I know I'll be in the minority here but I don't think the club have done that much wrong here.
And for those banging on about free speech, you may want to brush up on that definition before you throw it about in regards to this instance.
Why?
Why what? Elaborate please Stu.
Why would anyone need to brush up on their definition of free speech? Have you read Art. 10 of The Human Rights Act?
I am aware of it but I'm also aware of this caveat that we have incorporated as a part of it
"including threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior intending or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress or cause a breach of the peace"
If he has been using foul and abusive language towards people at the club (both online and at the ground) then I have little sympathy. Yes, the club could have handled this better but if you are going to be abusive 1. that's no way to try and protest and 2. you have to suffer any sort of repercussions that come along with it.
Yet it appears the tweets in question do not fall within that scope, according to TalkSport, who have vetted the tweets.
Do we know exactly what they were? I'd rather rely on someone other than talksport for accuracy.
I know I'll be in the minority here but I don't think the club have done that much wrong here.
And for those banging on about free speech, you may want to brush up on that definition before you throw it about in regards to this instance.
Why?
Why what? Elaborate please Stu.
Why would anyone need to brush up on their definition of free speech? Have you read Art. 10 of The Human Rights Act?
I am aware of it but I'm also aware of this caveat that we have incorporated as a part of it
"including threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior intending or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress or cause a breach of the peace"
If he has been using foul and abusive language towards people at the club (both online and at the ground) then I have little sympathy. Yes, the club could have handled this better but if you are going to be abusive 1. that's no way to try and protest and 2. you have to suffer any sort of repercussions that come along with it.
Yet it appears the tweets in question do not fall within that scope, according to TalkSport, who have vetted the tweets.
Do we know exactly what they were? I'd rather rely on someone other than talksport for accuracy.
Try the Guardian then.
"The comments made by the fan, on social media and captured on camera at the Valley, contained profanities but are not thought to be defamatory in nature, and indeed the club have not claimed as such."
So in other words they don't know for sure but are going on what he has told them.
Like I said I know my view won't be popular here and I don't want to get into petty online arguments with others. There's lots of reasons to criticise the club and ownership but in my opinion this one isn't that bad.
I know I'll be in the minority here but I don't think the club have done that much wrong here.
And for those banging on about free speech, you may want to brush up on that definition before you throw it about in regards to this instance.
Why?
Why what? Elaborate please Stu.
Why would anyone need to brush up on their definition of free speech? Have you read Art. 10 of The Human Rights Act?
I am aware of it but I'm also aware of this caveat that we have incorporated as a part of it
"including threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior intending or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress or cause a breach of the peace"
If he has been using foul and abusive language towards people at the club (both online and at the ground) then I have little sympathy. Yes, the club could have handled this better but if you are going to be abusive 1. that's no way to try and protest and 2. you have to suffer any sort of repercussions that come along with it.
Yet it appears the tweets in question do not fall within that scope, according to TalkSport, who have vetted the tweets.
Do we know exactly what they were? I'd rather rely on someone other than talksport for accuracy.
It shouldn't matter if it's 1 person or 1000 people that got that letter. The fact is it highlights the cluster fuck our club has become. This shouldn't happen. Whoever wrote it/signed it off or approved it should be fucking embarrassed. I'm glad it's gone viral regardless how 'small' a matter it actually is.
I know I'll be in the minority here but I don't think the club have done that much wrong here.
And for those banging on about free speech, you may want to brush up on that definition before you throw it about in regards to this instance.
Why?
Why what? Elaborate please Stu.
Why would anyone need to brush up on their definition of free speech? Have you read Art. 10 of The Human Rights Act?
I am aware of it but I'm also aware of this caveat that we have incorporated as a part of it
"including threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior intending or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress or cause a breach of the peace"
If he has been using foul and abusive language towards people at the club (both online and at the ground) then I have little sympathy. Yes, the club could have handled this better but if you are going to be abusive 1. that's no way to try and protest and 2. you have to suffer any sort of repercussions that come along with it.
Yet it appears the tweets in question do not fall within that scope, according to TalkSport, who have vetted the tweets.
Do we know exactly what they were? I'd rather rely on someone other than talksport for accuracy.
Try the Guardian then.
"The comments made by the fan, on social media and captured on camera at the Valley, contained profanities but are not thought to be defamatory in nature, and indeed the club have not claimed as such."
So in other words they don't know for sure but are going on what he has told them.
Like I said I know my view won't be popular here and I don't want to get into petty online arguments with others. There's lots of reasons to criticise the club and ownership but in my opinion this one isn't that bad.
If the words used fell under the remit of a criminal offence I'm sure the club would have involved the Police.
I know I'll be in the minority here but I don't think the club have done that much wrong here.
And for those banging on about free speech, you may want to brush up on that definition before you throw it about in regards to this instance.
Why?
Why what? Elaborate please Stu.
Why would anyone need to brush up on their definition of free speech? Have you read Art. 10 of The Human Rights Act?
I am aware of it but I'm also aware of this caveat that we have incorporated as a part of it
"including threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior intending or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress or cause a breach of the peace"
If he has been using foul and abusive language towards people at the club (both online and at the ground) then I have little sympathy. Yes, the club could have handled this better but if you are going to be abusive 1. that's no way to try and protest and 2. you have to suffer any sort of repercussions that come along with it.
Yet it appears the tweets in question do not fall within that scope, according to TalkSport, who have vetted the tweets.
Do we know exactly what they were? I'd rather rely on someone other than talksport for accuracy.
Try the Guardian then.
"The comments made by the fan, on social media and captured on camera at the Valley, contained profanities but are not thought to be defamatory in nature, and indeed the club have not claimed as such."
So in other words they don't know for sure but are going on what he has told them.
Like I said I know my view won't be popular here and I don't want to get into petty online arguments with others. There's lots of reasons to criticise the club and ownership but in my opinion this one isn't that bad.
If the words used fell under the remit of a criminal offence I'm sure the club would have involved the Police.
Or launched one of Daisy's much feared internal investigations
I know I'll be in the minority here but I don't think the club have done that much wrong here.
And for those banging on about free speech, you may want to brush up on that definition before you throw it about in regards to this instance.
Why?
Why what? Elaborate please Stu.
Why would anyone need to brush up on their definition of free speech? Have you read Art. 10 of The Human Rights Act?
I am aware of it but I'm also aware of this caveat that we have incorporated as a part of it
"including threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior intending or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress or cause a breach of the peace"
If he has been using foul and abusive language towards people at the club (both online and at the ground) then I have little sympathy. Yes, the club could have handled this better but if you are going to be abusive 1. that's no way to try and protest and 2. you have to suffer any sort of repercussions that come along with it.
Yet it appears the tweets in question do not fall within that scope, according to TalkSport, who have vetted the tweets.
Do we know exactly what they were? I'd rather rely on someone other than talksport for accuracy.
Try the Guardian then.
"The comments made by the fan, on social media and captured on camera at the Valley, contained profanities but are not thought to be defamatory in nature, and indeed the club have not claimed as such."
So in other words they don't know for sure but are going on what he has told them.
Like I said I know my view won't be popular here and I don't want to get into petty online arguments with others. There's lots of reasons to criticise the club and ownership but in my opinion this one isn't that bad.
If the words used fell under the remit of a criminal offence I'm sure the club would have involved the Police.
Or launched one of Daisy's much feared internal investigations
I know I'll be in the minority here but I don't think the club have done that much wrong here.
And for those banging on about free speech, you may want to brush up on that definition before you throw it about in regards to this instance.
Why?
Why what? Elaborate please Stu.
Why would anyone need to brush up on their definition of free speech? Have you read Art. 10 of The Human Rights Act?
I am aware of it but I'm also aware of this caveat that we have incorporated as a part of it
"including threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior intending or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress or cause a breach of the peace"
If he has been using foul and abusive language towards people at the club (both online and at the ground) then I have little sympathy. Yes, the club could have handled this better but if you are going to be abusive 1. that's no way to try and protest and 2. you have to suffer any sort of repercussions that come along with it.
Yet it appears the tweets in question do not fall within that scope, according to TalkSport, who have vetted the tweets.
Do we know exactly what they were? I'd rather rely on someone other than talksport for accuracy.
Try the Guardian then.
Not that it's any business of yours as a Spanner...
I know I'll be in the minority here but I don't think the club have done that much wrong here.
And for those banging on about free speech, you may want to brush up on that definition before you throw it about in regards to this instance.
Why?
Why what? Elaborate please Stu.
Why would anyone need to brush up on their definition of free speech? Have you read Art. 10 of The Human Rights Act?
I am aware of it but I'm also aware of this caveat that we have incorporated as a part of it
"including threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior intending or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress or cause a breach of the peace"
If he has been using foul and abusive language towards people at the club (both online and at the ground) then I have little sympathy. Yes, the club could have handled this better but if you are going to be abusive 1. that's no way to try and protest and 2. you have to suffer any sort of repercussions that come along with it.
Yet it appears the tweets in question do not fall within that scope, according to TalkSport, who have vetted the tweets.
Do we know exactly what they were? I'd rather rely on someone other than talksport for accuracy.
Try the Guardian then.
"The comments made by the fan, on social media and captured on camera at the Valley, contained profanities but are not thought to be defamatory in nature, and indeed the club have not claimed as such."
So in other words they don't know for sure but are going on what he has told them.
Like I said I know my view won't be popular here and I don't want to get into petty online arguments with others. There's lots of reasons to criticise the club and ownership but in my opinion this one isn't that bad.
If the words used fell under the remit of a criminal offence I'm sure the club would have involved the Police.
Or launched one of Daisy's much feared internal investigations
I know I'll be in the minority here but I don't think the club have done that much wrong here.
And for those banging on about free speech, you may want to brush up on that definition before you throw it about in regards to this instance.
Why?
Why what? Elaborate please Stu.
Why would anyone need to brush up on their definition of free speech? Have you read Art. 10 of The Human Rights Act?
I am aware of it but I'm also aware of this caveat that we have incorporated as a part of it
"including threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior intending or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress or cause a breach of the peace"
If he has been using foul and abusive language towards people at the club (both online and at the ground) then I have little sympathy. Yes, the club could have handled this better but if you are going to be abusive 1. that's no way to try and protest and 2. you have to suffer any sort of repercussions that come along with it.
Wait - are we allowing football clubs to decide what constitutes "harassment, alarm or distress or cause a breach of the peace" and dishing out justice now ? Silly me, I thought that was a matter for the Police and courts.
I know I'll be in the minority here but I don't think the club have done that much wrong here.
And for those banging on about free speech, you may want to brush up on that definition before you throw it about in regards to this instance.
Why?
Why what? Elaborate please Stu.
Why would anyone need to brush up on their definition of free speech? Have you read Art. 10 of The Human Rights Act?
I am aware of it but I'm also aware of this caveat that we have incorporated as a part of it
"including threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior intending or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress or cause a breach of the peace"
If he has been using foul and abusive language towards people at the club (both online and at the ground) then I have little sympathy. Yes, the club could have handled this better but if you are going to be abusive 1. that's no way to try and protest and 2. you have to suffer any sort of repercussions that come along with it.
Wait are we allowing football clubs to decide what constitutes "harassment, alarm or distress or cause a breach of the peace" and dishing out justice now ? Silly me, I thought that was a matter for the Police and courts.
Players are an exception though because as we all know they never swear or abuse anyone.
I know I'll be in the minority here but I don't think the club have done that much wrong here.
And for those banging on about free speech, you may want to brush up on that definition before you throw it about in regards to this instance.
Why?
Why what? Elaborate please Stu.
Why would anyone need to brush up on their definition of free speech? Have you read Art. 10 of The Human Rights Act?
I am aware of it but I'm also aware of this caveat that we have incorporated as a part of it
"including threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior intending or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress or cause a breach of the peace"
If he has been using foul and abusive language towards people at the club (both online and at the ground) then I have little sympathy. Yes, the club could have handled this better but if you are going to be abusive 1. that's no way to try and protest and 2. you have to suffer any sort of repercussions that come along with it.
Yet it appears the tweets in question do not fall within that scope, according to TalkSport, who have vetted the tweets.
Do we know exactly what they were? I'd rather rely on someone other than talksport for accuracy.
Try the Guardian then.
"The comments made by the fan, on social media and captured on camera at the Valley, contained profanities but are not thought to be defamatory in nature, and indeed the club have not claimed as such."
So in other words they don't know for sure but are going on what he has told them.
Like I said I know my view won't be popular here and I don't want to get into petty online arguments with others. There's lots of reasons to criticise the club and ownership but in my opinion this one isn't that bad.
If the words used fell under the remit of a criminal offence I'm sure the club would have involved the Police.
What with the bloke who wrote the letter being an ex senior police officer...
The club are trying to make an example out of people at the moment and they have ex-plod on the books. Don't people think they'd have involved the police if they could?
If they genuinely thought their response was warranted then why not let the bloke record the discussion?
The club are hiding behind their own initiatives and making them sound all official and scary - ABCs and "Banning Orders" - yet people will still dig out the fellow fan before seeing it?
The response to these situations is almost as tedious as the nonsense that evokes them.
I can't wait to return to the valley in a month or so I am going to revoke my self imposed ban, and make it my sole goal to find Tony cahone on match day and see how big his cahones let's pick them off one by one,
I know I'll be in the minority here but I don't think the club have done that much wrong here.
And for those banging on about free speech, you may want to brush up on that definition before you throw it about in regards to this instance.
Why?
Why what? Elaborate please Stu.
Why would anyone need to brush up on their definition of free speech? Have you read Art. 10 of The Human Rights Act?
I am aware of it but I'm also aware of this caveat that we have incorporated as a part of it
"including threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior intending or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress or cause a breach of the peace"
If he has been using foul and abusive language towards people at the club (both online and at the ground) then I have little sympathy. Yes, the club could have handled this better but if you are going to be abusive 1. that's no way to try and protest and 2. you have to suffer any sort of repercussions that come along with it.
Yet it appears the tweets in question do not fall within that scope, according to TalkSport, who have vetted the tweets.
Do we know exactly what they were? I'd rather rely on someone other than talksport for accuracy.
Try the Guardian then.
"The comments made by the fan, on social media and captured on camera at the Valley, contained profanities but are not thought to be defamatory in nature, and indeed the club have not claimed as such."
So in other words they don't know for sure but are going on what he has told them.
Like I said I know my view won't be popular here and I don't want to get into petty online arguments with others. There's lots of reasons to criticise the club and ownership but in my opinion this one isn't that bad.
If the words used fell under the remit of a criminal offence I'm sure the club would have involved the Police.
Perhaps they didn't want to go down that route and just wanted an amicable resolution to the matter.
I know I'll be in the minority here but I don't think the club have done that much wrong here.
And for those banging on about free speech, you may want to brush up on that definition before you throw it about in regards to this instance.
Why?
Why what? Elaborate please Stu.
Why would anyone need to brush up on their definition of free speech? Have you read Art. 10 of The Human Rights Act?
I am aware of it but I'm also aware of this caveat that we have incorporated as a part of it
"including threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior intending or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress or cause a breach of the peace"
If he has been using foul and abusive language towards people at the club (both online and at the ground) then I have little sympathy. Yes, the club could have handled this better but if you are going to be abusive 1. that's no way to try and protest and 2. you have to suffer any sort of repercussions that come along with it.
Wait - are we allowing football clubs to decide what constitutes "harassment, alarm or distress or cause a breach of the peace" and dishing out justice now ? Silly me, I thought that was a matter for the Police and courts.
No, you are twisting my comments. All I was referring to was those in here crying about freedom of speech. Well yes we do have freedom of speech in this country but there is a limit to that freedom.
I can't wait to return to the valley in a month or so I am going to revoke my self imposed ban, and make it my sole goal to find Tony cahone on match day and see how big his cahones let's pick them off one by one,
@swisdom I think people might respect your opinion more if it wasn't so totally one sided. You say that you understand parts of why people are unhappy, but then you defend the regime on every occassion when people attack them. When things like this happen, and in my opinion this one is one of the worst of the lot, especially considering people on here know you are in business with the owners, it would probably be prudent to just say nothing at all.
I can't wait to return to the valley in a month or so I am going to revoke my self imposed ban, and make it my sole goal to find Tony cahone on match day and see how big his cahones let's pick them off one by one,
Where's the fun in that?
Unless I'm very much mistaken, he's unlikely to have more than two, and once you've found and picked off one, repeating the trick with the other will hardly present much of a challenge...
The letter was sent before the Bury match and needs to be considered in that context.
If the club subsequently stored up video from the Bury match as extra ammunition to be used when needed, then leaving aside the rights or wrongs of the video, the club statement today came after the club had conflated a number of events to shape the agenda.
The club have conflated the original letter, alleged events at Bury, and their version of the meeting, to disingenuously shape their statement, which then paints the fan in question in a bad light, what with talk of apologies and such like.
The club have singled out one individual and the Club have acted as accuser, prosecutor, Judge and jury in their own case. They have then passed sentence.
It is the letter in itself that we should return to, and not let any subsequent obfuscation distract from what is says and the implications.
leaving aside the near illiteracy of the writer the letter implies that in order to be allowed to buy a season ticket (take note BUY) you are restricted from what you say on social media.
Listen to the talksport stuff and hear what is said about 'parapets' if you need any extra info about restricting freedom of expression.
The letter alone, bald and stark and real, is what is defining our club at the moment.
Comments
So in other words they don't know for sure but are going on what he has told them.
Like I said I know my view won't be popular here and I don't want to get into petty online arguments with others. There's lots of reasons to criticise the club and ownership but in my opinion this one isn't that bad.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/aug/12/charlton-athletic-letter-forcing-fans-social-media
Not to mention
This is unbelievable behaviour from Charlton. Has the Valley been moved to N Korea overnight? https://t.co/yEl5Zuz2K9
— Owen Gibson (@owen_g) August 12, 2016 " />Not that it's any business of yours as a Spanner...
The club have tried to bully and blackmail a fan. A fan who has said and done nothing different from hundreds or maybe thousands of us.
They backed off from the contract idea at the meeting - but that doesn't excuse the letter.
Anyone who thinks the club are in the right on this one needs their fucking head examined.
It's looking and feeling like a police state these days. I am absolutely fuming about it.
Please nominate a fan to be executed.
The club are trying to make an example out of people at the moment and they have ex-plod on the books. Don't people think they'd have involved the police if they could?
If they genuinely thought their response was warranted then why not let the bloke record the discussion?
The club are hiding behind their own initiatives and making them sound all official and scary - ABCs and "Banning Orders" - yet people will still dig out the fellow fan before seeing it?
The response to these situations is almost as tedious as the nonsense that evokes them.
I can't wait to return to the valley in a month or so I am going to revoke my self imposed ban, and make it my sole goal to find Tony cahone on match day and see how big his cahones let's pick them off one by one,
Tony up close that is..
Unless I'm very much mistaken, he's unlikely to have more than two, and once you've found and picked off one, repeating the trick with the other will hardly present much of a challenge...
We can force feed the despicable one like human centipede
If the club subsequently stored up video from the Bury match as extra ammunition to be used when needed, then leaving aside the rights or wrongs of the video, the club statement today came after the club had conflated a number of events to shape the agenda.
The club have conflated the original letter, alleged events at Bury, and their version of the meeting, to disingenuously shape their statement, which then paints the fan in question in a bad light, what with talk of apologies and such like.
The club have singled out one individual and the Club have acted as accuser, prosecutor, Judge and jury in their own case. They have then passed sentence.
It is the letter in itself that we should return to, and not let any subsequent obfuscation distract from what is says and the implications.
leaving aside the near illiteracy of the writer the letter implies that in order to be allowed to buy a season ticket (take note BUY) you are restricted from what you say on social media.
Listen to the talksport stuff and hear what is said about 'parapets' if you need any extra info about restricting freedom of expression.
The letter alone, bald and stark and real, is what is defining our club at the moment.
'We're only here for our contracts.'