Has Anton ever come out & confirmed he heard exactly what Terry said? I thought this all come about due to some snitch watching a video on youtube & making a complaint!
This is today's Guardian's take on the case ,as Henry says let's see all of the evidence before jumping to conclusions.
A black footballer is suing his former club after claiming he was dismissed after being racially discriminated against.
Mark McCammon, 33, alleges that he and other black players at League Two club Gillingham were treated differently from white players.
The 6ft 2in striker claims he was ordered to come into the ground amid "treacherous", snowy driving conditions while some white players were told they were not required.
McCammon has also alleged that the club tried to "frustrate him out" by refusing to pay private medical bills to help him regain his fitness following injury.
He said was instead offered the choice of undergoing the same operation on the NHS rather than privately, a move he described as "completely out of character" for a Football League club.
By comparison, the former Charlton Athletic, Swindon Town, Millwall and Brighton & Hove Albion player said that a white player was flown to Dubai for treatment by an eminent physiotherapist at the club's expense.
He claims that after leaving the club, Gillingham "were effectively campaigning covertly against me" by trying to sabotage his career.
Strong interest was shown following his departure by 11 clubs but talks all collapsed often at a late stage.
"It soon became known that the chairman had been interfering," McCammon said in his witness statement.
"My agent was told by other agents that the job he was doing was an impossible one as they were aware that GFC were effectively campaigning covertly against me with the intention of sabotaging my career."
McCammon signed for Gillingham in 2008 on £2,500 a week and was the club's highest paid player.
The first season went well but by his third season with the Kent-based club, they had been relegated to League Two and he suffered an injury that needed an operation.
In his statement, McCammon said: "The way the chairman approached the matter was that he saw my injury as a way to get rid of any financial obligations such as my wages he might have as a result of my contract.
"Effectively, he preferred to offer me some money to get out of the contract rather than have to pay for my injury and help me back to recuperation.
"There was at least eight months left on my contract. It was essential that I completed the operation as soon as possible so that I could get my fitness to the right level and start with the team again."
Instead, it is alleged, McCammon was "stalled for as long as possible" and eventually he was offered money to terminate his contract.
He is suing Gillingham and its chairman Paul Scally for race discrimination, breach of contract, unfair dismissal and failure of his ex-employer to pay him. The club has said it "wholly rejects" McCammon's allegations. The employment tribunal is being heard in Ashford over the next four days.
McCammon said that during his injury spell, he had to stay behind at the club for four hours longer than the other injured and non-injured players.
He claimed this was on the "strict instructions" of Mr Scally.
The events which led up to McCammon's dismissal were triggered on November 30, 2010, when south-east England bore the brunt of heavy snowfall.
On that day, McCammon claims that he and two other black players - Josh Gowling and Curtis Weston - were told to make the four-mile drive from the house they shared to the club's medical rooms.
"One of my housemates had contacted another player who lived about two miles nearer to the club who was also due to attend the medical centre with us on that day," McCammon's statement said.
"He was a white player who had informed us that the club physiotherapist had told him that he was not required to come in on that day because of the snow.
"There was a further player we contacted who was in the same boat, ie, he needed to attend the club for physio on the same day. He lived further down in Kent in Maidstone and had a longer drive in.
"He was white and had been informed by the club staff that he also did not need to come in for the day because of the snowy conditions."
Later, McCammon said one of them received a text message threatening to dock them two weeks' wages unless they made it to the stadium by midday.
When he arrived at the club, McCammon said he headed to the manager Andy Hessenthaler's room to confront him about being "racially intolerant" over the decision to order them in.
He claimed that Hessenthaler reacted angrily.
"He lost his temper and flayed the contents of his table. He pushed the table over, throwing overboard the computer on it and all its other contents."
McCammon was subsequently ordered to attend a disciplinary hearing and later received a letter saying he was dismissed for aggressive conduct towards the manager and racism, it is claimed.
His statement added: "One of my main concerns [was] about the race thing and the way it was handled.
"I had made a complaint that white players had been excused on the snowy day and we, my housemates and I, were required in.
"In addition, knowing that my medical treatment was not allowed for reasons that seemed malicious at the same time as another white player had been flown abroad also raised questions worthy of an answer.
"I thought that the difference in treatment was because of race. The allegation was never explained to me during my employment with GFC ".
Ummm, if he's released three seasons after signing a three year contract, how can that be unfair dismissal? It's just his contract expiring, surely?
Terminating a fixed term contract constitutes a dismissal in employment law even if the fixed term has expired and therefore it follows that an employee can bring a claim for unfair dismissal.
Is that right? Surely if proper notice is given he has no statutory rights at all. He was given a dismissal letter which i understand is deemed to be suffiecient notice and the real issue is not one of wrongful dismissal through inadequate notice.
I can't believe a race card argument is being played out two weeks before terry goes to trial. What a coincidence eh.
The terry case was bought months ago and the tail wagged the dog at the listing office in that case . Been interesting to know when this case, which in football terms, at least is very unique (much like Terry's) was listed. Seems remarkably convenient.
The terry case was bought months ago and the tail wagged the dog at the listing office in that case. Been interesting to know when this case, which in the football world, at least, is very unique (much like Terry's) was listed. Seems remarkably convenient.
No im not sure that the cynic in me buys that. Let's see, the terry case occurs in October as is mentioned for court in january 2012. It can and should be heard in matter of weeks particularly a public interest case. If you can try a rioter and send him down above the magistrates sentencing limits in a week, you can hear a naughty word case. Mcammon case comes to light in February a couple of weeks later. maybe the cause of action has occurred much much earlier but it has to be within 3 months of dismissal. Uncomfortably close dont you think? I've not heard of these two cases being bought in law ever before and certainly not aware of a precedent.
As I understand tribunals they cost the applicant nothing to bring and their are no costs involved (unless the applicant or respondent are bang out of order) so not judging the result here but questioning the timing. The courts involved are irrelevant but the characters and issues are the real thing of interest.
Just to put the facts up. The Terry case is a magistrates case and not a jury or crown court case.If you want to close your mind to the possibility that someone here maybe pulling a fast one and using the front pages to help make a claim that on the facts as above seems very remote at best , good for you. It just occurs to me that two cases that have no precedent in law are being pursued in court within a couple of weeks. Floodgates open.
Just to put the facts up. The Terry case is a magistrates case and not a jury or crown court case.If you want to close your mind to the possibility that someone here maybe pulling a fast one and using the front pages to help make a claim that on the facts as above seems very remote at best , good for you. It just occurs to me that two cases that have no precedent in law are being pursued in court within a couple of weeks. Seems uncanny . Will the Floodgates open?
Just to put the facts up. The Terry case is a magistrates case and not a jury or crown court case.If you want to close your mind to the possibility that someone here maybe pulling a fast one and using the front pages to help make a claim that on the facts as above seems very remote at best , good for you. It just occurs to me that two cases that have no precedent in law are being pursued in court within a couple of weeks. Floodgates open.
Posting everything twice doesn't make it more true : - )
And please don't try and pull the "you disagree so your mind is closed" trick. I have my view and I'm expressing it. Disagree by all means but don't patronise.
You clearly want to push this debate towards a conspiracy for whatever agenda you have. Not sure who this "someone" is who is pulling a fast one is. I doubt fourth division footballer like McCameron have that much power. Believe it or not two events involving footballers can occur in the same season of the year without it being a conspiracy
I'm not patronising you but I have come up with an idea and qualified it with my limited understanding of the legal system and you have not offered any constructive response but dismissed it simply as a 'conspiracy theory' that kind of reply can be considered unimaginative or indeed a lot more patronising than what has got you all irritable . The mere fact that in 200 years of English law and 100 years of the professional game these issues have never presented itself in a English courtroom before and now two allegation of race card cases are here in a fortnight, may be lost on you. I however, find this very interesting and l have no agenda! Just do not want to see this game dragged through the gutter, but I suppose you may find that troubling.
I also have no idea how to amend posts. I do not think posting twice make my arguments any more true. I have not got to grips with amending posts yet.
And please don't get all testy again but I did chuckle at you saying 'McCameron has no power'. I was just imagining this combination of Ronald McDonald and David Cameron with his ginger dreadlocks running down the wing.
Ummm, if he's released three seasons after signing a three year contract, how can that be unfair dismissal? It's just his contract expiring, surely?
Terminating a fixed term contract constitutes a dismissal in employment law even if the fixed term has expired and therefore it follows that an employee can bring a claim for unfair dismissal.
Is that right? Surely if proper notice is given he has no statutory rights at all. He was given a dismissal letter which i understand is deemed to be suffiecient notice and the real issue is not one of wrongful dismissal through inadequate notice.
I can't believe a race card argument is being played out two weeks before terry goes to trial. What a coincidence eh.
I'll give you an example. If a company employs 4 people at the same time on one year fixed contracts and when it comes to the end of the year they renew 3 of them and the person whose contract is not renewed is black and the other three are white, he could have grounds to claim unfair dismissal on grounds of racial discrimination. He would have to prove that the reason his contract was not renewed was because of his race.
Ummm, if he's released three seasons after signing a three year contract, how can that be unfair dismissal? It's just his contract expiring, surely?
Terminating a fixed term contract constitutes a dismissal in employment law even if the fixed term has expired and therefore it follows that an employee can bring a claim for unfair dismissal.
Is that right? Surely if proper notice is given he has no statutory rights at all. He was given a dismissal letter which i understand is deemed to be suffiecient notice and the real issue is not one of wrongful dismissal through inadequate notice.
I can't believe a race card argument is being played out two weeks before terry goes to trial. What a coincidence eh.
I'll give you an example. If a company employs 4 people at the same time on one year fixed contracts and when it comes to the end of the year they renew 3 of them and the person whose contract is not renewed is black and the other three are white, he could have grounds to claim unfair dismissal on grounds of racial discrimination. He would have to prove that the reason his contract was not renewed was because of his race.
That's fair enough. It's not happening in his case though ia it? according to Richard J long post above. direct.gov have a good website on this and I can't be bothered to read it but despite being told off by Mr Irvin I think it's a dangerous case for football to lose. Each side cuts about 10 pros every season, suppose the players of colour turn that into a racial decision and have a precedent in McCameron v Gillingham to support it.
Going by the Guardian article, it seems to me that if what MM is saying is true, it's not really an issue of race but one of Gillingham failing to provide care for one of their players, due to the club wanting shot of him from the wage bill and not wanting to spend anymore money on a player deemed surplus to requirements.
Descriminating against him on his (lack of) abilty rather than his colour. Not convinced a white player who fitted the same catagories wouldn't have been treated the same. That doesn't make it right, as all players should be entitled to the same care and treatment, whether they're 1st team starters or reserve players. Just don't see enough evidence there to back up his race claim. A danger for him may be that if Scallywags lawyers can convince the jury that there was no race agenda here, it may well go against him regarding the real issue of the way he has been treated and he could end up being painted as "just another black guy playing the race card".
Going by the Guardian article, it seems to me that if what MM is saying is true, it's not really an issue of race but one of Gillingham failing to provide care for one of their players, due to the club wanting shot of him from the wage bill and not wanting to spend anymore money on a player deemed surplus to requirements.
Descriminating against him on his (lack of) abilty rather than his colour. Not convinced a white player who fitted the same catagories wouldn't have been treated the same. That doesn't make it right, as all players should be entitled to the same care and treatment, whether they're 1st team starters or reserve players. Just don't see enough evidence there to back up his race claim. A danger for him may be that if Scallywags lawyers can convince the jury that there was no race agenda here, it may well go against him regarding the real issue of the way he has been treated and he could end up being painted as "just another black guy playing the race card".
Or how about this for an outragous suggestion, he is crap, at the end of a contract, nobody wants to buy him, no more money coming in, he is offered compensation to go, he takes that or even refuses I don't know , he sees that money to be made from litigation and brings a claim. He may even be influenced by the likes of Terry, Evra, that copper from Iran.
Tribunal cases don't set a legal precedent - it would have to go to appeal on a point of law. Each case would be dealt with on its merits. It doesn't cost anything (at the moment - the Tories want to introduce a fee) to take claim to an ET, but they can award costs against either side.
Reading RJ's post, it seems that McCammon is saying that black players were treated differently to white players and that ultimately was the reason for his dismissal. The article also says that he was dismissed because of his conduct. If there has been discrimination then I hope he wins.
I hope he wins. If he was discriminated against. The article above suggest that in his opinion he was. Absolutely no argument from me on that. However, the article isunbalanced and one sided and leaves me asking myself surely there's more to it. ET rarely award costs unless obvious lying or wrongdoing takes place.I think they have qualified DJ deciding cases now rather than lay panels but I may be wrong, that means that law is applied and can be followed as precedent. I'll have to check this. Football is fast turning into the seedier side of litigation, this no win no fee nonsense which means to some just issue and see.
He's played 100s of games in the league so while I wouldnt want him in our team he clearly IS a professional footballer. That his level is league 2 is irrelevant even if it does make for an easy jibe at someone whose played at a higher level than 99.9% of us.
Lots of "may", "could". "perhaps" and other words suggesting that someone (unnamed) is pulling some strings (unspecified) to have these two cases in court at the same time.
But no evidence other that use of that very loaded phrase "race card". A great phrase that. If anyone raises the issue of illegal discrimination its not them calling for equal treatment, no they are "playing the race card" and so they can be dismissed instantly, in some mind, as making a false claim.
I don't know what Terry said or if Gillingham acted unfairly. Thankfully in this country we have laws and a legal system that protect employers and individuals.
He's played 100s of games in the league so while I wouldnt want him in our team he clearly IS a professional footballer. That his level is league 2 is irrelevant even if it does make for an easy jibe at someone whose played at a higher level than 99.9% of us.
Lots of "may", "could". "perhaps" and other words suggesting that someone (unnamed) is pulling some strings (unspecified) to have these two cases in court at the same time.
But no evidence other that use of that very loaded phrase "race card". A great phrase that. If anyone raises the issue of illegal discrimination its not them calling for equal treatment, no they are "playing the race card" and so they can be dismissed instantly, in some mind, as making a false claim.
I don't know what Terry said or if Gillingham acted unfairly. Thankfully in this country we have laws and a legal system that protect employers and individuals.
This is the glory and the failure of the English Legal System. We have wonderful laws but do they apply equally to all? Do the rich and famous benefit unfairly from the services of leading counsel whose fees and skills are beyond the pocket of the poor. Does the law in its frantic attempt to appear colour and prejudice blind create a system that allows exploitation by those that it is duty bound to protect?
We should always question our law without fear of being seen to have an 'agenda' and the implication that brings. We should allow ourselves the liberty of questioning those that turn to the law and their reasons for doing so. If Mr McCameron is found to be the victim of discrimintion he will be compensated, and rightly so. If not, and these allegation are untrue, what will happen then? What will the tribunal decide? Will Mr McCameron have to pay the costs? Lets see.
Of course we should question. Did anyone say we shouldn't?
As you say we have law (something that I am very proud of as an Englishman) and as McCammon feels he has been unfairly treated he has resorted to one strand of that law ie an employment tribunal. Many others do the same every week but their cases are not reported.
And you point out one of weaknesses in the system. "Do the rich and famous benefit unfairly from the services of leading counsel whose fees and skills are beyond the pocket of the poor."
To counter that we have legal aid. You ask "Will Mr McCameron have to pay the costs?"
I don't know in detail how it works with ETs regarding costs or legal aid but you can't complain about the rich having an advantage and then complain that others are supported. If people feared having to pay £1000s or £10,000s for legal advice none but the rich would have access to the law.
Of course we should question. Did anyone say we shouldn't?
As you say we have law (something that I am very proud of as an Englishman) and as McCammon feels he has been unfairly treated he has resorted to one strand of that law ie an employment tribunal. Many others do the same every week but their cases are not reported.
And you point out one of weaknesses in the system. "Do the rich and famous benefit unfairly from the services of leading counsel whose fees and skills are beyond the pocket of the poor."
To counter that we have legal aid. You ask "Will Mr McCameron have to pay the costs?"
I don't know in detail how it works with ETs regarding costs or legal aid but you can't complain about the rich having an advantage and then complain that others are supported. If people feared having to pay £1000s or £10,000s for legal advice none but the rich would have access to the law.
You have obvioulsy not appliled for legal aid then? it is not availaible in most civil cases and there are no costs consequnces (or very rare) awards of costs in tribunals. So Joe Public bears the costs of this case, in all but the most unlikely of eventualities. Thats you and me. Funding not only this case but many others that have no or little merit. If you do get legal aid in crimnal cases I doint think Sir John Babcock-Worthington-Smythe or whatever QC Terry has, will turn up at Westminster mags on a naught swearing case unless you paid him out your own pocket. (th next question is that if Terry wins he can get his costs back-From you guessed it-the public)
Comments
The R v TERRY case IS going to be messy!
I can't believe a race card argument is being played out two weeks before terry goes to trial. What a coincidence eh.
First post in February so no not a coincidence at all.
No PC conspiracy.
As I understand tribunals they cost the applicant nothing to bring and their are no costs involved (unless the applicant or respondent are bang out of order) so not judging the result here but questioning the timing. The courts involved are irrelevant but the characters and issues are the real thing of interest.
And please don't try and pull the "you disagree so your mind is closed" trick. I have my view and I'm expressing it. Disagree by all means but don't patronise.
You clearly want to push this debate towards a conspiracy for whatever agenda you have. Not sure who this "someone" is who is pulling a fast one is. I doubt fourth division footballer like McCameron have that much power. Believe it or not two events involving footballers can occur in the same season of the year without it being a conspiracy
I also have no idea how to amend posts. I do not think posting twice make my arguments any more true. I have not got to grips with amending posts yet.
Descriminating against him on his (lack of) abilty rather than his colour. Not convinced a white player who fitted the same catagories wouldn't have been treated the same. That doesn't make it right, as all players should be entitled to the same care and treatment, whether they're 1st team starters or reserve players. Just don't see enough evidence there to back up his race claim. A danger for him may be that if Scallywags lawyers can convince the jury that there was no race agenda here, it may well go against him regarding the real issue of the way he has been treated and he could end up being painted as "just another black guy playing the race card".
Reading RJ's post, it seems that McCammon is saying that black players were treated differently to white players and that ultimately was the reason for his dismissal. The article also says that he was dismissed because of his conduct. If there has been discrimination then I hope he wins.
Lots of "may", "could". "perhaps" and other words suggesting that someone (unnamed) is pulling some strings (unspecified) to have these two cases in court at the same time.
But no evidence other that use of that very loaded phrase "race card". A great phrase that. If anyone raises the issue of illegal discrimination its not them calling for equal treatment, no they are "playing the race card" and so they can be dismissed instantly, in some mind, as making a false claim.
I don't know what Terry said or if Gillingham acted unfairly. Thankfully in this country we have laws and a legal system that protect employers and individuals.
We should always question our law without fear of being seen to have an 'agenda' and the implication that brings. We should allow ourselves the liberty of questioning those that turn to the law and their reasons for doing so. If Mr McCameron is found to be the victim of discrimintion he will be compensated, and rightly so. If not, and these allegation are untrue, what will happen then? What will the tribunal decide? Will Mr McCameron have to pay the costs? Lets see.
As you say we have law (something that I am very proud of as an Englishman) and as McCammon feels he has been unfairly treated he has resorted to one strand of that law ie an employment tribunal. Many others do the same every week but their cases are not reported.
And you point out one of weaknesses in the system. "Do the rich and famous benefit unfairly from the services of leading counsel whose fees and skills are beyond the pocket of the poor."
To counter that we have legal aid. You ask "Will Mr McCameron have to pay the costs?"
I don't know in detail how it works with ETs regarding costs or legal aid but you can't complain about the rich having an advantage and then complain that others are supported. If people feared having to pay £1000s or £10,000s for legal advice none but the rich would have access to the law.