FA Cup FA Cup Final 22/23

[Essexyellows]

Tbf, that legal system is currently involved in arresting people because they might do something like want to put up some placards tie themselves to something or give out rape alarms to stop sexual assaults to scare horses trained for load noises.

Printed words do not hurt people.

They do not disrupt people. They do not block roads. They do not disrupt significant national events.

The two comparisons, whilst linked by legislative points, are not the same.

 

[Golden Dr Otto]

Lindsey Graham calls Russian threats against him a "badge of honor"

"To know that my commitment to Ukraine has drawn the ire of Putin's regime brings me immense joy," Senator Lindsey Graham said in a statement.

www.newsweek.com

Where is the line? Who decides?

 

[Scotchegg]

Tbf, that legal system is currently involved in arresting people because they might do something like want to put up some placards tie themselves to something or give out rape alarms to stop sexual assaults to scare horses trained for load noises.

The police did all of that, under political pressure. The judiciary/jury are the ones who ultimately decide on whether someone has committed a crime, which is why, as far as I know, no one was convicted regarding the placards and rape alarms.

We're going off track a little, but this is not about merely offending someone. This is about using words that are threatening and/or abusive AND that these words are likely to cause harm to the average person. I don't believe that we should arrest anyone and everyone that says something others don't like, but I do think that this case went beyond normal social boundaries and therefore meets the threshold needed to be put before the courts.

 

[Scotchegg]

Printed words do not hurt people.

They do not disrupt people. They do not block roads. They do not disrupt significant national events.

The two comparisons, whilst linked by legislative points, are not the same.

Maybe screenshot this for yourself for the hundreds of occasions where you get triggered by something someone (often from minority groups) says or does. You couldn't cope with 11 footballers taking a knee before a ball was kicked this time last year!

 

[bashamwonderland]

The police did all of that, under political pressure. The judiciary/jury are the ones who ultimately decide on whether someone has committed a crime, which is why, as far as I know, no one was convicted regarding the placards and rape alarms.

We're going off track a little, but this is not about merely offending someone. This is about using words that are threatening and/or abusive AND that these words are likely to cause harm to the average person. I don't believe that we should arrest anyone and everyone that says something others don't like, but I do think that this case went beyond normal social boundaries and therefore meets the threshold needed to be put before the courts.

I can see that the words "97 not enough" are abusive given the context, but it is disappointing that they could be considered "likely to cause harm to the average person".

I don't think that the words on the shirt are likely to cause harm to the average person. Although I agree the case went beyond normal social boundaries, I still don't think that's enough to justify a criminal charge.

 

[Scotchegg]

I can see that the words "97 not enough" are abusive given the context, but it is disappointing that they could be considered "likely to cause harm to the average person".

I don't think that the words on the shirt are likely to cause harm to the average person. Although I agree the case went beyond normal social boundaries, I still don't think that's enough to justify a criminal charge.

I agree that it's far from cut and dry, and I suspect that the decision to arrest was based on the large amount of comments on twitter (which is not the best way to make this kind of judgement). I suspect that it will not result in a conviction, but that doesn't in itself mean that the arrest wasn't warranted.

 

[RyanioBirdio]

Printed words do not hurt people.

They absolutely can. They’ve gotten people killed in the past.

 

[Marked Ox]

Printed words do not hurt people.

They do not disrupt people. They do not block roads. They do not disrupt significant national events.

The two comparisons, whilst linked by legislative points, are not the same.

Placards don't have printed words now?

They are very much linked and the same, they are both about free speech which is what the conversation is about.

 

[Scrongo]

What te f**k has OXFORD got to do with MANCHESTER????
YES NOTHING !!!!!

 

[Marked Ox]

What te f**k has OXFORD got to do with MANCHESTER????
YES NOTHING !!!!!

?

 

[m]

What te f**k has OXFORD got to do with MANCHESTER????
YES NOTHING !!!!!

There is this.

 

[Paul Cannell]

Only words.

 

[Steve Gilbert]

If it was displayed on a flag it would have been banned from the stadium and the person responsible arrested for the same offence.

 

[Golden Dr Otto]

If it was displayed on a flag it would have been banned from the stadium and the person responsible arrested for the same offence.

That is not a moral justification just a further egregious use of law enforcement and incarceration

If a comedian puts a joke on a flag that’s edgy they should be sent to jail too?

 

[Golden Dr Otto]

They absolutely can. They’ve gotten people killed in the past.

I believe we have a clear law for that. Murder.

There shouldn’t be laws where you don’t know whether you’re committing a crime or not and have to rely on the subjective mood and judgment of those around you

 

[RyanioBirdio]

I believe we have a clear law for that. Murder.

There shouldn’t be laws where you don’t know whether you’re committing a crime or not and have to rely on the subjective mood and judgment of those around you

I agree. I just disagree with the idea that words mean nothing and can’t hurt people.

In general. Not in relation to a stupid idiot in a football shirt.

 

[werthersoriginal]

I believe we have a clear law for that. Murder.

There shouldn’t be laws where you don’t know whether you’re committing a crime or not and have to rely on the subjective mood and judgment of those around you

Really, how thick and nasty would you have to be to do that and not have a fair idea you’d be causing gross offence? I’m not saying he should be jailed but I’d make him sweat for a bit longer.

 

[Golden Dr Otto]

Of course words hurt people. Both of you @RyanioBirdio and @werthersoriginal made me sad by disagreeing. And of course he’s causing offense to many.

But many things you both say and do cause same to many folk across the world . It’s not your fault though ….you never had the love of Matt Taylor or George Baldock to bring a love is love vibe into your world

 

[chuckbert]

What te f**k has OXFORD got to do with MANCHESTER????
YES NOTHING !!!!!

English League Division One match at Manor Ground. Oxford United 2 v Manchester United 0. John Aldridge scores from a penalty. 8th November 1986 Stock Photo - Alamy

Download this stock image: English League Division One match at Manor Ground. Oxford United 2 v Manchester United 0. John Aldridge scores from a penalty. 8th November 1986. - ENHHFJ from Alamy's library of millions of high resolution stock photos, illustrations and vectors.

www.alamy.com

 

[Essexyellows]

Maybe screenshot this for yourself for the hundreds of occasions where you get triggered by something someone (often from minority groups) says or does. You couldn't cope with 11 footballers taking a knee before a ball was kicked this time last year!

I don`t get "triggered". I express my opinion which differs from others, its how a discussion platform works.

However I will 100% defend the right of anyone to express their opinion in words and happily debate with them.

I might even read and think maybe they have a point, and my view may change/soften, that is called being an adult.

Equally, sometimes, the majority view must take favour because that is how life works.

So did "taking a knee" make any viable difference or did it just fade away to nothing?