ThreeSixes
Vital Football Hero
What if you were booing someone that was booing? It's all very confusing
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.Think it panned-out quite well but once it had cooled down some of the sultanas were found to be so big that the icing was out of kilter.......
As for the legal case, IIRC, the UK Supreme Ct found in favour of the bakers.
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.
The booer becomes the booee...(apologies to Micky Flanagan)What if you were booing someone that was booing? It's all very confusing
As Lancs says, spot on.I would imagine as the stadium is private property you can be asked to leave/ejected simply if they didn’t want you there. Similar to being refused entry to a pub or club, or if somebody was standing in the middle of your front garden and you didn’t want them there.
I suspect a refund would have to be given in these instances though, as ejection for booing I don’t think would be in the season ticket t&cs.
How do you arrive at:
"a majority of fans ....support players..." (kneeling in support of BLM) ?
Stop making stuff up to argue with and read reports of the Exeter & Cambridge games.
What if you were booing someone that was booing? It's all very confusing
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
Agreed, sets a dangerous precedent for any future gestures by the players.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 ?
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.
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.
I did read reports from/about both Clubs.Stop making stuff up to argue with and read reports of the Exeter & Cambridge games.
Hmmm.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.
This is a players' initiative and they have the right to continue, or not.
Agreed, sets a dangerous precedent for any future gestures by the players.
"If you dont agree, get out".
I'd like to know who decides what's right or wrong and at what point do we get the police involved.