Big Sam is gone.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
FMF: Do you mean to say that, despite him voluntarily demonstrating that he is a person who does not meet the ethical standards required of someone in his position, that he should somehow be allowed to keep the job because of the circumstances in which his unsuitability for the job came to light?

No you simply made that up.

I'm trying to get to the bottom of what you actually mean by "legitimate case" and his "claim is valid".

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
He claims he was the victim of entrapment, I want to understand whether the claim is legitimate.

If you talk about whether something was "legitimate" or not, or whether his complaint is "legitimate", then it means the questions on the table are things like - was he treated in a way that was against the rules? Or against the law? Was what happened permissible or authorized?

I don't see how you can argue that it is not permitted for someone to trick him into demonstrating that he is a dishonest or unethical man. You'd have to show that the people from the newspaper who made a fool of him broke a law or did something actionable.

Was he treated in a way that was against any rules? No. Was he treated in a way that was against the law? No. Was what happened permissible? Yes - if you think not, you (or Sam Allardyce) would need to cite some law or other that prohibited it.

Was it authorized? What "authority" did the people who contacted him need? None. They had freedom of movement, freedom of speech - just as Allardyce did. So, bearing all this in mind, what do you mean by asking whether his claim was "legitimate"?

Originally posted by FMF
If you talk about whether something was "legitimate" or not, or whether his complaint is "legitimate", then it means the questions on the table are things like - was he treated in a way that was against the rules? Or against the law? Was what happened permissible or authorized?

I don't see how you can argue that it is not permitted for someone to trick him i ...[text shortened]... id. So, bearing all this in mind, what do you mean by asking whether his claim was "legitimate"?

what do you mean by asking whether his claim was "legitimate"?

I have already answered this and will not do so again. Please try to be less tedious in your questioning.

Originally posted by FMF
I'm trying to get to the bottom of what you actually mean by "legitimate case" and his "claim is valid".

What is is about whether his claim that he was the victim of entrapment that you are having difficulty with? Its not ambiguous, not couched in flowery language, readily discernible and easily assimilated by anyone with two brain cells and a functioning synapse. Is his claim that he was the victim of entrapment a legitimate claim. Why that should pose some problem for you or anyone else with a rudimentary grasp of the language I cannot say.

Originally posted by FMF
"Legitimate" is what sense? Do you mean "legitimate" as in he has a legally sound case for keeping his job? Or a legally sound case case for suing someone? "Legitimate" according to what authority or standard?

Legitimate

reasonable; logically correct, justifiable or justified

http://www.yourdictionary.com/legitimate

Originally posted by FMF
I'm trying to get to the bottom of what you actually mean by "legitimate case" and his "claim is valid".

Legitimate

reasonable; logically correct, justifiable or justified

http://www.yourdictionary.com/legitimate

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
What is is about whether his claim that he was the victim of entrapment that you are having difficulty with? Its not ambiguous, not couched in flowery language, readily discernible and easily assimilated by anyone with two brain cells and a functioning synapse. Is his claim that he was the victim of entrapment a legitimate claim. Why that should pose some problem for you or anyone else with a rudimentary grasp of the language I cannot say.

As all of us with a rudimentary grasp of the language know, the word "entrapment" means "Of law enforcement, the act of leading or guiding a suspect into committing a criminal act the suspect otherwise would not have committed" [from the same online dictionary as you used for "legitimate"].

So - seeing as Sam Allardyce did not commit a "criminal act" and the people in whose company he made an embarrassing fool of himself were not "law enforcement", then no, he does not have a "legitimate case" that he was a victim of "entrapment" ~ which is, after all, a matter pertaining to criminal law.

Indeed, it would not be "reasonable, logically correct, justifiable or justified" to claim that anyone in this story broke any law or that anything that one could legitimately call "entrapment" had happened.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Yes, so if law enforcement leave a car with the doors unlocked and a car thief comes along on his way to buy bread and butter from the convenience store, not intent to steal anything, but sees that a car that looks abandoned and vulnerable is sitting with its doors unlocked and he jumps into to the driver seat intent on hot wiring it and driving away ...[text shortened]... d say thats pretty much putting temptation his way and he is being encouraged to commit a crime.

I suppose he could claim it was not his intention to get caught committing a crime.

He wouldn't know if the doors were unlocked or not unless he tries opening one. If he gets into the car he could claim he was mistaken, and thought it was his car. But that would only work if he actually did own a nearly identical car and it was parked somewhere nearby.

You can't arrest someone on intent alone, but if you get into someone's car or wander into someone's home then I think your best defense woud be to convince the authorities you're a few sandwiches short of a picnic... if you know what I mean. 😀


edit: usually bait cars have the keys in the ignition, and the thieves aren't stopped until they start the car and begin driving. The car can be remotely turned off and the doors locked after that. This way intent to steal is firmly established. Some thieves will only try driving away if the doors are unlocked and they see a key in the ignition. The first thing they will do is closely eyeball the car, and if they see something valuable (like a lap top) they might instead try a 'smash and grab'. Keys in the ignition usually means the doors are unlocked, and having no other valuables to steal, means the bait car can be used multiple times without being damaged

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I would like to try to establish whether he has a case for entrapment though and I don't think he does because he should not have been hawking himself around a mere 67 days after getting the England job.

I agree with you- so neither of us think he has a case for entrapment. It is about the meaning of words."Entrapment" is a criminal law concept. And there is no "entrapment" in civil law, so even if the Allardyce case found its way into a civil court somehow, arguing "entrapment" would be a non starter too.

So, no, he doesn't have a "legitimate case" for entrapment. He simply threw the word in ~ once ~ when he was talking in front of cameras. No lawyer of his is ever going to argue that he has a "legitimate case" for entrapment.

The key things he said were "it was a silly thing to do" and "it was an error in judgement" and "the unfortunate situation I put myself in". The word "entrapment" was simply a loose blame-redirecting word that slipped out of the mouth of a bitterly disappointed man with a bruised ego.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Yes we have already discussed this, he committed no crime there is no legal basis for entrapment defence. Good, now lets move on. His claim is that he was the victim of entrapment. I want to understand whether this claim is valid and please note that it does not hinge upon whether he committed a crime, just so that we can be clear.

OK now you are being clearer. I was responding to you saying that you think "there is a case for entrapment" in law. There isn't, simply because he has not committed a crime. However, yes he was entrapped and that obvious and apparent. We should not conflate what is morally right with what is legally right. He was "entrapped" but there is no "case for entrapment".

Was it morally correct to entrap him?? Yes it was in my opinion. But then I don't think I see morality as you do. You possibly see morality as being somehow an extension of your religious beliefs and therefore something is either moral or amoral. I see morality as a generally individualistic humanist expression of what is deemed to be logically and ethically the the right thing to do. From that perspective I see what the telegraph reporters did as being the logically and ethically the right to do - they exposed Sam Allardyce for the dishonest and foolish man that he is.

(Edit. From a Christian perspective, I think it was the wrong thing to do. But the reporters are not Christian so I cannot expect them to behave in a Christian manner, i.e. To be expressing attitudes and behaviours consistent with the life of Christ. )

Originally posted by divegeester
OK now you are being clearer. I was responding to you saying that you think "there is a case for entrapment" in law. There isn't, simply because he has not committed a crime. However, yes he was entrapped and that obvious and apparent. We should not conflate what is morally right with what is legally right. He was "entrapped" but there is no "case for ...[text shortened]... ian manner, i.e. To be expressing attitudes and behaviours consistent with the life of Christ. )

The word "entrapment" has a certain, well-defined meaning in circumstances pertaining to possible corruption or other criminal activity. It does not apply here other than as a rather throw-away word that reflects the pique of the person who has made himself to look stupid and dodgy, and for which he has explicitly blamed himself - and no one else.

If Sam Allardyce is a "victim" of anything, it's not "entrapment", but instead he's the victim of a "sting", which is a word that doesn't have the legal and criminal connotations of the word "entrapment". If he were a man with a more ethical outlook, he'd still be England manager. However, he was exposed.

Maybe one could say that he was led down the primrose path.

Originally posted by moonbus
Maybe one could say that he was led down the primrose path.

Or, done up like a kipper.

Originally posted by FMF
Or, done up like a kipper.

Pants down on the Internet.

Originally posted by divegeester
Pants down on the Internet.

Er... I was referring to Sam, not robbie.