So who is this so called fan then?

[Blade58]

Blades fan has been banned from attending blades games by the club due to vitriolic comments made on social media

Club are apparently monitoring social media outlets

No mention of what type of comments or the nature of the comments that has warranted this action

 

[Rob86]

Literally about to post the question in shoutbox !?

 

[TJB.]

Tyler Durden strikes again.

 

[Ainsley Harriott]

Some comments regards the leicester incident were made other night. Very distasteful. But vitriolic? I’ve typed worse.

 

[Stretch]

Guessing it was something to do with the tragedy at Leicester?

 

[Stretch]

Some comments regards the leicester incident were made other night. Very distasteful. But vitriolic? I’ve typed worse.

Beat me to it mate.

 

[Bladeinleeds]

Some comments regards the leicester incident were made other night. Very distasteful. But vitriolic? I’ve typed worse.

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

 

[NotFallowfieldBlade]

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

 

[Bladesthorpe]

Tyler Durden strikes again.

Please let it be him.

 

[Nicolaus_Copernicus]

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

That's what the law of the land is for though isn't it? It's not really for a football club to be policing it's own standards of decently at a threshold below the law. It's a slippery slope to be honest.

It would also be very important to learn of what was said, so people can know what that threshold is for getting a lifetime ban.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

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

There's a huge difference between saying something amongst your mates down the pub and putting something on open social media for the entire world to see.

 

[Tezza1889]

Airing them in public on a social media website or Facebook/Tw@tter page associated with the club is probably the sticking point..

Current events taken into account, the club have had their say by the look of it.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

That's what the law of the land is for though isn't it? It's not really for a football club to be policing it's own standards of decently at a threshold below the law. It's a slippery slope to be honest.

The law is not the only standard that is allowed. Every organisation has a right to set standards, whether it is dress code for a night club, language in the work place or behaviour of customers. SUFC don't have a right to say what he can or can't say - they have every right to say they want to disassociate themselves from his comments and will refuse his custom.

 

[Bladeinleeds]

That's what the law of the land is for though isn't it? It's not really for a football club to be policing it's own standards of decently at a threshold below the law. It's a slippery slope to be honest.

It would also be very important to learn of what was said, so people can know what that threshold is for getting a lifetime ban.

Don’t get me wrong I’ve no idea what was said and maybe a ban is extreme. But In the context of maybe making people think twice before posting and treating each other with the respect they would like to receive - I can’t feel too Bad about it tbh.

And I do think we should hold ourselves a higher standard than ‘what they have said is ‘not illegal’’ tbh. Actions have consequences and any racist, sexist and abusive comments etc should be dealt with however a family club at the heart of community sees fit

 

[Nicolaus_Copernicus]

The law is not the only standard that is allowed. Every organisation has a right to set standards, whether it is dress code for a night club, language in the work place or behaviour of customers. SUFC don't have a right to say what he can or can't say - they have every right to say they want to disassociate themselves from his comments and will refuse his custom.

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.

 

[Ball_Sup (Phil)]

It was Spartacus

 

[Hamburg Blade]

The law or at least reference to it should be the only standard. Otherwise we're moving into despotic territory.

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.

That is a very abstract take on it. How have SUFC banned him from buying a ticket from, say, Rotherham United? And the club doesn't have to let it be known what the benchmark is for a ban, especially since that would be impossible. Staying within the bounds of common decency is probably a good idea.

 

[Ainsley Harriott]

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

I haven’t typed worse on here. The Leicester ‘joke’ was tasteless, not to mention not in the slightest bit funny.

We don’t even know if the statement united have put out relates to the Leicester comments.

I’ve said nonces should be round up and shot dead. That’s worse than some tasteless joke.

But United are now, seemingly, deciding what is vitriolic. Bit of a dangerous precedent that.

 

[Nicolaus_Copernicus]

That is a very abstract take on it. How have SUFC banned him from buying a ticket from, say, Rotherham United? And the club doesn't have to let it be known what the benchmark is for a ban, especially since that would be impossible. Staying within the bounds of common decency is probably a good idea.

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.

 

[FATTYFOULKE]

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.

I would think it only applies to games United are responsible for ie. home games.

I also am glad the club has taken this stance. I’ve no idea what was said, but if the club are disgusted enough to take this action that’s good enough for me.

I’m fed up of seeing some of the disgusting insulting comments on a lot of social media, about time some of these morons faced some repercussions.

Edit just seen the post above, he might not be able to get an away ticket as a Blade, but I doubt it would stop him going in as a fan of the home team.

 

[Hartley Hare]

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."

Does this mean there is a spare ticket going for Forest?

HH

 

[Nicolaus_Copernicus]

I would think it only applies to games United are responsible for ie. home games.

I also am glad the club has taken this stance. I’ve no idea what was said, but if the club are disgusted enough to take this action that’s good enough for me.

I’m fed up of seeing some of the disgusting insulting comments on a lot of social media, about time some of these morons faced some repercussions.

If you don't mind me saying FF, that's a crazy statement to make.

It's a very slippery slope. I wouldn't have an issue with somebody being successfully prosecuted & then banned. But a ban straight based upon something that appears to be below a prosecutable standard appears somewhat draconian and open to inconsistencies.

 

[Bladeinleeds]

I haven’t typed worse on here. The Leicester ‘joke’ was tasteless, not to mention not in the slightest bit funny.

We don’t even know if the statement united have put out relates to the Leicester comments.

I’ve said nonces should be round up and shot dead. That’s worse than some tasteless joke.

But United are now, seemingly, deciding what is vitriolic. Bit of a dangerous precedent that.

It’s all context though isn’t it? No ones saying he can’t make a joke to his mates or whatever just not broadcasting it. And I guesssing that its trolling and was made to to the official page or wherever is likely to cause the most offence from it.

i’ll be honest I’m all for people taking an extra second before deciding on posting something if it’s likely to offend. In terms of dangerous precedent the worst that will happen is a tasteless joke doesn’t get made and the best is you avoid all this agro and upset and maybe people end up being abit more pleasant to each other? Actions do have consequences

 

[Davalon]

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.

 

[BigBed]

Will he still be counted in the attendance figures and can his cat use his ST if not???

 

[snootyfenooty]

That's what the law of the land is for though isn't it? It's not really for a football club to be policing it's own standards of decently at a threshold below the law. It's a slippery slope to be honest.

It would also be very important to learn of what was said, so people can know what that threshold is for getting a lifetime ban.

I think football clubs, in their haste to curry favour with police, councils and so on, are extra keen to be seen as whiter than white. This is understandable as the authorities mentioned are stuck in a time warp and view football fans as the scum of the earth and fair game for any draconian measure they think reasonable to inflict upon us. The tram episode last year and shaking down old men entering the ground are two examples of overkill and the manner in which they look upon us, or should I say down on us. In any other walk of life it would be simply unacceptable. I think the clubs themselves are fed up of this but it would make them guilty by association if they dared to criticise SYP's and the council's actions. So expediency forces them to take the line they currently do. Its a shame but I suppose it serves us right for belonging to a particular sub-species.

 

[Nicolaus_Copernicus]

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.

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.

 

[SwissBlade]

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.

The club has taken a decision that it doesn't want fans which it has deemed to be spout ingvile shit on social media to be supporting the club home or away. I am sure Sky will be happy for the fans money though

The club sells tickets to its fans, it chooses which fans to sell to.

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

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.

They can ban people based on previous behaviour in other establishments or in fact any reason they like so long as they don’t breach the law of the land.
They’re banning this idiot from buying tickets from Sheffield United, home or away which they’ve every right to do. They’ve made the decision that they do not want him as a customer, but there’s nothing stopping him buying them from other clubs and going into the home end.

 

[Nicolaus_Copernicus]

The club has taken a decision that it doesn't want fans which it has deemed to be spout ingvile shit on social media to be supporting the club home or away. I am sure Sky will be happy for the fans money though

The club sells tickets to its fans, it chooses which fans to sell to.

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.