What you'll think about Imps ?
I don't think it's our place to be taking sides against Ince...calling him "Imps" and what not. Whatever disagreement there is, it's a personal matter between Jack and Ince.
You may decide its personal and shouldn't be an issue, but have you considered the impact on the national team?
Ince broke the code that exists between team mates, and indeed, any work colleagues.
Whether or not a player feels his team mate has acted incorrectly, players do not go public, and especially do not give evidence in a court of law against their team mates. (However, I imagine that would not be the case in a situation involving a major crime such as rae or serious assault).
Where is this 'code' written?
You are, of course, right. There is no written code.
Do you have any idea as to how the law works and it's regard of such 'codes'?
You are, of course, right. There is no written code.
Do you know the nature and extent of the testimony provided?
No
Was it 'against' Jack...or a simple description as to the nature of his personal dealings with Berry...or in other words, testimony to help establish Berry's character?
No idea.
Are you aware of the power of subpoena? Should Ince have waited until subpoenaed to testify?
Yes, because then he would not be voluntarily testing against a team mate.
How will the other squad members feel about having a "grass" in their team? Someone who's prepaed to give evidence against a team mate? Will Ince now go running to the Coach and tell tales on his other teammates?.
Whats also concerning is that Ince appears to have made up his evidence. This is even more outrageous.
Justice Walker said he "did not find Ince a convincing witness" and "was not satisfied that he had a clear recollection of events which occurred more than three years ago".
Apparently you have more information than do the rest of us. If that be the case then by all means, please do share.
In all these cases concerning Ronaldo and prostitutes and, even, the alleged Man Utd rape case, the team did not speak out against their team mates. In fact the whole team got a £1 million fine. They closed ranks.
I would like to state that if the player had raped the girl, personally, I would like to think that other players would give evidence against him, as this is a truly heinous crime.
...and this is relevant, how? If the entire Man. U team jumps off a bridge, is that in anyway indicative as to how Ince should act under similar circumstances?
Perhaps a poor example, but the principle remains. A team sticks together.
I think Ince has now lost the trust of the players and team morale will suffer because of this. Imagine the players decide to go out for a drink together. They won't want Ince there to rush back and tell tales the next day. He turned against one of his own and the players will be thinking it may be one of them next.
So your position is one of circle the wagon regardless, right? Now consider the scenario you presented above...the rape of a girl. Suppose Ince was testifying about that incident and his testimony carried possible negative implications for Jack. The team's morale could similarly be affected, no? Suppose under that scenario the team was against Ince for having testified (even though you yourself concede it would be the proper thing to do)..would we still be justified in taking sides and disparaging Ince? Or is such disparagement justified on the basis of whichever side of the issue we find ourselves aligned?
No, we should applaud Ince for telling the truth, despite risking being shunned by his team mates. And, yes, this would have a devestating effect on morale
Bakes, I thought, for some reason, that you had some working knowledge of the legal world? I may be incorrect, but I thought from your posts that this may be the case. Either way, I think you should consider what we know.
Berry sued Jack and won his case. Ince didn't testify.
Jack appealed and the decision was overturned. Ince didn't testify.
Jack sued Berry and won. The judge "did not find Ince a convincing witness"
At the first hearing, Berry had no idea if he was going to win, so why not call his key witness at that stage?
From the information in the public domain, it looks like Ince was there to support Berry and at best, couldn't really remember whatever incident he was there to testify to.
I personally feel that if you cannot remember the incident clearly, why testify against your team mate?
Like it or not, there is a code that virtually everyone adheres to. You cover for your mates, you don't tell tales, you don't break ranks. These are not my rules, and each person will decide to draw the line where they see fit. Its easy to take the moral high ground, but this is reality. For instance, should Maradonas team mates have approached the referee in the England World Cup match and point out that Maradona did, indeed, handle the ball?
If Ince had relevent and accurate testimony, then he had a moral duty to testify, regardless of the effect it would have on team morale. Whether he went ahead and testified is his decision. You have to live by your decisions. Considering the judges comments, which are very damning sentiments in a court of law, Ince made the wrong decision. He didn't help Berrys case and has placed himself in a dubious situation with his colleagues.
Be honest , Bakes, if Jack and Ince were friends of yours, how would you now feel about Ince?
