True to a point yes, but I think more of the blame would still fall on the "boss" then.Err, no. If my boss tells me to do something illegal, I am still responsible for those actions even if he threatened my job. The exception being if he had a gun to my head or something.
I certainly would not get off 'scott free'.
Poor effort. I can make a similar video after the incident has taken place. The catch is whether they have handed the evidence before the incident occured, for police to keep track of it. Unless they can provide better evidence this will be regarded as nothing in front of skilled lawyers.YouTube - Pakistan Match Fixing Scandal - SALMAN BUTT ,amir, Akmal, Asif involved in Lords Test vs England
Take a look at this ****...Absolutely shattered now..Soccer fans have one more reason to abuse....
Life time ban compulsory.....
Hell with these guyzzz
Poor effort. I can make a similar video after the incident has taken place. The catch is whether they have handed the evidence before the incident occured, for police to keep track of it. Unless they can provide better evidence this will be regarded as nothing in front of skilled lawyers.
Way beyond based on what? A piece of video that appears AFTER the incident? Meh!No jury would ever say it wasn't intentional when someone names three specific balls in three specific overs bowled by two specific bowlers over the course of a Test match.
That's way beyond reasonable doubt. Way beyond.
Not much chance of that. NOTW would be liable of tens of millions of pounds I would bet. PCB would sue, ECB would sue, the individual players would sue, and the guy who got arrested would definitely sue. As would Scotland Yard for lying and faking evidence.Way beyond based on what? A piece of video that appears AFTER the incident? Meh!
So you know how difficult it to prove the authenticity of a video? Especially when it comes to the date of it. It will take a monumental effort to prove it's date. And similar things have happened, and the media in question was British, and it goes by the name Channel 4. I haven't seen anyone getting bancrupt.If this video was taken after the no ball, then News of The World will go bankrupt with libel suits and there will be criminal proceedings.
Example?So you know how difficult it to prove the authenticity of a video? Especially when it comes to the date of it. It will take a monumental effort to prove it's date. And similar things have happened, and the media in question was British, and it goes by the name Channel 4. I haven't seen anyone getting bancrupt.
No it won't the video will be timestamped in and of itself. It may not always show on the screen but it should be timestamped seeing as how all videos taken these days are somehow and someway.It will take a monumental effort to prove it's date.
Duress in English law generally only applies if you believe that you or others are at risk of death or serious injury if you do not comply.In the American and I believe British court systems as well this is called "acting under duress". If that's the case Amir gets off scott free and Butt should face charges of extortion or of conspiracy. If it was under Butt's orders then I think Amir should be let go entirely. At 18 a kid will do anything to hang onto his future test playing career. Now if it is true that the fixer called him and he made the choice via his decision, then I don't care if the kid is ten, he shouldn't be given a ball or bat for the rest of his life. I think silentstriker's post was the best and most accurate of what should happen.
Thats a very good point..Poor effort. I can make a similar video after the incident has taken place. The catch is whether they have handed the evidence before the incident occured, for police to keep track of it. Unless they can provide better evidence this will be regarded as nothing in front of skilled lawyers.
Which would make it hard to prove since if the police acted beforehand, there would be no way to prove the crime. On the other hand, we're not sure if that was true and police just waited until after to make the arrest.Yeah it can be time stamped but time stamps are pretty easily faked. I'm pretty certain this is a legitimate video but from a legal perspective it would be far more reliable if it was handed in before the match.
How could any video evidence appear before the incident took place?Way beyond based on what? A piece of video that appears AFTER the incident? Meh!
Touche. Good point.Duress in English law generally only applies if you believe that you or others are at risk of death or serious injury if you do not comply.
There is also a proportional test whereby the action you take under duress cannot be deemed as a worse crime than the action threatened if you do not comply (i.e. it is not a valid defence to say you robbed a bank because someone threatened to throw a glass of water at you if you didn't).
If the ICC were to consider this defence in a hearing and applied the same principles as English law then they would have to consider which scenario is worse: losing your place in the test team for not following orders or bringing the game into disrepute by deliberately underperforming for financial gain. I feel confident they would rule the latter is the worse.
Of course, this assumes that Amir was not complicit and willing to take part in any fixing, which at this point sadly seems unlikely.
Haha, yea, that was crazy. Who was the player? I couldn't make it out.Also have the footage of a player being given a jacket with 10,000 pounds in it.