Would be Millwall, wouldn`t it ?
- Thread starter LancsGordoRoad
- Start date
Yes, right again. The bakers could not discriminate against serving a gay person but they were not obliged to take part in presenting a slogan (on the cake) with which they fundamentally disagreed.
Many Gay rights campaigners were upset at this decision but interestingly, Peter Tatchell agreed with it. He noted that, likewise, a gay person could not be forced to write a message that was in their opinion homophobic or denying single sex relationship rights.
Imo, a sensible outcome, as Tatchell pointed out.
Many Gay rights campaigners were upset at this decision but interestingly, Peter Tatchell agreed with it. He noted that, likewise, a gay person could not be forced to write a message that was in their opinion homophobic or denying single sex relationship rights.
Imo, a sensible outcome, as Tatchell pointed out.
As Lancs says, spot on.
However, for the purposes of the public order act, the football ground would be classed as a public place. I wonder how long it would be until someone is reported for a section 5 offence which prohibits “threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour” or to display “any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting” within the hearing or sight of a person “likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby”.
Added to that the fact that it could also be considered a racially aggravated offence and the possibilities are endless. Huge can of worms 😲
However, for the purposes of the public order act, the football ground would be classed as a public place. I wonder how long it would be until someone is reported for a section 5 offence which prohibits “threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour” or to display “any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting” within the hearing or sight of a person “likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby”.
Added to that the fact that it could also be considered a racially aggravated offence and the possibilities are endless. Huge can of worms 😲
Dangerous ground.
You are picking a fight with someone who will counter the statement 'Look at that lovely blue sky' with a 500 word essay correcting you.
It will describe how the blue sky theory was debunked decades ago and imply you are inferior (or left wing) for not acknowledging this. After a wealth of detail on light hitting particles in a colourless atmosphere and blocking out of all but violet rays of the spectrum you will be left quite weary.
Of course sky will still radiate a joyous, majestic blue.
You are picking a fight with someone who will counter the statement 'Look at that lovely blue sky' with a 500 word essay correcting you.
It will describe how the blue sky theory was debunked decades ago and imply you are inferior (or left wing) for not acknowledging this. After a wealth of detail on light hitting particles in a colourless atmosphere and blocking out of all but violet rays of the spectrum you will be left quite weary.
Of course sky will still radiate a joyous, majestic blue.
So, Cambridge United have banned some of the fans who booed players taking the knee during their recent home game v Colchester. The Cambridge Board has decided that some others, who also booed, but have not been banned, must attend education and discrimination courses before they are allowed to return to Camb Utd`s ground.
Cambridge United say they have judged each case separately and have banned a small number of fans until the end of the season, with their season ticket payment refunded.
I don`t approve of the booing, but i`m not sure, either, whether i`m overly comfortable with the tone of the Club`s response. Of course, the football club has the right to refuse access to their property and to impose conditions but - i`m just not sure whether the response, if it`s solely for booing, is truly proportionate. Maybe i`m wrong, but just seems a tad OTT ?
Cambridge United say they have judged each case separately and have banned a small number of fans until the end of the season, with their season ticket payment refunded.
I don`t approve of the booing, but i`m not sure, either, whether i`m overly comfortable with the tone of the Club`s response. Of course, the football club has the right to refuse access to their property and to impose conditions but - i`m just not sure whether the response, if it`s solely for booing, is truly proportionate. Maybe i`m wrong, but just seems a tad OTT ?
It's worth noting that the PFA organised a ballot of players to see whether they wished to continue taking the knee. The results were conclusive but no one is compelled to take part.
https://www.sportsmole.co.uk/footba...y-support-players-taking-the-knee_427045.html
Cambridge have acted as they see fit and I don't think it creates a precedent. The numbers are small and they have been given options. Those that wish to continue have been given refunds. I don't like curbs and restrictions of any sort but check the terms of your ST and you will see they can make decisions like this. The club has made a judgement and will have to live by it, no other club need take similar action but it doesn't oblige any other club to follow suit and they could take different action another time, or none.
This is a players' initiative and they have the right to continue, or not. For the moment their resolve has been stiffened by the reaction but I'd expect that resolve to transform into action in a variety of fields. It has already.
https://www.sportsmole.co.uk/footba...y-support-players-taking-the-knee_427045.html
Cambridge have acted as they see fit and I don't think it creates a precedent. The numbers are small and they have been given options. Those that wish to continue have been given refunds. I don't like curbs and restrictions of any sort but check the terms of your ST and you will see they can make decisions like this. The club has made a judgement and will have to live by it, no other club need take similar action but it doesn't oblige any other club to follow suit and they could take different action another time, or none.
This is a players' initiative and they have the right to continue, or not. For the moment their resolve has been stiffened by the reaction but I'd expect that resolve to transform into action in a variety of fields. It has already.
I do have a concern about a precedent being set. Agreed that Cambridge United can decline entry to their ground on a as-they-see -fit basis. Withdrawing a season ticket with a ban is the prerogative of a Club, it`s not uncommon. But, I think there`s a mile of difference between doing that and requiring people that have boo`d to go on an educational and discrimination course in order to earn admittance.
I`ve already said that I don`t approve of the booers, but the notion of having to go on an educational course in order to get your s/ticket back sounds almost draconian. I`m not sure that it sounds proportionate and I suspect that this measure, in particular, may attract a lot of contrasting views. My instinct is telling me that it`s a bit knee jerk and not terribly well thought through.
)
I take the points that you and Lancs make Nobby and I'm no keener on any suspicion of coercion than you are but I don't see a precedent here. The police will only get involved if there is disorder, or serious threat of it, pretty much as before. The people who run football clubs, especially smaller ones, are not philosophers and legal experts by and large and approach things as they happen and pragmatically. Those may be the first of many bans, of few, or we may see no more.
If the fans banned wish to go to law there is nothing to stop them and that might establish a precedent, or not. I hope and expect that the issue will lose some of its intensity and venom. I am sure that the majority of concerned players are directing their energies to changing the running of the game and conditions in society. Public gestures will therefore begin to fade away.
If the fans banned wish to go to law there is nothing to stop them and that might establish a precedent, or not. I hope and expect that the issue will lose some of its intensity and venom. I am sure that the majority of concerned players are directing their energies to changing the running of the game and conditions in society. Public gestures will therefore begin to fade away.
