is one of the points though the club were quick off the mark with the 9 saying they will be banned for life if found guilty which is what 95per cent of us agree but then say nothing with the rape allegation why no statement saying he remains a player a charlton if he is found guilty though he will never play a game for this club again
I think that the club should have a robust opinion and take all necessary action to stamp out racism in and around it. Including assisting the police as far as possible in identifying any perpetrators of racism and prosecuting them. Even if found not guilty I also think that the club is within it's rights to use a lesser standard of proof than a court of law to ban people for this. And other hate crimes. Regarding the serious offence by an employee, unless the club has the same level of evidence in front of it as it gets from the CCTV etc at the ground I think it has to be a bit more circumspect. But if found guilty - or proven to a lesser degree that would stand up in an employment tribunal - then the employee should be summarily dismissed. I am constantly amazed at the implicit racist bile and fellow travelling with racists from some on here. I wish they'd crawl back under their stones.
I find it hard to disagree with any of this post or the line taken by Bournemouth, Len and Henry.
Henry, I have not read the article on the other website. Thank you for broadening the context of the comparison made by the originator of this thread. If it is the website I think it is - it does seem to pursue a persistently negative agenda with regard to the club on or off the field. That is entirely up to the participants to that site.
I find the complimentary comments on the original post misplaced. Whilst the argument presented offers some logic it is based on an entirely false premise. Whilst there are two alleged criminal offences the clubs’ sphere of responsibility is totally different. To suggest otherwise is at best flawed and at worst thoroughly mischievous.
All of us as participants in society have responsibilities as individuals and as representatives of the communities in which we choose to live and work. As a separate legal entity the club has its role to play in the society it serves. As an employer it is responsible to the people it employs, the people their employees serve on its behalf and the broader community in which it operates. Though the club/ its officials have established a reputation for seeking excellence in each of those areas it is not responsible for policing "all of the actions" of its employees and those who choose represent the "CAFC community"
In one scenario we have a young man employed by the club accused of committing a serious criminal offence. We have no knowledge of the incident - nor should we. It is a matter for the parties involved and the legal authorities. That he is employed by the club has no relevance to the alleged offence. It may, in time be relevant to the terms of his employment but that is a matter to be considered at the appropriate time.
The clubs involvement, for now, is incidental. Any comment now would be open to misinterpretation and entirely inappropriate. If you do not see that then try and put yourself in the position of the young people involved.
In view of the likely trauma involved I find the attempt to link it to other alleged criminal activities very poor but to link this event to the criminal proceedings being pursued by the authorities against a group of individuals who apparently chose to present themselves as part of the CAFC community is simplistic. To be clear that community includes you and me. It is alleged such individuals committed criminal offences in the presence of witnesses in front of CCTV cameras which recorded the alleged incidents and facilitated the trail of identification to the individuals concerned AND the witnesses to the alleged incident.
The police will have approached the club for its support in pursuing details of the individuals. The club by law is bound to assist the authorities in such matters. However because of the alleged nature of the criminal act(s) the club broader responsibilities are automatically invoked at 3 levels.
1. If such alleged activities occurred on club premises it could be brought to account by industry regulators. International legal precedent exists for such action. The club has a duty to protect itself and therefore a vested interest in ensuring such individuals are excluded from its premises.
2. The club employs many people of different races across all spheres of its operations. It has a duty to protect them (and the people they serve) from being subject to such alleged criminal activity.
3. It has a duty to protect the reputation of the vast majority of people who choose to be part of the Charlton community. To have our reputation tarnished by the alleged activities of those purporting to be part of our community needed the strongest rebuttal.
When you consider the industry leading efforts the club has made in the area of racial discrimination then nothing but the clearest message needed to be sent. You do have to wonder why anyone would wish for it to be seen in any other context.
Any correlation between the clubs responsibilities in regard to two alleged offences is beyond superficial and the comparison of the club response to each invidious.
Loco's original post was brought to my attention by someone who does read the other site. Given that he doesn't know I haven't been involved in running the club's communications set-up for NINE YEARS now, there's something quite comical about him working himself into a froth about my alleged manipulation of the coverage of two separate events that in each case are nothing to do with me whatsoever. Indeed, all I know about the latest one is what I've read in the Sun, via this site.
One further point that seems to have got lost is that the club does not provide an independent impartial news. It is not a branch of the media. It reports what it suits it to report for its own purposes and always will, so even if you could concoct an equivalence between these two very different stories it is still entirely up to the club what it puts on its website. If the debate was about, for example, what a local paper publishes that would be entirely different.
iainment 2:21PM Quote I think that the club should have a robust opinion and take all necessary action to stamp out racism in and around it. Including assisting the police as far as possible in identifying any perpetrators of racism and prosecuting them.
I agree, but not playing cub reporter and turning up with police and Sky camera's.
People seem to be ignoring the key point here. Unless I have got it wrong, someone has revealed that there is "Another Charlton Website" !
How and when did that happen ? Surely if there is "Another Site" the high and mighty from this site can't control opinion with a flow of sarcastic remarks !
Oh S#*t Wrong site i was looking for the Charlton nazi chav site not the left wing middle class tossers site...................... oh well loco please redirect me ;-)
I am stunned at the nature of this thread. Without knowing any of the people involved I can only take what I read at face value. To me it was an interesting comparison about how a company, the police and the media handle two criminal stories. One which shows that company in a good light and the other that shows it in a bad light.
Now apparently it is some sort of class war where your opinions mean you are either 'good' or 'bad'.
This is the internet. If you want to have some sort of personal confrontation, go and have one and let the rest of us debate something in an objective and rational manner.
I am stunned at the nature of this thread. Without knowing any of the people involved I can only take what I read at face value. To me it was an interesting comparison about how a company, the police and the media handle two criminal stories. One which shows that company in a good light and the other that shows it in a bad light.
Now apparently it is some sort of class war where your opinions mean you are either 'good' or 'bad'.
This is the internet. If you want to have some sort of personal confrontation, go and have one and let the rest of us debate something in an objective and rational manner.
To coin a couple of phrases, Hear hear and This.
You can't question or debate anything on here without it immediately bringing out the usual posters with the same old agendas.
I am stunned at the nature of this thread. Without knowing any of the people involved I can only take what I read at face value. To me it was an interesting comparison about how a company, the police and the media handle two criminal stories. One which shows that company in a good light and the other that shows it in a bad light.
Now apparently it is some sort of class war where your opinions mean you are either 'good' or 'bad'.
This is the internet. If you want to have some sort of personal confrontation, go and have one and let the rest of us debate something in an objective and rational manner.
To coin a couple of phrases, Hear hear and This.
You can't question or debate anything on here without it immediately bringing out the usual posters with the same old agendas.
You can say that but remember that the original poster has already dismissed your views before you had even expressed them. You post on Charlton Life therefore you are both "middle class tossers". And as such Loco sees your views as invalid.
This was was not an attempt by Loco to investigate or debate an "interesting" point. He had already decided it is a PC/Labour/Middle class tosser plot and named the person he thought was at the centre of it.
There is, IMHO, a debate to be had about should Steve Kavanagh been present or should the TV cameras been invited and by who? But that is a relatively minor point. The arrests would have taken place regardless.
There is another totally separate debate to be had about protecting the identity of rape victims but not those accused of rape.
Grapevine is spot on in my view but as he is also a "middle class tosser" or possibly "left wing tosser" his views can also be disregarded. Certainly they haven't and won't be debated by the original poster or those who agreed with him.
I am stunned at the nature of this thread. Without knowing any of the people involved I can only take what I read at face value. To me it was an interesting comparison about how a company, the police and the media handle two criminal stories. One which shows that company in a good light and the other that shows it in a bad light.
Now apparently it is some sort of class war where your opinions mean you are either 'good' or 'bad'.
This is the internet. If you want to have some sort of personal confrontation, go and have one and let the rest of us debate something in an objective and rational manner.
To coin a couple of phrases, Hear hear and This.
You can't question or debate anything on here without it immediately bringing out the usual posters with the same old agendas.
You can say that but remember that the original poster has already dismissed your views before you had even expressed them. You post on Charlton Life therefore you are both "middle class tossers". And as such Loco sees your views as invalid.
This was was not an attempt by Loco to investigate or debate an "interesting" point. He had already decided it is a PC/Labour/Middle class tosser plot and named the person he thought was at the centre of it.
There is, IMHO, a debate to be had about should Steve Kavanagh been present or should the TV cameras been invited and by who? But that is a relatively minor point. The arrests would have taken place regardless.
There is another totally separate debate to be had about protecting the identity of rape victims but not those accused of rape.
Grapevine is spot on in my view but as he is also a "middle class tosser" or possibly "left wing tosser" his views can also be disregarded. Certainly they haven't and won't be debated by the original poster or those who agreed with him.
Sorry but that's simply wrong. I had no idea he had those views or had made any statements about SK until YOU told me he did. Just because Loco started the debate it is not 'his' debate. He raised the issue on CL for CL members to debate. Just because some people on here know who people and what their hidden agendas are, the rest of us are not allow to debate anything on face value. I know some hate it but you are really pushing me down the line of mentioning that C word and only those in it being allowed to be 'right'. You admit that there is a debate to be had about the clubs comments and yet destroyed the very thread where that debate sits. This thread should not have been about people, or the rights or wrongs of crime, but about how they are publicised.
I am stunned at the nature of this thread. Without knowing any of the people involved I can only take what I read at face value. To me it was an interesting comparison about how a company, the police and the media handle two criminal stories. One which shows that company in a good light and the other that shows it in a bad light.
Now apparently it is some sort of class war where your opinions mean you are either 'good' or 'bad'.
This is the internet. If you want to have some sort of personal confrontation, go and have one and let the rest of us debate something in an objective and rational manner.
To coin a couple of phrases, Hear hear and This.
You can't question or debate anything on here without it immediately bringing out the usual posters with the same old agendas.
You can say that but remember that the original poster has already dismissed your views before you had even expressed them. You post on Charlton Life therefore you are both "middle class tossers". And as such Loco sees your views as invalid.
This was was not an attempt by Loco to investigate or debate an "interesting" point. He had already decided it is a PC/Labour/Middle class tosser plot and named the person he thought was at the centre of it.
There is, IMHO, a debate to be had about should Steve Kavanagh been present or should the TV cameras been invited and by who? But that is a relatively minor point. The arrests would have taken place regardless.
There is another totally separate debate to be had about protecting the identity of rape victims but not those accused of rape.
Grapevine is spot on in my view but as he is also a "middle class tosser" or possibly "left wing tosser" his views can also be disregarded. Certainly they haven't and won't be debated by the original poster or those who agreed with him.
Sorry but that's simply wrong. I had no idea he had those views or had made any statements about SK until YOU told me he did. Just because Loco started the debate it is not 'his' debate. He raised the issue on CL for CL members to debate. Just because some people on here know who people and what their hidden agendas are, the rest of us are not allow to debate anything on face value. I know some hate it but you are really pushing me down the line of mentioning that C word and only those in it being allowed to be 'right'. You admit that there is a debate to be had about the clubs comments and yet destroyed the very thread where that debate sits. This thread should not have been about people, or the rights or wrongs of crime, but about how they are publicised.
Good point DRF. Loco hadn't referred to us as "middle class tossers" directly in his opening post and thus deserved (initially at least) to be taken at face value.
The fact remains though, as I said higher up the thread, that one alleged offence was perpetrated by an employee, the other alleged offence by (effectively) customers. The Club will therefore react differently to each scenario because of the differing obligations it has to employees and customers.
That applies irrespective of whether loco has (or has not) a "hidden agenda" in linking the two events and irrespective of whether the Club, the Police or AN Other initiated the TV cameras at the time of the arrests.
Comments
agenda ? yep they all need burning.
Base issue----should people that have been charged but not yet convicted be named ? its a no from me.
but then say nothing with the rape allegation
why no statement saying he remains a player a charlton if he is found guilty though he will never play a game for this club again
and for me on buses
I find the complimentary comments on the original post misplaced. Whilst the argument presented offers some logic it is based on an entirely false premise. Whilst there are two alleged criminal offences the clubs’ sphere of responsibility is totally different. To suggest otherwise is at best flawed and at worst thoroughly mischievous.
All of us as participants in society have responsibilities as individuals and as representatives of the communities in which we choose to live and work. As a separate legal entity the club has its role to play in the society it serves. As an employer it is responsible to the people it employs, the people their employees serve on its behalf and the broader community in which it operates. Though the club/ its officials have established a reputation for seeking excellence in each of those areas it is not responsible for policing "all of the actions" of its employees and those who choose represent the "CAFC community"
In one scenario we have a young man employed by the club accused of committing a serious criminal offence. We have no knowledge of the incident - nor should we. It is a matter for the parties involved and the legal authorities. That he is employed by the club has no relevance to the alleged offence. It may, in time be relevant to the terms of his employment but that is a matter to be considered at the appropriate time.
The clubs involvement, for now, is incidental. Any comment now would be open to misinterpretation and entirely inappropriate. If you do not see that then try and put yourself in the position of the young people involved.
In view of the likely trauma involved I find the attempt to link it to other alleged criminal activities very poor but to link this event to the criminal proceedings being pursued by the authorities against a group of individuals who apparently chose to present themselves as part of the CAFC community is simplistic. To be clear that community includes you and me. It is alleged such individuals committed criminal offences in the presence of witnesses in front of CCTV cameras which recorded the alleged incidents and facilitated the trail of identification to the individuals concerned AND the witnesses to the alleged incident.
The police will have approached the club for its support in pursuing details of the individuals.
The club by law is bound to assist the authorities in such matters. However because of the alleged nature of the criminal act(s) the club broader responsibilities are automatically invoked at 3 levels.
1. If such alleged activities occurred on club premises it could be brought to account by industry regulators. International legal precedent exists for such action. The club has a duty to protect itself and therefore a vested interest in ensuring such individuals are excluded from its premises.
2. The club employs many people of different races across all spheres of its operations. It has a duty to protect them (and the people they serve) from being subject to such alleged criminal activity.
3. It has a duty to protect the reputation of the vast majority of people who choose to be part of the Charlton community. To have our reputation tarnished by the alleged activities of those purporting to be part of our community needed the strongest rebuttal.
When you consider the industry leading efforts the club has made in the area of racial discrimination then nothing but the clearest message needed to be sent. You do have to wonder why anyone would wish for it to be seen in any other context.
Any correlation between the clubs responsibilities in regard to two alleged offences is beyond superficial and the comparison of the club response to each invidious.
Grapevine49
One further point that seems to have got lost is that the club does not provide an independent impartial news. It is not a branch of the media. It reports what it suits it to report for its own purposes and always will, so even if you could concoct an equivalence between these two very different stories it is still entirely up to the club what it puts on its website. If the debate was about, for example, what a local paper publishes that would be entirely different.
I think that the club should have a robust opinion and take all necessary action to stamp out racism in and around it. Including assisting the police as far as possible in identifying any perpetrators of racism and prosecuting them.
I agree, but not playing cub reporter and turning up with police and Sky camera's.
It would be interesting if it wasn't clearly an attempt to deflect attention from "the Lads" who have been charged and yet again play the victim card
It maybe dressed up as a comparison of different approaches to jurisprudence but that is not the motive behind this.
None of the 9 have been charged as of yet.
Sorry, my mistake. I should have said "arrested"
then nobody else agrees
bottom line is, terrible behaviour is going to get punished
good!
How and when did that happen ? Surely if there is "Another Site" the high and mighty from this site can't control opinion with a flow of sarcastic remarks !
Sink this other site now.
COYR
Now apparently it is some sort of class war where your opinions mean you are either 'good' or 'bad'.
This is the internet. If you want to have some sort of personal confrontation, go and have one and let the rest of us debate something in an objective and rational manner.
You can't question or debate anything on here without it immediately bringing out the usual posters with the same old agendas.
Sad news
This was was not an attempt by Loco to investigate or debate an "interesting" point. He had already decided it is a PC/Labour/Middle class tosser plot and named the person he thought was at the centre of it.
There is, IMHO, a debate to be had about should Steve Kavanagh been present or should the TV cameras been invited and by who? But that is a relatively minor point. The arrests would have taken place regardless.
There is another totally separate debate to be had about protecting the identity of rape victims but not those accused of rape.
Grapevine is spot on in my view but as he is also a "middle class tosser" or possibly "left wing tosser" his views can also be disregarded. Certainly they haven't and won't be debated by the original poster or those who agreed with him.
Just because some people on here know who people and what their hidden agendas are, the rest of us are not allow to debate anything on face value.
I know some hate it but you are really pushing me down the line of mentioning that C word and only those in it being allowed to be 'right'.
You admit that there is a debate to be had about the clubs comments and yet destroyed the very thread where that debate sits.
This thread should not have been about people, or the rights or wrongs of crime, but about how they are publicised.
The fact remains though, as I said higher up the thread, that one alleged offence was perpetrated by an employee, the other alleged offence by (effectively) customers. The Club will therefore react differently to each scenario because of the differing obligations it has to employees and customers.
That applies irrespective of whether loco has (or has not) a "hidden agenda" in linking the two events and irrespective of whether the Club, the Police or AN Other initiated the TV cameras at the time of the arrests.