New laws for football fans

[wellquickwoody]

i agree. most fans laugh and enjoy the banter at games. we try to wind up other fans in different 'out of order ways'. it's all harmless fun, i'm amazed people actually let it affect them so much.

Is the correct answer.

 

[melias shoes]

load of nanny state poppycock in my view and why certain people perceive they represent all bhafc is totally beyond me and more importantly very wrong in my view

this.

 

[melias shoes]

Blimey, this isn't going to get abused much!!!!

I can think of many cases on this website that would result in a banning order if people make a complaint (which they will).

This trend towards removing all forms of offence from society is rather worrying, where does it end? We're sleepwalking into being controlled emotionally by the police, courts and government.

Spot on.

 

[melias shoes]

I heard Ms Costa on R5 this am and whilst she didn't claim to represent all BHAFC fans she certainly didn't point out that her organisation has a membership of less than 500, when we have 24K season ticket holders alone.

Her comment that "banter is bullying" is nothing short of ridiculous and whilst R5 played the "does your boyfriend know you're here" and "we can see you holding hands" Liz failed to point out our retorts to those chants. There are more than enough people and organisations, even within our club trying to "sanatise" football without Ms Costa jumping on the bandwagon.

A few months ago I read a blog by one of our esteemed members. I hope he will not object if I re-produce a couple of comments from that blog:

"The one set of supporters who experience this taunting most are those of Brighton & Hove Albion, and to their great credit, the overwhelming majority take it in their stride. Their attitude of ‘whatever’ does more to support the cause against homophobes than is fathomable."

"If anything it is the Brighton & Hove Albion fans who have stolen the march with their sticks and stones attitude, because they have demonstrated that they care little for such assertions-as if to say ‘so what if I was gay anyway?’ "

http://thepepperpotpost.wordpress.com/2013/04/16/yes-my-boyfriend-knows-im-here/

Thank you Baron. The voice of commonsense and reason.

Wise up Ms Costa. Just because you may have a stick it doesn't mean you have to stir every pot.

 

[melias shoes]

If we sing 'You're to ugly to be gay', does that make us hetrophobic?

And have we committed an offence? Being football fans we probably have...............

Being a football fan everything you do is put under a microscope and magnified all out of proportion. Everything.

 

[melias shoes]

If we sing "one-nil to the nancy boys", does it mean we should then turn ourselves in?

Probably.

 

[blackshaadow]

In the 70's & 80's fans stooped going to football because they had a genuine chance of getting beaten. Tomorrow my son in law will take his 8 & 5 year old to the Amex with no talk about fearing for their health. Now the threat is jail if an opposing fan says something which may or may not offend me. Sport creates the theatre by building stadium and segregating fans who may want to chant one or two names at me, where has the sticks and stones theory gone. The rulers will once again ruin the game if they continue in this vain because a room of 20 people will come up with 20 different objective views, as Joey Barton says "good luck with this one"

 

[Dandyman]

If there was a Nobel Prize for Double Standards, Britain’s chattering classes would win it every year. This year, following their expressions of spittle-flecked outrage over the detention of Glenn Greenwald’s partner David Miranda by anti-terrorism police at Heathrow airport, they’d have to be given a special Lifetime Achievement Award for Double Standards.

For the newspaper editors, politicians and concerned tweeters now getting het up about the state’s interference in journalistic activity, about what they call the state’s ‘war on journalism’, are the very same people – the very same – who over the past two years cheered the state harassment of tabloid journalists; watched approvingly as tabloid journalists were arrested; turned a blind eye when tabloid journalists’ effects were rifled through by the police; said nothing about the placing of tabloid journalists on limbo-like, profession-destroying bail for months on end; said ‘Well, what do you expect?’ when material garnered by tabloid journalists through illegal methods was confiscated; applauded when tabloid journalists were imprisoned for the apparently terrible crime of listening in on the conversations of our hereditary rulers.

For these cheerleaders of the state’s two-year war on redtop journalism now to gnash their teeth over the state’s poking of its nose into the affairs of the Guardian is extraordinary. It suggests that what they lack in moral consistency they more than make up for with brass neck.

Everything that is now being done to the Guardian has already been done to the tabloid press, a hundred times over, and often at the behest of the Guardian. For all the initial depictions of Mr Miranda as ‘just Glenn Greenwald’s partner’, in fact he was ferrying encrypted information from the NSA leaker Edward Snowden on flights paid for by the Guardian. That is, he was detained and questioned over journalistic material acquired through illegal means. That’s already happened to the tabloids. Over the past two years of post-phone hacking, post-News of the World harassment of tabloid hacks by the state, 104 people have been arrested, questioned, usually put on unjustly elongated bail, and sometimes imprisoned. These include many journalists but also office secretaries and other non-journalist types, like Mr Miranda, who stand accused of handling illegally acquired material. The 104’s crimes include ‘disclosure of confidential information’ – not that dissimilar to what Greenwald and Miranda have done in terms of getting hold of and publishing Snowden’s illegally leaked confidential material. Yet while the redtop writers rot in legal limbo, Mr Miranda becomes a chattering-class cause célèbre..... XXX IT IS QUITE CLEARLY YOU WHO IS CONFUSED

The Miranda case is about exposing the criminal and anti-democratic behaviour of the U.S. government and it's British poodles. The only connection with the tabloids is the same casual disregard for the privacy of the individual.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Now the threat is jail if an opposing fan says something which may or may not offend me. Sport creates the theatre by building stadium and segregating fans who may want to chant one or two names at me, where has the sticks and stones theory gone.

The sticks & stones theory went out with the ark. Trying abusing a black man and you'll find yourself in trouble. The same applies to any hate crime which includes race, sexual orientation and disability.
Why should people be abused for what they are? That is why the present laws exist and haven't changed. The guidance for implementing the present law has.