Guardiola fined £20,000 for wearing yellow ribbon (p140)

[eversince 76]

Pep wears it for a reason he explained multiple times. If some of our fans wear it either for the same reasons or because they support Pep now the FA wants to charge him, they can. Why is this all being an issue?

 

[Silva21]

Yep. The Catalunya thing really isn't about money, it's about culture, language and self determination.

it's about money as well. One proportion of the separatism thinks they would be the Denmark of the Mediterranean without the burden of the rest of Spain. For years and years they kept repeating "Espanya ens roba", that's that "Spain steals us". And this mainly is about giving more in taxes than receiving ( i think it's the normal thing rich regions do in all decent countries).

 

[ChicagoBlue]

No it isn't. Freedom of speech restricts the state from intervening before the fact - before you have spoken. You cannot be arrested imprisoned or hindered for what you are about to say.

You been watching Minority Report or something??? Which part of “speech” are you struggling with? What you are insinuating is that there isn’t Thought Police in Britain. Did someone say there was?

I want some of what your ingesting.

 

[Academica]

I would wholeheartedly support you.

So perhaps people who choose to wear the ribbon should do so with an explanation as to why they are wearing it and then we can all decide if that person is wearing it for the right reasons. Or we could run an education programme to enlighten the lesser intelligent members of our support so they can make the right decision and only wear the ribbon if they are truly in support of the Catalonia politicians and not just wrongly attempting to support our manager.

 

[Shaelumstash]

I’m not sure why you think you have “free speech” in England, but you absolutely do NOT! People get done for what they say right left and centre over there. There is no First Amendment in Britain!

Lol!

I think you'll find in a mature democracy like Britain, you don't need the "right to free speech" we don't need a "first amendment". The right to free speech is implied. It's a given. Like oxygen.

Everyone has the right to free speech since Magna Carta, there is no need to have it written down because we don't have a written constitution of commandments / rules. Thank god.

We do have laws that prevent hate speech and speech that insights mass violence. So if you racially abuse someone, you will face consequences. If you insight a large group to insight mass violence, you can be prosecuted.

That doesn't make us less "free". You shouldn't be able to verbally abuse someone, just like you shouldn't have the right to physically abuse someone. What's the difference? Are you suggesting we're oppressed because we can't go out in to the street without screaming obscenities in people's faces and abuse them for being gay, black, a woman, or whatever, without facing any consequences? That's a right I don't want, thank you very much. If someone is racially abusive, I want them to be punished. I know that's probably different to how many American's think.

Now ask yourself this, would you prefer the right to racially abuse someone, or would you prefer the right to be protected from racial abuse? Similarly, would you prefer the right to be able to insight mass violence, or the right to be protected from people who insight mass violence? I know which I value more.

I think American's often make the mistake of thinking their constitution grants them rights that most other countries don't have. It's actually incorrect. The rights laid out in the US constitution are available to citizens of pretty much every mature democracy. Other than the right to have guns, which is a right none of us want, thank you very much. I'm absolutely delighted Britain doesn't have a formalised written constitution of rules like the US has. It's inflexible, it's out-dated, and ultimately it's dangerous.

That constitution is 300 years old and not fit for purpose in the modern world. It's why you have a school shooting every three days in 2018. It's impossible to change the law because so many people believe so fervently in a 300 year old document.

The law in the UK is constantly changing and it's adept at moving with the times. So after Dumblaine, gun laws can be changed quickly with no fervent defence by right wing zealots of a 300 year old document protecting firearm rights in perpetuity. Guns were probably needed 300 years ago in Britain. They're not any more. We've moved on. We've become more civilised as a society. We banned guns, no more school shootings. Very simple.

Gun laws will never be changed in the US, because there's this cult like obsession with the constitution which are adhered to like a sacred text. It's the same with "free speech" / the first amendment. It doesn't actually grant American's any more rights than we have in Britain. It just means you are more vulnerable to being on the end of hate speech / mass violence.

Lots of Americans thinks it makes them "free" being able to own a gun. But the reality is, it just makes your kids more vulnerable to be slaughtered at school. There's nothing "free" about that.

So to conclude, just because we don't have a formalised constitution set in stone, please don't make the mistake of thinking that means we don't have rights. There is no appetite for a formalised set of rules and constitution here. We don't want or need it.

 

[west didsblue]

The fact that it’s being reported in all the papers and is on the news now means Pep has achieved his aim of raising awareness of the issue. However the rules are clear and he has chosen to break them. I know the issue is more important to him than football but continuing to wear the ribbon won’t put the issue in the spotlight any more than he’s managed already so he needs to pay the fine (if that’s what happens) then think of another way of making his point without potentially upsetting his employers and taking away the focus from the team’s achievements.

 

[ballinio]

Lol!

I think you'll find in a mature democracy like Britain, you don't need the "right to free speech" we don't need a "first amendment". The right to free speech is implied. It's a given. Like oxygen.

Everyone has the right to free speech since Magna Carta, there is no need to have it written down because we don't have a written constitution of commandments / rules. Thank god.

We do have laws that prevent hate speech and speech that insights mass violence. So if you racially abuse someone, you will face consequences. If you insight a large group to insight mass violence, you can be prosecuted.

That doesn't make us less "free". You shouldn't be able to verbally abuse someone, just like you shouldn't have the right to physically abuse someone. What's the difference? Are you suggesting we're oppressed because we can't go out in to the street without screaming obscenities in people's faces and abuse them for being gay, black, a woman, or whatever, without facing any consequences? That's a right I don't want, thank you very much. If someone is racially abusive, I want them to be punished. I know that's probably different to how many American's think.

Now ask yourself this, would you prefer the right to racially abuse someone, or would you prefer the right to be protected from racial abuse? Similarly, would you prefer the right to be able to insight mass violence, or the right to be protected from people who insight mass violence? I know which I value more.

I think American's often make the mistake of thinking their constitution grants them rights that most other countries don't have. It's actually incorrect. The rights laid out in the US constitution are available to citizens of pretty much every mature democracy. Other than the right to have guns, which is a right none of us want, thank you very much. I'm absolutely delighted Britain doesn't have a formalised written constitution of rules like the US has. It's inflexible, it's out-dated, and ultimately it's dangerous.

That constitution is 300 years old and not fit for purpose in the modern world. It's why you have a school shooting every three days in 2018. It's impossible to change the law because so many people believe so fervently in a 300 year old document.

The law in the UK is constantly changing and it's adept at moving with the times. So after Dumblaine, gun laws can be changed quickly with no fervent defence by right wing zealots of a 300 year old document protecting firearm rights in perpetuity. Guns were probably needed 300 years ago in Britain. They're not any more. We've moved on. We've become more civilised as a society. We banned guns, no more school shootings. Very simple.

Gun laws will never be changed in the US, because there's this cult like obsession with the constitution which are adhered to like a sacred text. It's the same with "free speech" / the first amendment. It doesn't actually grant American's any more rights than we have in Britain. It just means you are more vulnerable to being on the end of hate speech / mass violence.

Lots of Americans thinks it makes them "free" being able to own a gun. But the reality is, it just makes your kids more vulnerable to be slaughtered at school. There's nothing "free" about that.

So to conclude, just because we don't have a formalised constitution set in stone, please don't make the mistake of thinking that means we don't have rights. There is no appetite for a formalised set of rules and constitution here. We don't want or need it.

Superb post .

 

[Esteban de la Sexface]

Lol!

I think you'll find in a mature democracy like Britain, you don't need the "right to free speech" we don't need a "first amendment". The right to free speech is implied. It's a given. Like oxygen.

Everyone has the right to free speech since Magna Carta, there is no need to have it written down because we don't have a written constitution of commandments / rules. Thank god.

We do have laws that prevent hate speech and speech that insights mass violence. So if you racially abuse someone, you will face consequences. If you insight a large group to insight mass violence, you can be prosecuted.

That doesn't make us less "free". You shouldn't be able to verbally abuse someone, just like you shouldn't have the right to physically abuse someone. What's the difference? Are you suggesting we're oppressed because we can't go out in to the street without screaming obscenities in people's faces and abuse them for being gay, black, a woman, or whatever, without facing any consequences? That's a right I don't want, thank you very much. If someone is racially abusive, I want them to be punished. I know that's probably different to how many American's think.

Now ask yourself this, would you prefer the right to racially abuse someone, or would you prefer the right to be protected from racial abuse? Similarly, would you prefer the right to be able to insight mass violence, or the right to be protected from people who insight mass violence? I know which I value more.

I think American's often make the mistake of thinking their constitution grants them rights that most other countries don't have. It's actually incorrect. The rights laid out in the US constitution are available to citizens of pretty much every mature democracy. Other than the right to have guns, which is a right none of us want, thank you very much. I'm absolutely delighted Britain doesn't have a formalised written constitution of rules like the US has. It's inflexible, it's out-dated, and ultimately it's dangerous.

That constitution is 300 years old and not fit for purpose in the modern world. It's why you have a school shooting every three days in 2018. It's impossible to change the law because so many people believe so fervently in a 300 year old document.

The law in the UK is constantly changing and it's adept at moving with the times. So after Dumblaine, gun laws can be changed quickly with no fervent defence by right wing zealots of a 300 year old document protecting firearm rights in perpetuity. Guns were probably needed 300 years ago in Britain. They're not any more. We've moved on. We've become more civilised as a society. We banned guns, no more school shootings. Very simple.

Gun laws will never be changed in the US, because there's this cult like obsession with the constitution which are adhered to like a sacred text. It's the same with "free speech" / the first amendment. It doesn't actually grant American's any more rights than we have in Britain. It just means you are more vulnerable to being on the end of hate speech / mass violence.

Lots of Americans thinks it makes them "free" being able to own a gun. But the reality is, it just makes your kids more vulnerable to be slaughtered at school. There's nothing "free" about that.

So to conclude, just because we don't have a formalised constitution set in stone, please don't make the mistake of thinking that means we don't have rights. There is no appetite for a formalised set of rules and constitution here. We don't want or need it.

Also, free speech was the first amendment. An afterthought.

Ireland has a constitution that pretty much nobody knows of or cares about.

We aren't a mature democracy, but I'd say we've inherited a lot from the times of British Governance.

America's version of freedom of speech leads to family's masking hate as religion, hiding behind God to call soldiers, fags and generate revenue through hate

 

[Academica]

Lol!

I think you'll find in a mature democracy like Britain, you don't need the "right to free speech" we don't need a "first amendment". The right to free speech is implied. It's a given. Like oxygen.

Everyone has the right to free speech since Magna Carta, there is no need to have it written down because we don't have a written constitution of commandments / rules. Thank god.

We do have laws that prevent hate speech and speech that insights mass violence. So if you racially abuse someone, you will face consequences. If you insight a large group to insight mass violence, you can be prosecuted.

That doesn't make us less "free". You shouldn't be able to verbally abuse someone, just like you shouldn't have the right to physically abuse someone. What's the difference? Are you suggesting we're oppressed because we can't go out in to the street without screaming obscenities in people's faces and abuse them for being gay, black, a woman, or whatever, without facing any consequences? That's a right I don't want, thank you very much. If someone is racially abusive, I want them to be punished. I know that's probably different to how many American's think.

Now ask yourself this, would you prefer the right to racially abuse someone, or would you prefer the right to be protected from racial abuse? Similarly, would you prefer the right to be able to insight mass violence, or the right to be protected from people who insight mass violence? I know which I value more.

I think American's often make the mistake of thinking their constitution grants them rights that most other countries don't have. It's actually incorrect. The rights laid out in the US constitution are available to citizens of pretty much every mature democracy. Other than the right to have guns, which is a right none of us want, thank you very much. I'm absolutely delighted Britain doesn't have a formalised written constitution of rules like the US has. It's inflexible, it's out-dated, and ultimately it's dangerous.

That constitution is 300 years old and not fit for purpose in the modern world. It's why you have a school shooting every three days in 2018. It's impossible to change the law because so many people believe so fervently in a 300 year old document.

The law in the UK is constantly changing and it's adept at moving with the times. So after Dumblaine, gun laws can be changed quickly with no fervent defence by right wing zealots of a 300 year old document protecting firearm rights in perpetuity. Guns were probably needed 300 years ago in Britain. They're not any more. We've moved on. We've become more civilised as a society. We banned guns, no more school shootings. Very simple.

Gun laws will never be changed in the US, because there's this cult like obsession with the constitution which are adhered to like a sacred text. It's the same with "free speech" / the first amendment. It doesn't actually grant American's any more rights than we have in Britain. It just means you are more vulnerable to being on the end of hate speech / mass violence.

Lots of Americans thinks it makes them "free" being able to own a gun. But the reality is, it just makes your kids more vulnerable to be slaughtered at school. There's nothing "free" about that.

So to conclude, just because we don't have a formalised constitution set in stone, please don't make the mistake of thinking that means we don't have rights. There is no appetite for a formalised set of rules and constitution here. We don't want or need it.

ChicagoBlue has just been destroyed lol

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Lol!

I think you'll find in a mature democracy like Britain, you don't need the "right to free speech" we don't need a "first amendment". The right to free speech is implied. It's a given. Like oxygen.

Everyone has the right to free speech since Magna Carta, there is no need to have it written down because we don't have a written constitution of commandments / rules. Thank god.

We do have laws that prevent hate speech and speech that insights mass violence. So if you racially abuse someone, you will face consequences. If you insight a large group to insight mass violence, you can be prosecuted.

That doesn't make us less "free". You shouldn't be able to verbally abuse someone, just like you shouldn't have the right to physically abuse someone. What's the difference? Are you suggesting we're oppressed because we can't go out in to the street without screaming obscenities in people's faces and abuse them for being gay, black, a woman, or whatever, without facing any consequences? That's a right I don't want, thank you very much. If someone is racially abusive, I want them to be punished. I know that's probably different to how many American's think.

Now ask yourself this, would you prefer the right to racially abuse someone, or would you prefer the right to be protected from racial abuse? Similarly, would you prefer the right to be able to insight mass violence, or the right to be protected from people who insight mass violence? I know which I value more.

I think American's often make the mistake of thinking their constitution grants them rights that most other countries don't have. It's actually incorrect. The rights laid out in the US constitution are available to citizens of pretty much every mature democracy. Other than the right to have guns, which is a right none of us want, thank you very much. I'm absolutely delighted Britain doesn't have a formalised written constitution of rules like the US has. It's inflexible, it's out-dated, and ultimately it's dangerous.

That constitution is 300 years old and not fit for purpose in the modern world. It's why you have a school shooting every three days in 2018. It's impossible to change the law because so many people believe so fervently in a 300 year old document.

The law in the UK is constantly changing and it's adept at moving with the times. So after Dumblaine, gun laws can be changed quickly with no fervent defence by right wing zealots of a 300 year old document protecting firearm rights in perpetuity. Guns were probably needed 300 years ago in Britain. They're not any more. We've moved on. We've become more civilised as a society. We banned guns, no more school shootings. Very simple.

Gun laws will never be changed in the US, because there's this cult like obsession with the constitution which are adhered to like a sacred text. It's the same with "free speech" / the first amendment. It doesn't actually grant American's any more rights than we have in Britain. It just means you are more vulnerable to being on the end of hate speech / mass violence.

Lots of Americans thinks it makes them "free" being able to own a gun. But the reality is, it just makes your kids more vulnerable to be slaughtered at school. There's nothing "free" about that.

So to conclude, just because we don't have a formalised constitution set in stone, please don't make the mistake of thinking that means we don't have rights. There is no appetite for a formalised set of rules and constitution here. We don't want or need it.

Excellent response.