Kids say a lot of ill judged and ignorant things. They're usually brought back into line and explained the error of their ways by parents, relatives, peers, etc. Or they realise it was wrong themselves. It's called learning from the error of your ways. Life experience.Chanting about a guys death because he used to play for United is knuckle dragging behaviour.
I'm not saying they need to go to jail, but its one of those "actions have consequences" situations. Have a shred of humanity.
Why is it being made such a big deal of all of a sudden? Because it's Manchester United. That's why.I've never seen a generation so determined to shoot themselves in the foot. The desperation for likes and comments etc makes people upload the absolute dumbest things.
I’d imagine section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. Using threatening [or abusive] words with the intention of causing harassment alarm or distress. It has to be within either the hearing or the sight of anyone likely to be caused the harassment, alarm or distress, which will presumably include what was posted online and viewed there. I don’t know that for sure, because it’s been a while, but that makes absolute sense. The opposite would not be rooted in the reality of the modern world. I’m struggling to see how viewing something online would not be ‘in sight’. I could be wrong though. Wouldn’t be the first time!
No-one would disagree. I think you may be missing the point.Chanting about a guys death because he used to play for United is knuckle dragging behaviour.
You mean like dead Russians on a submarine, or Hillsborough or Marc Vivian Foe? All chanted about by rags. People have got humanity, people think the kids were daft, stupid and wrong, but the media frenzy and police action is way over the top.Chanting about a guys death because he used to play for United is knuckle dragging behaviour.
I'm not saying they need to go to jail, but its one of those "actions have consequences" situations. Have a shred of humanity.
I doubt they posted it themselvesI've never seen a generation so determined to shoot themselves in the foot. The desperation for likes and comments etc makes people upload the absolute dumbest things.
I’d imagine section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. Using threatening [or abusive] words with the intention of causing harassment alarm or distress. It has to be within either the hearing or the sight of anyone likely to be caused the harassment, alarm or distress, which will presumably include what was posted online and viewed there. I don’t know that for sure, because it’s been a while, but that makes absolute sense. The opposite would not be rooted in the reality of the modern world. I’m struggling to see how viewing something online would not be ‘in sight’. I could be wrong though. Wouldn’t be the first time!
There are three statutory defences to this offence, including whether the conduct was reasonable There’s loads of case law around this offence iirc. Including the fact that coppers should be caused less alarm and/or distress by people saying nasty things to them than the rest of us!
Maximum sentence is a level three fine.
Literally this.I've never seen a generation so determined to shoot themselves in the foot. The desperation for likes and comments etc makes people upload the absolute dumbest things.
I think the singing. The dissemination couldn’t be the offence because that would render broadcasting to be unworkable.So, in this case, is it the singing of the song (out of sight or earshot, presumably, of anyone who could take offence) that is the offence, or the dissemination of it?
Ta mateI’d imagine section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. Using threatening [or abusive] words with the intention of causing harassment alarm or distress. It has to be within either the hearing or the sight of anyone likely to be caused the harassment, alarm or distress, which will presumably include what was posted online and viewed there. I don’t know that for sure, because it’s been a while, but that makes absolute sense. The opposite would not be rooted in the reality of the modern world. I’m struggling to see how viewing something online would not be ‘in sight’. I could be wrong though. Wouldn’t be the first time!
There are three statutory defences to this offence, including whether the conduct was reasonable There’s loads of case law around this offence iirc. Including the fact that coppers should be caused less alarm and/or distress by people saying nasty things to them than the rest of us!
Maximum sentence is a level three fine.
So does that cover Utd fans singing these lines in their chants about us?
- Why don't City f### off home
- Build a bonfire, put the City in the middle and burn the f###ing lot
- You're gonna die, cut them down from head to toe etc
- We kill any bastards That get in our way;
- Burn, destroy, wreck and kill, United fans f###ing will,
- With hammers and hatchets, stanley knives and spanners,We'll show the City b*stards how to fight (How to fight).
It's perplexing that chanting "Bobby's in a box" can be deemed such a serious offence by comparison, yet any City fan leaving the South stand into that passage (a small part of the away end does) are subjected to these chants in their faces at every derby at their place?
Perhaps a few blues should film it tomorrow, when they leave, post it on social media, and demand their fans are banned?
Or should we just accept that two children are demonised and criminalised in this way?
It’s hard for me to know about the behaviour of 17 year olds as I am a 64 year old FOC, and I don’t tend to drink at the matches these days. However I can think back when I was a teenager and if I wrote down all the things I said and did as a teenager, especially at the football and with drink inside me, I’d be very ashamed, but it’s football and either on or off the pitch there’s a tendency to say shit that you don’t actually mean, without realising the consequences, and unfortunately due to social media without it being forgotten about and consigned to the past. Throwing bricks at people and buses, flares under fuel lines, pots full of stones at people are all much worse yet in all cases the police and stewards watch in and do NOTHING. Or you could stamp on a fellow footballer’s knee, shout take that you ****, admit you did it deliberately, and what happens? NOTHING. Or spit in a little girls face, on camera, and you get to keep your high profile job and get to condemn people about far less serious offences. These kids made 2 big mistakes, (1) gloating about someone’s death (2) doing it against a hero of one of the history clubs. The first without the second and I doubt we’d have a similar threadKids say a lot of ill judged and ignorant things. They're usually brought back into line and explained the error of their ways by parents, relatives, peers, etc. Or they realise it was wrong themselves. It's called learning from the error of your ways. Life experience.
Absolutely no need for the heavy handed dealing with this instance.
I am sick to death of all the shit the rags and dippers get away with. I fucking hate it.
City should look at how Bernie was treated for his tweet compared to how Garnacho is being treated.
City should look how much the rags and dippers fans get away with.
City should look at the amount of shit about City in the press/media
City shouldnt be hanging out two young lads to please the dippers, rags and the press/media.
They sang a fucking song they didnt send a racist tweet like Garnacho
Literally this.
Proof is in the pudding. Making a video of themselves and then posting it themselves.
There is no hope really for misfits like that.