No I didn't


No I don't

That excuse is never going to fly

Employment tribunals wouldn't give a monkeys unless it meant he was unable to do his job or if it can be proved he was unsuitable to do his job, likely under break of trust and confidence. Something which is next to impossible to prove and in a court that usually sides with employees over employers.

This ^^^^^^

We don't know all the ins and outs, but glossing over it as AP has done is convenient apologism, given Lineham's injury.

Only one tool here mate, seems that in your view because there are 'worse' crimes that were punished at the time by a club (and for me he should have been sacked) then a 15st rugby player punching a girl in the face (trust me that could end up with more than a black eye) and the club doing nothing but defend him seems almost ok!!!

It takes a certain sort of 'man' to ever contemplate hitting a woman in the face, his mum must be so proud.

There are literally thousands of previous cases of someone being fired for breaking the law in their personal lives. This is no different.

Crookes stated in court that he was a role model to thousands, I'd contend that lamping a woman is hardly the actions of anyone I'd want as a role model or ambassador to our club

Where did I say it was ok? I didn't, and stop being an idiot. Hitting a woman is a cowardly thing to do, but to say it's on a level with what Cockayne did is laughable. I couldn't give two s what your personal view is, it was your clubs decision to back him that is far worse than what FC are doing with JC.

Rovers fans have no right to pass judgement on FC for this, as soon as you idiots comprehend that, the better.

Hull KR punished Cockayne for his incident as did the courts. Hull FC haven't been seen to punish JC instead they have come out and said his punishment from the courts was harsh. Whether a club stands by a player is up to them and whether what BC did was worse than what JC did is not the issue, but to be seen to condone JC's actions by publicly calling his conviction harsh is deplorable. If there are circumstances known to the club but not to us, then the club need to make a proper statement over this, otherwise they are inferring that violence to women is ok.

That's a pretty big leap to make tbh.

I think AP may come to regret what he said (based on what has been reported) but it's not up to the club to make any further statement until they want to or are ready to. Crookes is an idiot, and I suspect he knows it, and I would prefer it (on the basis of what we know) that we got rid, but the club know more than we do, so I'm relaxed with their silence on the issue at this stage.

The club would have been better in not making any sort of statement rather than what they did say. What they did say doesn't really cover them in glory and does more harm than good.

That was my argument regarding Cockayne, you shouldn't take someone's livelihood away because of a stupid mistake. The problem is in several cases like Cockaynes and Raynors you give them a second chance and they throw it back in your face. I'm not saying Crookes should or shouldn't be sacked, just don't be surprised if he is kept on, if you're not having a similar thread in a few months time, some of these players as Bet said earlier, don't appreciate how lucky they are to be in such a position.

It doesn't happen often, but I agree totally.

I'm going for a lie down!

Agreeing with 2 Rovers fans inside 5 minutes can't be good for me

They haven't done either of those. You'd have to be pretty stupid to think otherwise.

The club suspended him for 8 weeks and imposed a heavy fine, AP seems to think a slap on the wrist and £775 quid is harsh, still each to there own.

I'd demand that Crookes serve as Nicola Adams's house bitch for the close season. With the strict instrutions that if he steps out of line, she can punch his lights out

I think we sometimes read too much into what might be off the cuff remarks and hold people to account for slight imprecisions it what they say. I'd be happy to accept he didn't mean exactly what he said, and just misspoke. It happens.

However, if 'harshly dealt with' is the official line, it begs some questions. The sentence? You'd think and hope not, IMO. So, the verdict? Was there a compelling alternative narrative that they either didn't use in his defence or the HDM neglected to report? Or perhaps he felt that it wasn't proved beyond reasonable doubt, and irrespective of whether Crookes did it, he was unlucky on that count. While that [imight[/i be correct, he'd be second guessing the criminal justice system and it'd seem a somewhat mealy-mouth defence of the club's position.
'We all make mistakes and Jason has paid for his.' Is that an acceptance that he made the mistake of assaulting a woman? Or something vaguer? We don't all make mistakes on that scale, if it is the former, and in what way would what has happened to him then be 'harsh'?
'It's been dealt with by the courts, and we're drawing a line under it and moving on' should been the obvious cliche to use, for a club choosing not to take any action of its own.

Clearly not condoning what has happened, but very much standing by his man.

I agree.

If true then we should let him go simple as that really . If not true then we could really do with the facts and not the hdm version to make an opinion based on facts .
im confused like a few others about the version of events ie a 15 stone bloke punching a women in the face and she only stumbles back ?

Obviously there is a time and a place for hitting Women, but Jason chose the wrong place, the wrong time, and it wasn't even his Woman! Her bloke should press charges for criminal damage!

Doesn't seem implausible. I know we're all brought up with 'Hollywood physics', but the force of a blow by itself is unlikely to knock somebody off their feet, unless they're unbalanced. Even a bullet from a handgun won't. People fall to the ground if they're knocked out or stunned, but not as a direct result of the force of a punch. That's my understanding anyway.

I find the comments by the judge a bit odd,

'I was very uneasy with his explanation that he went outside to 'make peace', which seemed to be an odd expression to use. I was also uneasy with the meeting at the retail park. It was four months after the event and, given he was supposed to be the injured party, I found that quite bizarre.
'The fact he was assaulted by two separate women within a short space of time for no apparent reason strikes me as being quite far-fetched.'
Now forgive me for being niave but the judge clearly has a bigotted viewpoint that women don't attack men, that men must be the instigators in violence.

He has added together a black eye and two friends version of events & come up with assault, now either the sentence shows that there is some doubt in the judges mind as to what has actually happened (in which case he is guessing/assuming a likely scenario) or he has handed out an extremely lenient sentence if he has no doubt that Crookes was the instigator and did not defend himself from violence from the other parties.

Also that not fully remembering events when you've had a few bevvies is a fairly common occurence, does the judge think we have perfect recall when we are sober, he needs to look at previous cases where someone has had a clear view of events as a witness stone cold sober and got things horribly wrong (in all innocence)

The judge is also very niave to think 'bizarre' someone would not want to make things go-away by having a meeting to smooth things over (guilty or not) who wants to go to court even if you are found innocent, it's a traumatic event either way.
I'm not for one instance condoning slapping/hitting out, drunk or not but certainly these things happen when alcohol is involved, yes there are guilty parties, sometimes we never know what really happened. I've seen/read instances of assault the police are not even remotely interested in, even with witnesses and video evidence. It seems that if it is a women on the end of things then you're more likely to 'get a result' for conviction than if it is a women against a man..
Things are never black and white and it is easy to apportion blame/make judgment & one side being believed over another oft on the basis of probability/bigotted viewpoint alone. I have had personal experience of this in (family) court were lies were told from the outset and due to the other party being the 'mother' everything stated was accepted as gospel without a single shred of evidence...

However, he has been found guilty, he has to face up to that, something that will hang over him long after he leaves FC. he should be given an opportunity to continue his career with Hull for now, he should be given strict stipulations as to his future behaviour/conduct, I'd even say that he should undergo regular alcohol/drug testing (which I think should be mandatory in the workplace anyhow) to show the club mean business. One slip, no matter how small then immediate termination.

No he doesn't he says to get attacked by two separate women in a short space of time. "Women" is incidental.

Good post, knockersbumpMKII - I found the judge's words odd as well...


and Judge Houlden said.....
.

All based on newspaper reporting, of course.

He said it was 'far fetched', why would that be? Does the judge not think that women can be violent after a few jars with seemingly little provacation (go out in any town centre most nights & you'll see for yourself)
He made a judgement on probability/his personal viewpoint that they did not attack Crookes first, unless there is an independant witness to say what happened from start to inish he has no real evidence to convict just the say-so of two friends.
The judges words are pretty clear in that he is using probability/guesswork and probably has experience of these types of cases to figure in his own mind how the events unfurled.. I don't know if there were witnesses but the judges viewpoint is bigotted as are most people's when it comes down to these types of scenarios..because women never hit/attack men in their eyes so the man must be guilty...