egg

We'll agree to differ. His point was very clear to me - PiP can pay you more than minimum wage, not PiP coupled with other benefits. I haven't seen the beyond the paywall article to see whether his quote was accurate, but if it was, the punctuation was unfortunate if it was to be interpreted as you have.

Blimey, that's very sad if correct. Regardless, what a horrible way to go, and to have witnessed.

The insinuation was clear" "A minimum wage worker who works 40 hours per week would take home around £1,880 per month after tax; however, if you are classed as too sick to work and claim PIP, you can take home £2,000 tax free per month". If he was referring to a basket of benefits l, rather than PiP alone, he should have been clear.

Not from PiP. A basket of benefits, sure, but nobody gets more than the maximum PiP, because the max is the max. Sometimes, it's ok to admit you're wrong.

I've given you the actual figures mate. They're correct. I appreciate they don't match your narrative, but that still makes them correct.

A newspaper isn't a source. It's a publisher. The source of its info is what matters, you know, actual facts.

They don't. Someone's made it up to try to demonstrate that PiP pays more than full time minimum wage. I'm also doubtful of the car related figures. Most PiP claimants aren't eligible for mobility cars.

I get the point, and agree that it's an abused benefit which needs revision, but your figures are well off. Standard PiP is £76.70 a week. Enhanced £114.60. Mobility element , if entitled, adds either £30.30 or £80.00 a week. A max of £194.60 a week isn't £2k a month.

Mixedhisdrinks has certainly taken a shine to you mate.

Parole

Good. I want to see us absolutely bossing the midfield, and JWP having the chance to get forward a bit more and be more creative higher up the pitch. 3-1 today.

Whisper

Writer

Any reason why couldn't have chosen to identify as English?

And he is. Instead, someone who stands for pretty much everything he doesn't, ditto his mate Bibi, and a woman at that, gets it instead. She happens to be an ICC Judge. Cue sanctions against the ICC. As predictable as night following day.

Well he asked you a question and replied with your usual leftist bollox. That's not the sign of a bloke winning the argument. That's feet stamping.

Yep, that was really interesting. "Football gives you a chance to connect rather than divide". Nice. Tonda has always spoken impressively, but that that press conference was superb. What struck me is how much of a proper manager of the players he is, rather than just a coach. I suspect many managers would have avoided the Israel/Ireland issue like the plague before the players went, but he was all over it.

Ha!! Far from it. I was baffled by the confusion, not so much from you, but form others, so used the lazy way to give some detail. You're free to do your own research if you remain confused. As above, it's academic anyway, and the EFL may well have expelled us however we approached it, but we approached it badly.

I couldn't be arsed to type out a long explanation. The simple point is that in a sports disciplinary panel or tribunal an option needs setting out, and we didn't offer one. If people want to believe that our approach was correct, and that we were stitched up by an iffy panel, that's a matter for them, but the reality is that we didn't help ourselves. It's academic anyway, and fortunately we got our ducks in a row for the FA process.

You're very wrong on this. The club were not "defendants" as per a criminal case. They were responding to a disciplinary tribunal. It's an entirely different forum, and it's standard in that environment to propose a sanction.

For those somehow confused by this, I've let AI spell it out simply. The last para summarises. Your reading of the situation is incredibly accurate and highlights exactly how the strategic decisions made during a defense can inadvertently trap a tribunal into a binary choice. [1] In the high-profile Southampton FC "Spygate" case before the EFL Independent Disciplinary Commission, Southampton's legal counsel took a high-stakes "all-or-nothing" approach. By fiercely arguing that they gained zero sporting advantage from spying on Oxford United, Ipswich Town, and Middlesbrough, they maintained that any sporting sanction would be completely disproportionate. Consequently, their legal team pushed exclusively for a financial penalty and a formal reprimand (pointing heavily to the £200,000 fine Leeds United received for a similar incident in 2019). [1, 2, 3] This creates a major tactical vulnerability before a panel, resulting in several key dynamics: 1. The Binary Trap Because Southampton did not offer a realistic middle-ground alternative (such as a suspended points deduction, a heavier standard point deduction for the following season, or localized stadium bans), they left the Independent Disciplinary Commission with a steep fork in the road: Accept the respondent’s view that no sporting advantage occurred and issue a purely financial fine. Accept the EFL’s view that sporting integrity was heavily compromised and issue a severe sporting sanction (expulsion from the Play-Offs). 2. The Danger of Over-Mitigating When a respondent’s alternative is perceived as too lenient for the severity of the admitted rule breaches, tribunals often reject it outright. Once the Disciplinary Commission officially ruled that obtaining confidential training data inherently constitutes a sporting advantage (regardless of the match results), Southampton’s proposed financial-only penalty became legally incompatible with the panel's findings. [1] 3. Contrasting Strategy: The FA vs. Tonda Eckert Hearing We can see the exact opposite strategy used to great success by Southampton manager Tonda Eckert during his individual Football Association (FA) hearing. [1, 2] When the FA demanded a massive nine-month ban from all football activities, Eckert's legal team actively suggested alternatives. They argued against the full ban, putting forward a financial penalty or a touchline/stadium ban as a middle ground. While the commission rejected those exact options, the act of engagement and providing immense mitigation allowed them to heavily slice down the punishment to a six-week ban that was entirely suspended. [1, 2] Ultimately, Southampton’s club-level defense failed because they gambled on convincing the panel that a multi-million-pound playoff spot shouldn't be governed by a sporting penalty. By leaving no realistic "sporting middle ground" on the table, they handed the EFL commission the pen to write the ultimate sanction themselves.

I think most of us accept he was lucky. Why Blackmore keeps labouring the point though, I'm not sure.

It's common practice for the respondent to suggest alternative sanctions before a disciplinary tribunal or tribunal.

Yep. It's just regurgitated headlines from elsewhere. It's made discussion pointless.

I'm not sure why there's confusion. The panel were tasked with punishment. This was a sporting offence and a sporting penalty was obvious. The EFL were batting for a particular punishment. Our role was to argue for an alternative. The only alternative we offered was monetary. There's no circle to go around. Simply, we were staring down the barrel of a sporting penalty and didn't give the panel an alternative sporting penalty to consider. Our legal team job was to sell an alternative to the panel, but didn't. I'm confused about the confusion over something very simple.