or single incident. Just because the other side make an offer, you don't have to accept it. Nor are you limited to making only one claim. Are you saying that she didn't have a case for sexual harassment, sexual discrimination and for constructive dismissal? On what basis. She certainly won her case, getting a settlement, apology etc.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.