So who is this so called fan then?

[1889]

One of the biggest flaws of modern life is the lack of good manners and respect, discipline and punishment.

The rights of schools and parents to exercise control is being eroded year on year, to the detriment of society.

This incident maybe the thin end of the wedge, but people think they can say what they like, about whom ever they like, whenever they like on social media platforms, without consequence.

Somebody has to take a stand and I applaud Sheffield United for their actions and hope they are the first of many, to use their rights as a private company to say who they do or do not want as a customer. It is a sad indictment on standards of behaviour that they have had to do it.

What’s more, I don’t remember many people criticising Derby County or defending ‘free speech’ when they took the decision to ban their supporter, for making distasteful comments about Billy Sharps son?

 

[CrookesBlade]

Some silly cunt seems to have posted something in very bad taste on one of the clubs social media platforms (which are essentially a public record, they may as well have had this published as an advert in the Star) about the recently deceased Leicester chairman. The club have decided this individual's comments have brought the club's good name into disrepute and wishes to end this association.

This situation has absolutely nothing to do with Ched Evans. The levels of whabaoutery on this thread are ridiculous.

Freedom of speech isn't freedom from response or consequence. If he posted that on his employers Facebook page he'd lose his job, if he tried getting into the Leadmill with his comments printed on a t shirt he wouldn't be allowed in, etc.

 

[Nicolaus_Copernicus]

Some silly cunt seems to have posted something in very bad taste on one of the clubs social media platforms (which are essentially a public record, they may as well have had this published as an advert in the Star) about the recently deceased Leicester chairman. The club have decided this individual's comments have brought the club's good name into disrepute and wishes to end this association.

This situation has absolutely nothing to do with Ched Evans. The levels of whabaoutery on this thread are ridiculous.

Freedom of speech isn't freedom from response or consequence. If he posted that on his employers Facebook page he'd lose his job, if he tried getting into the Leadmill with his comments printed on a t shirt he wouldn't be allowed in, etc.

I don't like the use of the 'c' word. I along with 90% of the country's population find it a grossly offensive word, so does the law. If you used it in front of your employer you'd lose your job, or if you walked about with it printed on a t-shirt you'd be arrested. You've also posted it on a social media platform......

 

[GRUMPY BLADE]

I don't like the use of the 'c' word. I along with 90% of the country's population find it a grossly offensive word, so does the law. If you used it in front of your employer you'd lose your job, or if you walked about with it printed on a t-shirt you'd be arrested. You've also posted it on a social media platform......

Aye stop being a cunt will yer?

 

[Addison]

Some silly cunt seems to have posted something in very bad taste on one of the clubs social media platforms (which are essentially a public record, they may as well have had this published as an advert in the Star) about the recently deceased Leicester chairman. The club have decided this individual's comments have brought the club's good name into disrepute and wishes to end this association.

This situation has absolutely nothing to do with Ched Evans. The levels of whabaoutery on this thread are ridiculous.

Freedom of speech isn't freedom from response or consequence. If he posted that on his employers Facebook page he'd lose his job, if he tried getting into the Leadmill with his comments printed on a t shirt he wouldn't be allowed in, etc.

If thats true then well done to the Club for taking swift action unlike our neighbours. Meanwhile decent Sheffield United fans have passed their condolences onto Leicester City.

https://www.foxestalk.co.uk/topic/117285-condolences-from-sheffield-united/

 

[snootyfenooty]

Seriously? We have had a million, trillion threads on Ched. Isn't it time to give it a rest.

There was no need to bring up Evans past, it is exactly that, past.
This is a different situation totally, how are we ever going to get past what happened years ago, is people can't just drop it??

It's a perfect yardstick to measure the clubs new-found morality policy, so it's not a Ched thread per se. Someone mentioned Marlon King also and this is a good comparator too. Besides, if I'm trying to make a point using analogies I'll say what the fuck I like, not what a couple of arsey posters think I'm permitted to say.

 

[CrookesBlade]

I don't like the use of the 'c' word. I along with 90% of the country's population find it a grossly offensive word, so does the law. If you used it in front of your employer you'd lose your job, or if you walked about with it printed on a t-shirt you'd be arrested. You've also posted it on a social media platform......

Its all my wardrobe consists of.

 

[I should coco]

I also am glad the club has taken this stance. I’ve no idea what was said

But we still don't know what he said!

Who's definition of 'vitriolic' is this?

It may have been something very nasty about LCFC or the pig who abused Luey, but we don't know. How can anyone support a ban when they don't know what it is for?

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

They did not refuse to sell to gays. They refused to write a slogan on the cake they did not agree with.

Thus not selling them a cake?

Not at all. The purchaser knew the bakery was owned by a strongly religous family so asked for a cake in support of gay marrriage, which they oppose. If he really wanted the cake, he could have said okay then, skip the message, but he didn't.

They have said many times that they are happy to sell many cakes to many gays, but they cannot support gay marriage.

 

[Gimli]

It's a perfect yardstick to measure the clubs new-found morality policy, so it's not a Ched thread per se. Someone mentioned Marlon King also and this is a good comparator too. Besides, if I'm trying to make a point using analogies I'll say what the fuck I like, not what a couple of arsey posters think I'm permitted to say.

I don’t think that the club is pushing a ‘morality policy’ at all.

As you say, you are entitled to say whatever you like, and whoever the person was who posted that which is the subject of this conversation was also entitled to say whatever he wants, there’s no denying that.

Where I think I disagree is that the individual has associated himself with SUFC in some way, the club clearly doesn’t want to be associated with such comments (whatever they were and we have to assume they were fairly grim for this action to be taken) and therefore they’ve decided to ban him from attending games.

I fully support that action, just as many fans wouldn’t want to be associated with vile comments (because let’s face it, if one person says something then automatically the entire fan base become villains), the club doesn’t want to be linked to that person in any way.

I have a right to wear whatever footwear I want, but if an establishment doesn’t allow me in to their bar on a Friday night because of said footwear that is their choice - I might not like it but that’s what they’ve decided, they don’t want their reputation ruined.

 

[Southend Blade]

Thus not selling them a cake?

I may be wrong here but they did not refuse to sell them a cake, as I recall they refused to place a certain slogan on the cake, which appears to be their right.

 

[snootyfenooty]

I don’t think that the club is pushing a ‘morality policy’ at all.

As you say, you are entitled to say whatever you like, and whoever the person was who posted that which is the subject of this conversation was also entitled to say whatever he wants, there’s no denying that.

Where I think I disagree is that the individual has associated himself with SUFC in some way, the club clearly doesn’t want to be associated with such comments (whatever they were and we have to assume they were fairly grim for this action to be taken) and therefore they’ve decided to ban him from attending games.

I fully support that action, just as many fans wouldn’t want to be associated with vile comments (because let’s face it, if one person says something then automatically the entire fan base become villains), the club doesn’t want to be linked to that person in any way.

I have a right to wear whatever footwear I want, but if an establishment doesn’t allow me in to their bar on a Friday night because of said footwear that is their choice - I might not like it but that’s what they’ve decided, they don’t want their reputation ruined.

Thats a fair post and brings us back to a couple of issues which arise from this particular case. Firstly we don't know whats been said. It could be a vile comment in which case the guy deserved what he got, or it could have been something of a more innocuous nature which someone within the club took umbrage to, which led us onto another sub-discussion where anyone could feasibly get a ban if they put someone's face out of joint at the club, e.g. by calling HRH the bog roll prince. Why is there a veil of secrecy over what's been said as the club would have everyone onside in a jiffy if the course of action they took was proved to be a clear cut decision.

 

[TJB.]

Reading this thread it would be quite easy to assume, if one wasn't up to date with the current football fixtures and scheduling, that we were in yet another international break

Just to recap, Ched said something distasteful about a gay baker and now free speech is banned by Sheffield United's Stasi? That right?

 

[HodgysBrokenThumb]

Thus not selling them a cake?

If I remember right, simply refusing to sell them a cake would have been discrimination. It was ruled that the bakers had the right not to be forced to produce a slogan specifically promoting something against their beliefs. There are many examples where 2 people have rights which contradict each other, and it is really difficult to determine which right is the most important. We don't know the content of the offending post in the United fan's case, but it may well be sufficiently bad to prevent him from claiming that his right to be a SUFC customer has been breached.

 

[BigBed]

It's a perfect yardstick to measure the clubs new-found morality policy, so it's not a Ched thread per se. Someone mentioned Marlon King also and this is a good comparator too. Besides, if I'm trying to make a point using analogies I'll say what the fuck I like, not what a couple of arsey posters think I'm permitted to say.

Handbags eh. I'm not arsey, just can't see why anyone with summat against Evans, has to pipe up about his "Overturned, and therefore wrongful conviction, for a crime he didn't commit", every time something goes on where the club is somehow connected??
This lad made an inappropriate comment about an event, not even related to the club, but on social media, where he has association to the club. He wasn't involved in "rape" or "battery", he posted a stupid joke!
But I guess he had the same attitude as yourself, an decided he'd also "say what the fuck he liked", and look where it's got him................so say whatever you like pal, might be worth thinking abit first though eh.
The point of the forum is for people to have their own views ect, so there's no need to call names because people disagree with your choice of comparison eather is there.

 

[Northyorksblade]

It's a perfect yardstick to measure the clubs new-found morality policy, so it's not a Ched thread per se. Someone mentioned Marlon King also and this is a good comparator too. Besides, if I'm trying to make a point using analogies I'll say what the fuck I like, not what a couple of arsey posters think I'm permitted to say.

Oh sorry, thought this was a forum where people put what they think. Bit touchy aren't we?

 

[coolhandluke]

IF and it is a big IF, the comments are what I've seen a lifetime ban is incredibly harsh .

I think we've got this badly wrong .

 

[Pinchy]

The law or at least reference to it should be the only standard. Otherwise we're moving into despotic territory. What you may find vitriolic may differ from what I do, the law defines & sets a benchmark.

They've gone beyond that though haven't they? They also appear to be banned from attending all Sheffield United games, so the club appear to have imposed their standard of decency on 91 other league clubs, plus whoever else we play. As I said in my previous post, the club has to be let it be known what the benchmark is for a ban. Also I seems a disproportionate punishment and it'd be interesting to know if the person involved had an initial warning, a right of counter argument or appeal. It'd be extremely worrying if they've just received an arbitrary lifetime ban.

It is the law. Private law. A landlord of a ‘public’ house can bar you in accordance with his own standards, provided he/she does not do so for reasons proscribed by law: race, gender, disability etc.

I will not allow racists, fascists and the like on my property (I’m thinking of adding Tories). That’s my choice. United are entitled to theirs. They have no power in relation to other clubs’ stadia.

 

[Pinchy]

No they can't. It's a very free country, but it still has laws.

Precisely. The idiot in question may indeed have broken the criminal law. I don’t know what he has published.

 

[Pinchy]

Correct but those laws are not made by sufc

Some are. Firstly, If you and I enter into a contract we make laws for each other. Secondly, access to my property is subject to compliance with my standards, underpinned and enforced by law.

 

[Pinchy]

Thus not selling them a cake?

No. They could buy a cake with a different slogan.

 

[west_yorks_blade]

No. They could buy a cake with a different slogan.

As long as it met the standards of the baker’s idiosyncratic vetting process.

 

[Pedro's Winger]

It is the law. Private law. A landlord of a ‘public’ house can bar you in accordance with his own standards, provided he/she does not do so for reasons proscribed by law: race, gender, disability etc.

I will not allow racists, fascists and the like on my property (I’m thinking of adding Tories). That’s my choice. United are entitled to theirs. They have no power in relation to other clubs’ stadia.

They do but does anyone know what the club's 'standards' are when it comes to posting something on social media?
It wouldn't be that hard to find something racist a fan's posted on social media but it's doubtful the club's banned anyone for it.
Maybe racism's ok but a distasteful comment or joke isn't. And that's the problem with bans like this when the club isn't clear what its standards are, along with the general problem of the club setting itself up as morality police outside the environs of actions in the stadium etc.

 

[Champagneblade]

Not only do I have to tread through the minefield of modern life, whilst keeping on the right side of the law, I now have to keep on the right side of the moral arbiters of SUFC. The club needs an anonymous hotline for fans to phone and consult them on whether a considered course of action would result in a lifetime ban;

“Hi, I’m think of consentually having intercourse with the wife tonight, she’s okay with the idea, I’m more than ok. What is Jurgen Morton-Hall, SUFC’s witchfinder general’s current dictat on such things? Any words or phrases I can’t use in the throes of passion?

Or grass their fellow fans up.

“Hello is that the SUFC moral outrage hotline? This is Kevin from Bruss-Batemoor....”

With a name like Jurgen you’ve probably got strong grounds to have him kicked out of the country anyway post-Brexit. Of course it does mean that if you want some kip and the wife won’t stop pestering you “Jurgen wouldn’t approve” isn’t going to cut it!

 

[Demon Blade]

Thus not selling them a cake?

I walk into a bakery so early they haven't started baking yet:

"Sorry can only sell you yesterdays buns"

" But I only like current buns"

Have they refused to serve me or am I being an awkward customer?

 

[Davalon]

They do but does anyone know what the club's 'standards' are when it comes to posting something on social media?
It wouldn't be that hard to find something racist a fan's posted on social media but it's doubtful the club's banned anyone for it.
Maybe racism's ok but a distasteful comment or joke isn't. And that's the problem with bans like this when the club isn't clear what its standards are, along with the general problem of the club setting itself up as morality police outside the environs of actions in the stadium etc.

I understand where you're coming from but any list of unacceptable behaviour would be vague and open to interpretation anyway.

Like my pub analogy, any list of unacceptable behaviour is at the landlords discretion because what I find offensive, you may not, and vice versa.

If the landlord doesn't like me and doesn't want me in his pub because he feels my behaviour potentially harms his business, he has every right to turn away my custom.

 

[Maidenhead]

Yes, but you've hit the nail on the head. An owner of a venue makes a decision based upon the behavior of a customer in their venue. This hasn't happened here.

Not exactly true.

Many a time I've been refused entry to a venue because the door staff didn't like the look of me.

That's exactly what's happened here.

 

[I should coco]

Secondly, access to my property is subject to compliance with my standards, underpinned and enforced by law.

Sheesh, sounds like bad luck!

Was the underpinning expensive?

 

[west_yorks_blade]

Not exactly true.

Many a time I've been refused entry to a venue because the door staff didn't like the look of me.

That's exactly what's happened here.

Do you look like a thug or a minger?
Photo evidence please.

 

[BushBlade]

Do you look like a thug or a minger?
Photo evidence please.

Thug, definitely.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

They do but does anyone know what the club's 'standards' are when it comes to posting something on social media?
It wouldn't be that hard to find something racist a fan's posted on social media but it's doubtful the club's banned anyone for it.
Maybe racism's ok but a distasteful comment or joke isn't. And that's the problem with bans like this when the club isn't clear what its standards are, along with the general problem of the club setting itself up as morality police outside the environs of actions in the stadium etc.

Congratulations for the biggest straw man on the thread - you're saying it's not hard to find a racist post by a fan on social media, then you claim that the club thinks racism is ok because it hasn't banned this post and that it has set itself up as morality police on matters that aren't linked to it.