So who is this so called fan then?

[Flatulent_Bob]

How many convicted rapists, robbers, GBH'ers, drug dealers, etc watch us on a regular basis, is the purge of near do'wells going to take in them as well? Why stop at words, lets have a cold, hard rain and clean up our fan base.

Nice straw man.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

United's safety officer, Jurgen Morton-Hall, comments: "This ban prevents the individual from attending Sheffield United games, both home and away, with immediate effect."

Seems to be a fairly unambiguous statement.

The law of the land is usually the benchmark and reflects common decency, and so saves a club from listing examples of what is and isn't acceptable.

That's talking about his buying away tickets from SUFC, as well you know, and not buying home tickets at away venues when SUFC are playing there, which was what you suggested when you said the club was imposing its standards on other clubs. When you have to manipulate the truth to make your point, it's obvious to everyone you're on shaky ground.
If you want to use the law as the absolute minimum and have no other standard, that's up to you, but other people have their own standards, as do most businesses. I'd be intereted in knowing how you judge whether a standard is legal or not without court case and verdict, however.

 

[Nicolaus_Copernicus]

Nice straw man.

Not really, seeing as KM & HRH appear to have the sold their shares to the Puritans, I want to know how far our moral crusade will stretch.

 

[FinchleyBlade]

Banned from games for comments made on social media? People posting a kids home address, telephone number and calling the police because he said some admittedly extremely disgusting things about Billy Sharp? Some nutter could have gone to his house and attacked or killed him. If you think that is justified for something he posted on social media there is something wrong with you.

Some of the comments are vile, but the reaction to stuff said on social media is way over the top. Calling the police because someone posted something horrible? ffs come on. Its getting ridiculous.

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

Not really, seeing as KM & HRH appear to have the sold their shares to the Puritans, I want to know how far our moral crusade will stretch.

You are framing it to meet your arguement.
It’s not a moral crusade, that’s your words, they’ve banned an individual for making vitriolic comments on a social media platform.
He wants to challenge it, then let him take action to defend himself and those comments.
As it stands they’ve decided they do not want his custom and they’re under no obligation to allow him access to tickets.

 

[snootyfenooty]

You are framing it to meet your arguement.
It’s not a moral crusade, that’s your words, they’ve banned an individual for making vitriolic comments on a social media platform.
He wants to challenge it, then let him take action to defend himself and those comments.
As it stands they’ve decided they do not want his custom and they’re under no obligation to allow him access to tickets.
Fuck him, he can own and take reponsibility for his own actions.

The club had no problem associating themselves with Ched Evans whilst he was a convicted rapist.

 

[SwissBlade]

How many convicted rapists, robbers, GBH'ers, drug dealers, etc watch us on a regular basis, is the purge of near do'wells going to take in them as well? Why stop at words, lets have a cold, hard rain and clean up our fan base.

I don’t see the similarity to be honest.

The club has banned lots of fans over the years however it seems that this one was particularly offensive and in the public domain

 

[WhiteHawk]

The club had no problem associating themselves with Ched Evans whilst he was a convicted rapist.

Came in here to post the same thing.

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

The club had no problem associating themselves with Ched Evans whilst he was a convicted rapist.

Why have they banned a fan from buying tickets because he was a convicted rapist?
That was NCs arguement which was a flimsy straw man. Unless they have, that’s not comparable nor relevant.

 

[Nicolaus_Copernicus]

I don’t see the similarity to be honest.

The club has banned lots of fans over the years however it seems that this one was particularly offensive and in the public domain

Perfectly similar. Unless the person involved is a SUFC employee, they are making a decision about preventing a member of the public from entering the stadium based upon a non linked moral issue which occurred off premises and without using company property. No difference to them making the same decision about banning a known rapist/robber/tax avoider from the ground. They've judged someone by an arbitrary standard and banned them. By this measure, if someone on here posts a colorful post about trans rights, which goes against the club's policy, you a rightful target for a ban.

 

[Valleyblade]

Banned from games for comments made on social media? People posting a kids home address, telephone number and calling the police because he said some admittedly extremely disgusting things about Billy Sharp? Some nutter could have gone to his house and attacked or killed him. If you think that is justified for something he posted on social media there is something wrong with you.

Some of the comments are vile, but the reaction to stuff said on social media is way over the top. Calling the police because someone posted something horrible? ffs come on. Its getting ridiculous.

The club has the right to ban who they want, and we've no idea what they have said or to whom.....

But I cannot agree enough with the sentiment that the fuss over nonsecense posted on social media, is beyond ridiculous.

Billy Sharps approach seems to be to rise above comments made by one of life's many many pricks. We all know a few. On the internet, especially engaging in social media, we're all exposed to thousands of them, and they're the ones who say the most.

The last thing billy needs is someone sticking his windows through or hurting someone. That'll not help rise above it.

I'd like to know what was said though, how and where. Other wise it's a bit weird pubicising it. "We're banning people for saying stuff on internet forums, but we're not telling you what.....or any of the circumstances, or who it was said to...."

I hope it's not an attempt to shame the pigs into condemning some random fuckwit.

Not helping anyone rise above anything.[/QUOTE]

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

Perfectly similar. Unless the person involved is a SUFC employee, they are making a decision about preventing a member of the public from entering the stadium based upon a non linked moral issue which occurred off premises and without using company property. No difference to them making the same decision about banning a known rapist/robber/tax avoider from the ground. They've judged someone by an arbitrary standard and banned them.

They absolutely could try to refuse to sell a ticket to all convicted rapist/robber/tax avoiders but they haven’t.

 

[bigbirdblade]

Isn't this just a mirror image of the Billy comments. We're getting (rightly so) worked up about what the Wednesdayite said on Twitter about Billy which is frankly disgusting and suggesting suitable punishments (legal or otherwise). Shouldn't we then think the same of a blade if he does the same to another club. Any fan from any club who says anything like that needs banning. I don't know what was said but I presume it was serious enough if the club saw fit to ban him.

 

[snootyfenooty]

Why have they banned a fan from buying tickets because he was a convicted rapist?
That was NCs arguement which was a flimsy straw man. Unless they have, that’s not comparable nor relevant.

That's not a straw man. The club hired the guy as soon as the jail door clunked behind him. We're discussing the club taking a moral stance on certain issues and this one was in direct conflict with what they're doing now. Either leave this stuff alone and leave it to the social warriors to fathom out or take a consistent stance, you can't have it both ways.

 

[Nicolaus_Copernicus]

They absolutely could try to refuse to sell a ticket to all convicted rapist/robber/tax avoiders but they haven’t.

I've got ahead of myself and lost the thread of my argument here. Anyway, i'm pretty sure i'm right on this matter.

 

[WhiteHawk]

Isn't this just a mirror image of the Billy comments. We're getting (rightly so) worked up about what the Wednesdayite said on Twitter about Billy which is frankly disgusting and suggesting suitable punishments (legal or otherwise). Shouldn't we then think the same of a blade if he does the same to another club. Any fan from any club who says anything like that needs banning. I don't know what was said but I presume it was serious enough if the club saw fit to ban him.

The comments from the Wednesday fan were disgusting but I don't think the club should ban him, it's nothing to do with them, and I see absolutely no reason whatsoever why The Star have contacted United to ask them to comment on it.

 

[United Aren't Back.]

Not being funny... but why have you typed worse?

Honestly think social media and the anonymous nature of it brings out the worst in people. It’s beyond me how it’s people first instinct in the face of a tragedy.

If it’s about Leicester - 5 people died and some ‘edge-lord’ thinks it’s the best time to make Ill advised comments that would presumably be incredibly hurtful if read by people close to the incident.

It’s not pc gone mad just a lack of common decency imo

You can't castigate the person who mocked Billy Sharp and support vile comments about the Leicester tragedy.
I agree with you in your comments.

 

[SwissBlade]

Perfectly similar. Unless the person involved is a SUFC employee, they are making a decision about preventing a member of the public from entering the stadium based upon a non linked moral issue which occurred off premises and without using company property. No difference to them making the same decision about banning a known rapist/robber/tax avoider from the ground. They've judged someone by an arbitrary standard and banned them. By this measure, if someone on here posts a colorful post about trans rights, which goes against the club's policy, you a rightful target for a ban.

The pub analogy is a good one. If you go into a pub and spout off shite, you’d get kicked out. If you’re in the pub but have a past conviction yet aren’t causing any harm, chances are you’d be allowed in. But again, it’s the landlords choice

If you spouted shite in pub B but offended some regulars of pub A and it got back to the landlord of pub A, he’d also have the right to serve you or not in future. Because it’s his business.

It’s case by case. I’d say 99% of the people banned don’t get the bans publicised but it seems this one has caused a complaints and the club has responded in making a statement on the ban.



I don’t think it is or needs to be as complicated as you’re making it

 

[United Aren't Back.]

If someone has made a joke about the Leicester crash then as scummy as they maybe shouldn’t be banned.
People make sick jokes all the time shall we just ban anyone who says somethin that’s a bit distasteful

What's your view on the Luey mocking snorter this weekend?

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

That's not a straw man. The club hired the guy as soon as the jail door clunked behind him. We're discussing the club taking a moral stance on certain issues and this one was in direct conflict with what they're doing now. Either leave this stuff alone and leave it to the social warriors to fathom out or take a consistent stance, you can't have it both ways.

Please remind me but didn’t the club sack him once he was convicted, only offering him a contract once he was deemed to have paid his debt to society as stated by the law of the land and be allowed to continue with his life.

In other unrelated news a company can refuse to serve someone or have them as a customer so long as they do not break the law.

 

[Inter_blade83]

If I walk into my local pub and start saying to all and sundry offensive jokes and vitriolic comments, I may well have not broken any laws but the pub has every right to ask me to leave and tell me I won't be served next time.

That's neither a dangerous precedent nor despotic. As well as protecting their image, they're probably keeping most of their regulars happy.

Too many people today using scaremongering cliches for excusing being a cunt.

A bit like the owner of the bakery refusing to sell a cake to gays?

 

[WhiteHawk]

Please remind me but didn’t the club sack him once he was convicted?

No they didn't sack him, they just let his contract run out.

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

No they didn't sack him, they just let his contract run out.

So they paid him while he was a convicted criminal?

 

[WhiteHawk]

So they paid him while he was a convicted criminal?

Seems that way. His contract ran out a couple of months after he got sent down. Pretty certain we didn't terminate it.

 

[Nicolaus_Copernicus]

The pub analogy is a good one. If you go into a pub and spout off shite, you’d get kicked out. If you’re in the pub but have a past conviction yet aren’t causing any harm, chances are you’d be allowed in. But again, it’s the landlords choice

If you spouted shite in pub B but offended some regulars of pub A and it got back to the landlord of pub A, he’d also have the right to serve you or not in future. Because it’s his business.

It’s case by case. I’d say 99% of the people banned don’t get the bans publicised but it seems this one has caused a complaints and the club has responded in making a statement on the ban.

I don’t think it is or needs to be as complicated as you’re making it

If i had a £1 for every time I'd been told that....

 

[Davalon]

I see absolutely no reason whatsoever why The Star have contacted United to ask them to comment on it.

Stirring. For a story. What papers do.

 

[SwissBlade]

If i had a £1 for every time I'd been told that....

You’d be able to buy a pint if they let you in the pub

 

[snootyfenooty]

In other unrelated news a company can refuse to serve someone or have them as a customer so long as they do not break the law.

The one they've banned hasn't broken any law. The one who came out of jail, at the time had. That's a strange thing to do, punish the former but accommodate the latter.

 

[Nicolaus_Copernicus]

You’d be able to buy a pint if they let you in the pub

Touché

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

Seems that way. His contract ran out a couple of months after he got sent down. Pretty certain we didn't terminate it.

Hmm I’d be interested in some confirmation of that. I believed it was cancelled/terminated but I’m not as into the Evans saga as some.
Either way he wouldn’t have been allowed to buy a ticket until he served his sentence if we’re being daft about it.
It’s a totally different case of affairs. The club has terms and conditions of sale and this fan has breached them. All fans agree not to engage in racist, sexist or other discriminatory behaviour when they buy their tickets. You break that and you run the risk of the club refusing to serve you.