Discussion in 'Molineux Mix' started by RosehillWolf, Jan 22, 2019.
You're NOT the Messiah, you're a VERY naughty boy.
Actually you are wrong. Wrexham fans have been banned in the courts in the past for making banners and hanging gestures in reference to a Chester supporter. Chester supporters have been banned for singing a song mocking the death of a Wrexham supporter.
Once again, this boils down to, "Yes freedom of speech and expression! But only if I personally deem it acceptable."
It's not just down to personal judgement, it's that of the wider societal context and that has always has been the case. Free speech has never amounted to what the individual thinks they've got a right to say under any circumstances. Oswald Moseley and "Lord HawHaw" found that out during the war years, we all have found that out with our parents, some of us at school and perhaps a few of us with our bosses.
This is being over complicated but it boils down to this. I assert that people making aeroplane actions is not a police matter. Regards of what level of offence people may or may not choose to take. You presumably think differently. We'll agree amicably to disagree, albeit firmly.
There are worse things that people can do, by far. I won't deny it. However, they're very stupid people and they need to be taught a lesson about social decorum. However, taking up police time like that is a "criminal" waste of time. Much better if the club had just banned them for 5 years.
Have you ever actually bothered looking at UK law? Clue: 'free speech' is far from an absolute right as you pontificate...
Hate speech laws in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia
Oooo dare I say we edged towards a slither of common ground there!
Is it any different to pointing your fingers in a gun shape at a mother of a child who has been shot? It's not covered by free speech or freedom of expression, because it is not expressing an opinion. It is purely to cause distress to others and as such, is a crime.
It's possible to have freedom of speech and expression AND have laws about things you cannot say or do at the same time.
I guess you think racist and or homophobic chanting shouldn't be a police matter either?
May as well send this to the political section. I fail to see what this has got to do with the two guys who lost their lives anymore.
I dunno but a punishment and public exposure would be a punishment and would send the message that free speech and actions come
with using a sense of social decorum otherwise sanctions will be imposed. We can't hang everyone for every social indiscretion.
To be fair, mate, and not being in your face about it, I think it's a discussion about giving both player and pilot the respect which they deserve.
That legislation would not cover this instance. That legislation protects people from abuse and harassment based on a set of immutable and other characteristics. You're incorrect to cite this legislation.
Also, 'pontificate' is quite a pejorative word, which of course you're free to use. Once again though, I'm sure that we can have an amicable discussion. I merely find myself to have a different take on this to you.
If you wouldn't like it done with respect to your family then don't do it about others. Not a bad starting position...
That's an expression which doesn't get raised much these days but it's absolutely true.
It’s the same piece of legislation that has been to ban supporters for using gestures in the past.
I blame @JadeWolf .
I didn't say that legislation would cover this but you were arguing absolutes which l was seeking to disprove.
With respect to this particular case l give you the Public Order Act 1986, Section 5
No problem. However I fail to see much respect in life in general these days.
Yes but mocking someone is not hatred.
The difficulty these days is that causing offence is equated with hatred. They are just not the same thing.
Crawley fan arrested over Manchester United 'Munich taunt'
Chester FC fans banned over sick chants taunting Wrexham fan's death
Wrexham v Chester: Seven fans handed banning orders totaling more than 30 years
But they are very often strongly connected.
Sadly true. Lots of folk demand respect but too few give it.
Once again, you're simply wrong. This legislation covers people who are being threatened or abused. No judge would rule that making an aeroplane with your hands in this context would be deemed to be either of those.
I don't think Green Wolf was condoning the gestures, far from it.
However, Judge Rinder Wolfie. voice of the people .... any opportunity ehh
Shame this thread has deviated from its original intent.
I blame Moxey
I don't know if you are a copper or a barrister but if you aren't l suggest that you tell those who are that they are wrong because that is exactly the legislation they would use. I think that you missed the 'distress' bit. Anyway, l'm saying no more because the thread is indeed being dragged away from it's original intent.
Come on people, point scoring on a thread started for a player who has lost his life is in very poor taste.
Go start a thread to argue this out in the off topic section.
To be fair, they are discussing the actions of Southampton fans in direct connection to the topic of the thread.
I regularly pontificate, I never knew I was being pejorative.
True but it did get over the top (and yes, l was one of the guilty parties).
Yes it’s extremely distasteful but meh! Banning fans for that is probably a bit OTT. Better off giving them community service & they’ll probably change their actions.
Dunno if this has been mentioned but year in year out you have the Man Utd fans singing songs about the Hillsborough disaster when they play Liverpool. And the Liverpool fans sing back about 'Munich 58'. Nothing new here.
Yes you do get this. My judgement would be that it's really distasteful and it wouldn't be something I would do but people should be and are free to do it.
Why? Because the only alternative is that somebody somewhere decides on your behalf what is and isn't offensive and what you can and cannot say and think. And that is a worse alternative. People do not have the right not to be offended and I would urge people to realise that the best society to live in is one where your mostly keenly held views and deepest felt feelings can be trampled all over.
In my understanding of US law, "free speech" means (generally) that you are allowed to say what you want and the government won't use it against you.
If a private business takes exception to what was said, then they can ban you if they feel like it...
That is their "freedom of speech"!
Well, it's more their freedom of association. But to the point of government interference, theres actually a lot of that in the UK. And I agree with @Green Wolf here. Things that dont offend or arent controversial dont need to be protected. Supporting free speech means supporting peoples right to say things you do not like.
Does that mean freedom from consequences? No it doesnt, but those consequences should be social. Someone says something racist, homophobic or the like, you are within your rights to scorn, mock of choose not to associate with them. Criminal charges should only come into play when it moves beyond the realm of mere words (incitement to violence, libel, yelling fire in a crowded theatre, etc.)
People seem far to willing to put the power to censor or criminalise opinions into the hands of the government these days. I do find this strange as I dont understand why people dont realise that giving up your right to offend or say certain things can easily be put to other uses like quelling anti government speech. This I think is the point @Green Wolf was getting at. If you give the power to the government to censor and criminalise speech they can and probably will abuse it.
A football club just like a business can ban who it likes from its premesis without reason. We don’t have any right to enter a football stadium; we are invited to enter and the club can take that invite away as it pleases.
A football stadium is private land and any unauthorised access is trespassing. It’s quite simple really.
Broadly yes you're right, but it can get a bit more complicated based on the reasons for refusing to do business. (See the issue with the christian baker refusing to make a cake for a gay couple) The courts eventually upheld the bakers right to refuse, but that was only after appeal, the initial ruling went against the baker if I remember.
Can't we just name and shame the "offenders"? That would see some semblance of justice. As pointed out no law has been broken, so let's just get a look at the dickheads who have done nothing wrong. Let's get them recognised on the streets of Britain so when we see them we can tell them what we think of them.
Separate names with a comma.