Two minors suspended by club for offensive chanting at Brighton game | 17 year old charged by GMP (p29)

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

To get the police involved is nuts

It's only by getting the police involved in this kind of 'crime' can their 'statistics' be massaged upwards. It's easy to do. There's many a household that's been burgled would love to have had the tenacity and rapidity shown by GMP over this incident!

 

[halfcenturyup]

I think the singing. The dissemination couldn’t be the offence because that would render broadcasting to be unworkable.

Doesn't seem very sensible to me, tbh, but the law rarely does these days. It's better here in Thailand where you don't get charged with anything if you have money. At least you know where you stand.

Anyway, so someone says something distasteful in a friendly environment where it wouldn't cause offence, but whether he has actually committed a public order offence or not depends on whether someone videos it, with or without consent, and posts it online?

The things society wastes its time on.

 

[bennyboy]

It's only by getting the police involved in this kind of 'crime' can their 'statistics' be massaged upwards. It's easy to do. There's many a household that's been burgled would love to have had the tenacity and rapidity shown by GMP over this incident!

Aye and if the burglars make a video of their crimes it would make crime a lot easier to solve.
The clowns have brought this on themselves by posting a video.
City had no option but to chase this up.
No video and they would have got away with it.

 

[mexico1970]

Doesn't seem very sensible to me, tbh, but the law rarely does these days. It's better here in Thailand where you don't get charged with anything if you have money. At least you know where you stand.

Anyway, so someone says something distasteful in a friendly environment where it wouldn't cause offence, but whether he has actually committed a public order offence or not depends on whether someone videos it, with or without consent, and posts it online?

The things society wastes its time on.

 

[paulchapo]

While I found it distasteful and wrong it's kids being kids and I'd class the seventeen year old as still a kid too. It's what they do. Push boundaries, try and shock and at times be obnoxious little shits. It's part of growing up and normally as they do they look back on behaviour like this and cringe and feel ashamed they ever did it. To criminalise it is well over the top. Education as to why it's wrong and hurtful, a ban for the rest of the season and an apology would be ample.

Where do you draw the line in the sand with all this? Who decides what is offensive? I remember when I worked attending a meeting to inform us that nicknames were not to be used anymore at work. Even if the person liked the nickname somebody else could find it offensive so it had to stop. I realised then we were on a slippery slope to hell. Some crew actually didn't know some people's real names as they'd only heard them called by their nicknames lol.

As for our club, they need to put as much effort into pursuing real criminal behaviour from away fans as they do with hunting down and prosecuting our own. It seems they are so desperate to be seen to do the right thing and be liked they often use a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I've got news for them, we'll never be liked.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Doesn't seem very sensible to me, tbh, but the law rarely does these days. It's better here in Thailand where you don't get charged with anything if you have money. At least you know where you stand.

Anyway, so someone says something distasteful in a friendly environment where it wouldn't cause offence, but whether he has actually committed a public order offence or not depends on whether someone videos it, with or without consent, and posts it online?

The things society wastes its time on.

it’s been the law for 37 years so it’s not the law that’s changed, it’s society.

The test isn’t if the words are distasteful or offensive. In fact the word ‘insulting’ was removed from the section in 2014.

Just got this from the CPS website.

There must be a person within the sight or hearing of the suspect who is likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress by the conduct in question. A police officer may be such a person, but this is a question of fact to be decided in each case by the magistrates. In determining this, the magistrates may take into account the familiarity which police officers have with the words and conduct typically seen in incidents of disorderly conduct. (DPP v Orum (1989) Cr. App R 261 )

Which suggests I may be wrong about the broadcasting but was right about the case law in relation to coppers! Maybe they have to be actually present.

I was also wrong about there having to be any intention to cause the alarm or distress! No such intention is required.

But otherwise I was spot on!

 

[Lavinda Past]

Absolutely pathetic response by City, surpassed only by the ludicrous suggestion that GMP are considering taking action against the lads.

It's no more than banter. A bit of tasteless humour, but that's been par for the course in football for years.

City's hierarchy need to take long look at themselves, they're in danger of disappearing up their own arses in the pursuit of constantly doing the 'right thing'.

It's not a fucking personality contest.

It's derby week, a top rag dies, City fans take the piss. Big deal. It's not like the lads killed him.

It's the rags. Fuck 'em.

 

[East Level 2]

Well City need to sack him of asap

They won't if too many at the club support his ideas.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Ta mate

Please see my later update x

 

[mac]

A young girl fan gets a cup of coins thrown at her face. Fuck all from the police. A couple of fans sing about a rag. Ban them and shoot the bastards

 

[Matty M24blue]

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.

I think the only thing they could try and say is it’s a malicious communication via the post. However the lads singing it didn’t post it so that also wouldn’t stand. It’s a piss poor charge to fuel what the media and social media cried for.


Tough lesson, also means unfortunately were expected to take more shit at that dump tomorrow without reacting. I can’t see that holding out.

Also nothing more liverpool and United fans love to do is grass on others.

 

[mexico1970]

I think the only thing they could try and say is it’s a malicious communication via the post. However the lads singing it didn’t post it so that also wouldn’t stand. It’s a piss poor charge to fuel what the media and social media cried for.


Tough lesson, also means unfortunately were expected to take more shit at that dump tomorrow without reacting. I can’t see that holding out.

If only the club would have said "We are looking at it" instead of rushing out of the offices with blue lights strapped to their heads.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I think the only thing they could try and say is it’s a malicious communication via the post. However the lads singing it didn’t post it so that also wouldn’t stand. It’s a piss poor charge to fuel what the media and social media cried for.


Tough lesson, also means unfortunately were expected to take more shit at that dump tomorrow without reacting. I can’t see that holding out.

It should absolutely not end in a charge. A reprimand at most.

 

[Matty M24blue]

It should absolutely not end in a charge. A reprimand at most.

I don’t think it will any decent lawyer could have this boxed up. Bad news is he will have to fund that which at 17 dropping a couple grand could be a sticking point.

 

[waspish]

A young girl fan gets a cup of coins thrown at her face. Fuck all from the police. A couple of fans sing about a rag. Ban them and shoot the bastards

Thing with that is we passed all the evidence over to Liverpool! What gets me is they passed a plastic pint cup around in the away end to fill it knowing what it's for! Absolutely disgusting rancid vermin all those who added to it!

 

[i kne albert davy]

So if I complain when I get sent a video from a utd fan on one of their coaches about foe or Colin bell they will go after their fans? Would Liverpool or utd have done this?
We are soft as shit as a club, we let everyone walk all over us, why wouldn't a letter telling them not to do that again suffice?
This is fucking shite from city, a disgrace.

You’d hope so, wouldn’t hold your breath though.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I don’t think it will any decent lawyer could have this boxed up. Bad news is he will have to fund that which at 17 dropping a couple grand could be a sticking point.

As a youth he will surely be entitled to legal aid.

 

[i kne albert davy]

I don't think anyone is arguing that it isn't, what they are saying is why is it always CITY fans who are highlighted when there is plenty of evidence to show the rags and scousers do it all the time with impunity?

Knuckle dragging is subjective, opinions are contrary and we don't need people re-educated in our social system, that's dystopian.

Of course there needs to be some sort of re education otherwise we’d still have knuckle draggers chucking bananas on to field amd making monkey noises, just look at Southern and Eastern Europe.

 

[mexico1970]

Of course there needs to be some sort of re education otherwise we’d still have knuckle draggers chucking bananas on to field amd making monkey noises, just look at Southern and Eastern Europe.

Laws prevent that, not some lecturing from a paid huffer and puffer.

If I sigh and tut tut in someones general direction because I don't agree with what they say or do it doesn't make me better than they are.

 

[halfcenturyup]

it’s been the law for 37 years so it’s not the law that’s changed, it’s society.

The test isn’t if the words are distasteful or offensive. In fact the word ‘insulting’ was removed from the section in 2014.

Just got this from the CPS website.

Which suggests I may be wrong about the broadcasting but was right about the case law in relation to coppers! Maybe they have to be actually present.

I was also wrong about there having to be any intention to cause the alarm or distress! No such intention is required.

But otherwise I was spot on!

It was a long time ago, but I think I remember Salman Rushdie couldn't be charged with a public order offence because the person reading the book was too far removed from the offence committed in writing the material that was alleged to be offensive.

Seems to me, Rushdie = the three lads, the book publisher = the guy who posted the tiktok and the people offended are still too far removed.

I wonder if they are being heavy-handed as part of a crackdown on "antisocial" behaviour at football grounds ..... and it will all blow over now the point has been made.

Otoh, what the fuck do I know.