Free Speech V Police,CPS and Homophobic abuse toward us....interesting article

[DJ Leon]

What a load of nonsense. If I knew that people were being arrested and charged for singing 'does your boyfriend know you're here' then I would be concerned, but I haven't seen any evidence that this is happening. It's not homophobic by most definitions.

Instead people ARE being punished for offensive and aggressive remarks about gay people (the whole AIDS thing and using words like '******' is clearly offensive). I can see a clear difference between these two things. No-one is eroding free speech here.

It seems some people believe they should be able to say precisely what they want in a public place. Presumably they are consistent and think that racist language is OK too.

A load of fuss about nothing in my book.

 

[The Large One]

Well no, not really. I don't think there is any room for anyone to be offensive....however there are surely times that a level of mocking can be seen and taken as being just that..light hearted banter. Why does eveyone have to be so precious? Let's be clear, there is no room for the outrageous disgusting abuse shouted like that quoted by someone above about HIV etc especially in front of kids but where does it stop? An example was last year away at Birmingham..there was this right chavvy bloke in tracksuit and cap and all the gear. ''Tracksuit from Matalan'' went the chant. His girlfriend went ballistic...''Girlfriend from Matalan'' followed. She went even more ballistic. Now it was one of those moments when you probably had to be there but it was so funny. But that is terrace humour. But yet it was directed at two individuals. If that was racist abuse at two individuals then it's wrong..but some abuse can be right! (if you see what I mean)
There is no room for hateful abuse, beit racist, homophobic or whatever. But there is a fine line between what is abuse and what is banter. Chants such as stand up if you can't sit down, doe your boyfriend etc are banter rather than hateful abuse in my opinion.

Many, if not most, people would agree with that - but that's not what's being discussed.

No-one is stopping banter, and no-one else is whining about 'everything' being banned.

The blogger is of the opinion that because homophobic abuse (not banter mind, abuse) is leading to prosecution, that it follows something else - in the form of banter - will automatically be in the firing line next. However, he hasn't made any kind of case for that assertion, aside from resorting to his own paranoia.

 

[Gullflyinghigh]

Well we just do. Over the top health and safety laws, cctv everywhere you go, speed cameras, you can't say anything for fear of upsetting one minority or another..ad infinitum..And now we are being told what we can and can't sing at football matches. Look, I'm not talking about racism here or homophobia or anything per se..i'm just saying that there are controls on this, controls on that..where will it stop? For the record, I would never sing a rasict chant, or join in if some moron started singing about a disabled person or anything like that but there is surely some room for some humour in football.

Beyond the occasional cock-up, usually as the result of mis-interpretation, that makes into the papers can you give an example of a silly health and safety rule? Not silly just by your standards but genuinely 'what the hell?' levels of dumb?

CCTV is everywhere but how does it effect your day to day life? From another view, with so many hours of footage recorded, do you honestly think people give enough of a toss about your/my existence to seek us out? It's a mostly reactive technology, your not likely to be looked for without a good reason.

Speed cameras are a pain but hardly nanny state, speed limits were there beforehand, just easier to ignore.

No-one's telling you what to sing at a football match and I'm pretty sure humour hasn't been banned either. Slightly concerning that abuse and humour are being considered the same thing (broadly speaking) but each to their own. If you ever fear that what you're about to say is likely to upset someone, chances are that it will and you already know it, otherwise why worry?

 

[Questions]

A piece of complete tosh.

 

[PC BHA]

just to clarify some points here

There is nothing new in way of legislation. The Crown Prosecution Service are merely putting hate crime alongside other offences at football which MAY be considered for a banning order if a magistrate or jury find a person guilty of an offence.

No one at a Brighton match at the Amex has been arrested / charged for chants such as "does your boyfriend know your here." No court, in my opinion would convict for that kind of situation. However it could be construed as a breach of ground regulations and I can only speak about Brighton, no one would be ejected for saying / singing that once. The away stewards always warn first regarding persistent behaviour. Anyone saying they dont is not to be believed.

The arrests so far at Brighton games this season, including the two Derby ones were for words / signs that would be also dealt with down any local high street on any day. The argument to suggest at a football match it is more acceptable is not one that holds any weight.

A balance has to be drawn, contrary to popular belief and following on from a recent Guardian article, I am not on any monetary bonus to get more bans for this type of offence and we do not get any extra money for bans achieved. My bosses do not put pressure on me to get bans and we will apply for ones when we think they are appropriate. I have been to court with many supporters who we have not applied for bans and looked at other ways to deal with the issue. Self policing by the supporters is always the best way in my view.

 

[pastafarian]

you cant argue with facts straight from the horses mouth

 

[BadFish]

Free speech should be a responsibility not a right.

 

[BadFish]

To start with I thought this was sounding quite reasonable but as It went on it became obvious that the writer actually wants to retain football as a place that he can continue to be offensive when he wants in a way that he cannot be elsewhere in society. Football isn't different, it's made up of the same people that live outside of the 90 minutes.

If you want to argue that racism, homophobia, offensive language is ok then go for it but it can't be ok in one place and not another. Football matches are attended by families, children, elder citizens and simply ordinary people of all ages that do not want to hear or be subjected to foul language or, as someone pointed out on a different thread, have to explain to their child about AIDS at a sports match!
If football fans are so brilliant at humour (which many are) then they should (and often do) be able to achieve this without being offensive or abusive.

Society has long moved on and in fact football has with it. A minority of fans need to recognise this, get over it and create humorous banter on 'the terraces' that fits what is acceptable in today's society and to families and children. That might take new and true skills and humour but to be fair that's not something fans in the past have been short of.

Excellent post.....spot on.

 

[Horses Arse]

Didn't think the approach was to ban the sort of chanting quoted from the palace fans. I'd be amazed if that was the case

 

[cunning fergus]

just to clarify some points here

There is nothing new in way of legislation. The Crown Prosecution Service are merely putting hate crime alongside other offences at football which MAY be considered for a banning order if a magistrate or jury find a person guilty of an offence.

No one at a Brighton match at the Amex has been arrested / charged for chants such as "does your boyfriend know your here." No court, in my opinion would convict for that kind of situation. However it could be construed as a breach of ground regulations and I can only speak about Brighton, no one would be ejected for saying / singing that once. The away stewards always warn first regarding persistent behaviour. Anyone saying they dont is not to be believed.

The arrests so far at Brighton games this season, including the two Derby ones were for words / signs that would be also dealt with down any local high street on any day. The argument to suggest at a football match it is more acceptable is not one that holds any weight.

A balance has to be drawn, contrary to popular belief and following on from a recent Guardian article, I am not on any monetary bonus to get more bans for this type of offence and we do not get any extra money for bans achieved. My bosses do not put pressure on me to get bans and we will apply for ones when we think they are appropriate. I have been to court with many supporters who we have not applied for bans and looked at other ways to deal with the issue. Self policing by the supporters is always the best way in my view.

Comments noted, however when you say legislation hasn't changed and the CPS are "merely" re aligning offences at football to determine whether a hate crime has been committed...........isn't this the point of concern, because what now constitutes a hate crime is subjective? Behaviour previously not considered to be a "hate crime" (a term directly from the Ministry of Truth) can now be interpreted as such and therefore criminalisation can follow. Feels like a worrying change to me, even more so if you don't trust the CPS.

Reassuring that you say singing DYBKYH etc. would not get to court, however I note you also say you would not get thrown out the Amex for singing it "ONCE". This indicates that BHA have taken a position on that chant in ground regulations and ergo fans would get a warning for singing it. Once again then we have a change in attitudes to some chanting which is not criminal and tenuously offensive. Further, given that these kinds of matters tend to operate on a "thin end of the wedge" basis, time will tell on whether more behaviours such as singing DYBKYH are added to the hate crime list.

Re the Derby incident, and comparison to incidents in town, whilst I take the point, in all likelihood would the Police seek to ban individuals found guilty from town for 3 years if they were found guilty for the same offence? I know we have asbos etc. but people don't get these kind of restrictions for violent assaults?

As for funding, football does represent a rare source of income for the Police, and the Police lobby Govt to secure costs are paid.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...lls-millions-as-budget-cuts-loom-2094521.html

Whilst I take your point about banning orders, personally I think there is potential conflict of interest for Police forces concerning income, and rising numbers of arrests for hate crimes would be a neat way to backfill on declining numbers for arrests for actual violence.

Just my views, I appreciate your own perspective and not least your willingness to post on here.

 

[essexeagle]

Beyond the occasional cock-up, usually as the result of mis-interpretation, that makes into the papers can you give an example of a silly health and safety rule? Not silly just by your standards but genuinely 'what the hell?' levels of dumb?

I work at Stansted airport and drive airside. the speed limit is 10mph. I have to wear a seatbelt. To me, that is nuts. I also have to wear my yellow hi-viz jacket whilst driving said vehicle. Just as nuts. This hi-viz jacket also has to be fastened using the velcro, whilst driving my vehicle, at 10mph, with my seatbelt on!! Absolutely ludicrous! Is that a good enough example?

Judging by your stringent defence of health and safety nonsense, I guess you are the local leader for Brighton HSE?

 

[The Large One]

I work at Stansted airport and drive airside. the speed limit is 10mph. I have to wear a seatbelt. To me, that is nuts. I also have to wear my yellow hi-viz jacket whilst driving said vehicle. Just as nuts. This hi-viz jacket also has to be fastened using the velcro, whilst driving my vehicle, at 10mph, with my seatbelt on!! Absolutely ludicrous! Is that a good enough example?

Nope.

 

[Simster]

Nope.

This.

Nothing unreasonable about that at all.

 

[narly101]

Beyond the occasional cock-up, usually as the result of mis-interpretation, that makes into the papers can you give an example of a silly health and safety rule? Not silly just by your standards but genuinely 'what the hell?' levels of dumb?

CCTV is everywhere but how does it effect your day to day life? From another view, with so many hours of footage recorded, do you honestly think people give enough of a toss about your/my existence to seek us out? It's a mostly reactive technology, your not likely to be looked for without a good reason.

Speed cameras are a pain but hardly nanny state, speed limits were there beforehand, just easier to ignore.

No-one's telling you what to sing at a football match and I'm pretty sure humour hasn't been banned either. Slightly concerning that abuse and humour are being considered the same thing (broadly speaking) but each to their own. If you ever fear that what you're about to say is likely to upset someone, chances are that it will and you already know it, otherwise why worry?

Couldn't have put it better myself.

 

[essexeagle]

This.

Nothing unreasonable about that at all.

I guess we can't get over the Palace thing then? I am, however, touched that you are so symathetic with the rules and regs that keep me safe!

 

[Gullflyinghigh]

I work at Stansted airport and drive airside. the speed limit is 10mph. I have to wear a seatbelt. To me, that is nuts. I also have to wear my yellow hi-viz jacket whilst driving said vehicle. Just as nuts. This hi-viz jacket also has to be fastened using the velcro, whilst driving my vehicle, at 10mph, with my seatbelt on!! Absolutely ludicrous! Is that a good enough example?

Judging by your stringent defence of health and safety nonsense, I guess you are the local leader for Brighton HSE?

Oh not even close my friend!

That's what I meant when I spoke about a genuinely dumb example though, whilst I agree that those rules would probably annoy me as well they're not unreasonable requests, nor are they ludicrous.

 

[Napper]

Agree with article,

Homophobic stuff may stop in grounds but most men are not going to ignore the fact they can goad us with the biggest insult ie being gay. It will continue , possibly more . Just not in the ground,

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Agree with article,

Homophobic stuff may stop in grounds but most men are not going to ignore the fact they can goad us with the biggest insult ie being gay. It will continue , possibly more . Just not in the ground,

Eh?

In what sense is being said to be gay the "biggest insult" possible?

 

[Twinkle Toes]

What a load of nonsense. If I knew that people were being arrested and charged for singing 'does your boyfriend know you're here' then I would be concerned, but I haven't seen any evidence that this is happening. It's not homophobic by most definitions.

Instead people ARE being punished for offensive and aggressive remarks about gay people (the whole AIDS thing and using words like '******' is clearly offensive). I can see a clear difference between these two things. No-one is eroding free speech here.

It seems some people believe they should be able to say precisely what they want in a public place. Presumably they are consistent and think that racist language is OK too.

A load of fuss about nothing in my book.

Good points well made Leon. The minority of idiots who think their right to 'free speech' is being curtailed should understand that with free speech in public goes personal responsibility. It appears to me that those individuals who have such an issue with moderating their use of offensive &/or inappropriate language on matchday have turned into the very Bleaters that they apparently despise so much. Perhaps they need to get a foul-mouthed, offensive campaign going to win over the rest of society?

 

[essexeagle]

Oh not even close my friend!

That's what I meant when I spoke about a genuinely dumb example though, whilst I agree that those rules would probably annoy me as well they're not unreasonable requests, nor are they ludicrous.

Really? The fact my hi-viz HAS to be fastened whilst sitting inside a protective layer of steel (with a seatbelt on, at 10mph etc) isn't ludicrous? I am stunned!