“I expected to walk in there, they’d have the contract laid out and that would be it,” he said. “I said I didn’t want the meeting to be mentioned, but they’ve [made it public] now regardless. I was going to take the contract away and take legal advice, but instead they gave me a telling off.
“I apologised for whatever was said, but at the end of the day they shouldn’t be sending these sort of letters. I am sorry, but I haven’t signed any conditions. I said I wanted to record the conversation so it was clear what had been said, but they said no.
“I don’t care what they do now. I’ve had enough of the club and how they’ve tried to treat me, and every other supporters. Let them do what they’ve got to do. I can still travel to away games. They can’t ban me from away games – I haven’t committed a criminal offence.”
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.
Quite. But football clubs aren't given the power to limit freedom of speech or punish people when they cross that line, that's what's so unbelievable about this.
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.
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.
Quite. But football clubs aren't given the power to limit freedom of speech or punish people when they cross that line, that's what's so unbelievable about this.
Well no but this is hardly a punishment. And as was mentioned in the statement this is run in conjunction with the MPS in order to avoid criminal proceedings. I think that is defeinitely in everyone's interest that it doesn't progress to that stage.
Unless you are saying that the club should have passed the details on to the police for them to then intervene? I can only imagine the sort of bed wetting that would have caused on here and social media had that happened.
It's not about what was said it's about the letter ban the fella if he stepped over the line it's been done for donkeys
It's the come and see me aspect, I would bet my house there are people with tickets that they have identified on cctv that they wouldn't call In to that meeting due to the reaction they would get if they did
Bully behaviour like the grab squad stewards and those who took out dave white last season
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.
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.
Quite. But football clubs aren't given the power to limit freedom of speech or punish people when they cross that line, that's what's so unbelievable about this.
Well no but this is hardly a punishment. And as was mentioned in the statement this is run in conjunction with the MPS in order to avoid criminal proceedings. I think that is defeinitely in everyone's interest that it doesn't progress to that stage.
Unless you are saying that the club should have passed the details on to the police for them to then intervene? I can only imagine the sort of bed wetting that would have caused on here and social media had that happened.
Comments
The club backed off. Probably because someone with more than a single brain cell worked out that they were on a hiding to nothing.
The fan "apologised" because he wanted his ST.
He clearly feels picked on, bullied, pressurised, blackmailed - call it what you will.
But it's far from amicable, quite clearly.
“I expected to walk in there, they’d have the contract laid out and that would be it,” he said. “I said I didn’t want the meeting to be mentioned, but they’ve [made it public] now regardless. I was going to take the contract away and take legal advice, but instead they gave me a telling off.
“I apologised for whatever was said, but at the end of the day they shouldn’t be sending these sort of letters. I am sorry, but I haven’t signed any conditions. I said I wanted to record the conversation so it was clear what had been said, but they said no.
“I don’t care what they do now. I’ve had enough of the club and how they’ve tried to treat me, and every other supporters. Let them do what they’ve got to do. I can still travel to away games. They can’t ban me from away games – I haven’t committed a criminal offence.”
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/aug/12/charlton-athletic-letter-forcing-fans-social-media
As I've said previously they can ban you from going away games too by giving the said person a civil ban.
I'm referring to the club statement.
Unless you are saying that the club should have passed the details on to the police for them to then intervene? I can only imagine the sort of bed wetting that would have caused on here and social media had that happened.
It's the come and see me aspect, I would bet my house there are people with tickets that they have identified on cctv that they wouldn't call In to that meeting due to the reaction they would get if they did
Bully behaviour like the grab squad stewards and those who took out dave white last season
Wankas running the club
You people must be new here...