Soccer Fan Threatened With Criminal Prosecution for Posing Fully Clothed at a Match

Link

Quote :

Police have started an investigation after a fan made what appeared to be a racist gesture in Chelsea's League Cup win over Manchester United.

Police confirmed for rectally devastated ManU bandwagoners.

Quote :

Pictures appear to show the man making a 'monkey' gesture during Wednesday's fourth-round tie at Stamford Bridge.

The biggest problem here is that the match has gone from a Chelsea (who the hell names their club after a 7 year old girl?) win to a fourth round tie.

Quote :

"An investigation has been launched. There have been no arrests and enquiries continue."

A Chelsea spokesman said: "If we have sufficient evidence we will take the strongest possible action, including supporting criminal prosecution."

Jury Foreman: On the first count of the indictment, Hurting Feelings in the First Degree, we hereby find the defendant guilty.
Judge: Chesterson McLime, in light of your heinous crime, I have no choice but to sentence you to the harshest punishment possible. You are hereby required to watch every Wolverhampton game for the next ten years.

Quote :

Earlier this year, Chelsea imposed a lifetime ban on a supporter who admitted racially abusing former Chelsea striker Didier Drogba.

In his defense, Drogba is an overrated, soft diving pussy fart and should gb2Africa.

Quote :

Chelsea captain John Terry is currently serving a four-match ban after being found guilty of racially abusing QPR defender Anton Ferdinand by the FA.

Jesus Christ. Roethlisberger got the same suspension for being accused of two rapes.

And that was fucking ridiculous.

I would like to thank England, and Yurop in general, for reminding me why I'm never leaving this country.

Unless it's to pelt Canadians with rotten eggs.

Fuck Canadians.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

I would like to thank England, and Yurop in general, for reminding me why I'm never leaving this country.

I'm sure nobody has a problem with this arrangement.

The topic: yeah, while it was a stupid and insulting gesture to make, I'm getting a bit fed up of hearing about things like this. Yes, racism is bad, but when did it become a criminal offence? I'm sure FIFA have the right to ban him from future games for his behaviour, does the police really need to get involved? We are definitely losing the right to free speech in this country, when one can actually face police action for saying/doing something racist.

Quote :

(who the hell names their club after a 7 year old girl?)

FYI, Chelsea is a district within London. We don't make these names up for fun, you know.

Cunovendus wrote:

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

I would like to thank England, and Yurop in general, for reminding me why I'm never leaving this country.

I'm sure nobody has a problem with this arrangement.

The topic: yeah, while it was a stupid and insulting gesture to make, I'm getting a bit fed up of hearing about things like this. Yes, racism is bad, but when did it become a criminal offence?

1976. With good reason.

Quote :

I'm sure FIFA have the right to ban him from future games for his behaviour, does the police really need to get involved? We are definitely losing the right to free speech in this country, when one can actually face police action for saying/doing something racist.

No. Racism is definitely not one of the things that should be protected under "free speech". You can reasonably expect that racist remarks will lead to people being harmed, especially if, as in this case, they are being labelled "sub-human".

Cunovendus wrote:

We are definitely losing the right to free speech in this country, when one can actually face police action for saying/doing something racist.

I know! What's next? Punishing kids for bullying?

Cyberwulf wrote:

Cunovendus wrote:

We are definitely losing the right to free speech in this country, when one can actually face police action for saying/doing something racist.

I know! What's next? Punishing kids for bullying?

Ain't nobody got time for that.

So when was the last time the police got involved in a bullying incident? Aren't these matters usually settled by the schools?

I'm not saying it shouldn't be punished. I'm saying FIFA should be dealing with it and not the police. Same thing with the John Terry incident that happened some months ago...that should have never gone to court. It's a football matter, and is under FIFA's jurisdiction, so FIFA should deal with it.

The police should only get involved when a criminal offence has been committed.

Quote :

So when was the last time the police got involved in a bullying incident?

I volunteer at an after school program for children with emotional disabilities, and just the other day we had to call in the police because one of the children was threatening to take another into the bathroom and rape her.

Which is a violent threat.

Which is illegal.

As is hate speech in the UK, unless I misunderstand.

Cunovendus wrote:

We are definitely losing the right to free speech in this country, when one can actually face police action for saying/doing something racist.

Free speech does not protect from the consequences of your speech.

Cunovendus wrote:

So when was the last time the police got involved in a bullying incident? Aren't these matters usually settled by the schools?

I'm not saying it shouldn't be punished. I'm saying FIFA should be dealing with it and not the police. Same thing with the John Terry incident that happened some months ago...that should have never gone to court. It's a football matter, and is under FIFA's jurisdiction, so FIFA should deal with it.

The police should only get involved when a criminal offence has been committed.

A criminal act was committed.

Quote :

It is said that on the 23rd October 2011 at Loftus Road Stadium London, W12 he used threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress and the offence was racially aggravated in accordance with section 28 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, contrary to Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 and section 31(1)(c) and (5) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.

In short: the offence was that of assault* - it could have been brought by anyone. That the assault was racially motivated adds an extra layer of seriousness to the charge.

A crime is considered to be racially motivated if the victim believes it to be so - however, the final say is doen to the judge and/or jury.

* An assault does not have to be physical - to commit an assault you need to put your victim in a satte in which they believe to be "under threat of immediate and unlawful violence." Once physical contact is made such as touching the hem of a victims skirt ) it becomes a Battery

And for the record - the court found Terry innocent because it was unproved that he used the racist language as an insult . FIFA found him guilty - because he used the racist language.

Mr.Doobie wrote:

As is hate speech in the UK, unless I misunderstand.

The term gets thrown around but technically, no - hate speech is not illegal. Incitement on the other hand is illegal. And incitement with a racial or religious angle to it is covered by one of the more terribly worded acts we have when it comes to this issue.

Anon wrote:

1976. With good reason.

Huh, I thought this was a more recent trend.

I was also under the impression that you weren't a smug idiot.

I'm sorry, I was mistaken on both counts.

Anon wrote:

No. Racism is definitely not one of the things that should be protected under "free speech". You can reasonably expect that racist remarks will lead to people being harmed, especially if, as in this case, they are being labelled "sub-human".

It is absolutely ridiculous to think that making a monkey gesture at someone is likely going to cause them physical harm.

Cyberwulf wrote:

I know! What's next? Punishing kids for bullying?

That analogy is poor, even for you. There's a difference between physically antagonizing/assaulting someone and saying something racist.

WD40 wrote:

Free speech does not protect from the consequences of your speech.

If the consequences come from the government, at the drop of a hat, it ceases to be free speech. The "consequences" for free speech is considered to be other private citizens calling you an idiot or otherwise denouncing you, and possibly not wanting to associate with you. The government gleefully dictating what is and what isn't okay to say without any real restraint is not free speech, it's a police state.

WD40 wrote:

An assault does not have to be physical - to commit an assault you need to put your victim in a satte in which they believe to be "under threat of immediate and unlawful violence."

At least in America, it has to be a reasonable belief of an immediate physical threat. One clown in the stands posing can't, by any sane person not on very powerful drugs, be reasonably considered to be a threat.

If you consider that to be assault, you'd have to consider waving at someone to be assault because OMG HE TOTALLY RAISED HIS HAND AT ME I THOUGHT HE WAS GOING TO BEAT ME UNMERCIFUL I WAS SCARED FOR MY LIFE!1!!"

For that matter, how is typical booing not considered assault by your assbackwards interpretation? Last night, I was at the Western Kentucky/Middle Tennessee football game. When MTSU ran out onto the field, the entire stadium erupted in boos. WHY, WE SHOULD ALL HAVE BEEN ARRESTED FOR ASSAULT, AND HALF OF THE TEAM WAS BLACK SO IT'S DOUBLE BAD BECAUSE WE'RE CLEARLY RACISTS!!1!

But hey, if you want to live in an Orwellian shit hole of a nation on a backwater island where it's a criminal offense to hurt people's feelings or say mean words, that's your prerogative. Just realize that policies like these are indefensible to anyone that lives in a place where there is actually freedom of speech and freedom of thought.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

I know! What's next? Punishing kids for bullying?

That analogy is poor, even for you. There's a difference between physically antagonizing/assaulting someone and saying something racist.

BWAH HA HA HA HA HA

IT'S ONLY BULLYING IF YOU'RE PHYSICALLY ASSAULTED EVERYBODY

ALSO STALKING AND HARASSMENT ARE NO LONGER CRIMES

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

At least in America, it has to be a reasonable belief of an immediate physical threat. One clown in the stands posing can't, by any sane person not on very powerful drugs, be reasonably considered to be a threat.

If you consider that to be assault, you'd have to consider waving at someone to be assault because OMG HE TOTALLY RAISED HIS HAND AT ME I THOUGHT HE WAS GOING TO BEAT ME UNMERCIFUL I WAS SCARED FOR MY LIFE!1!!"

For that matter, how is typical booing not considered assault by your assbackwards interpretation? Last night, I was at the Western Kentucky/Middle Tennessee football game. When MTSU ran out onto the field, the entire stadium erupted in boos. WHY, WE SHOULD ALL HAVE BEEN ARRESTED FOR ASSAULT, AND HALF OF THE TEAM WAS BLACK SO IT'S DOUBLE BAD BECAUSE WE'RE CLEARLY RACISTS!!1!

But hey, if you want to live in an Orwellian shit hole of a nation on a backwater island where it's a criminal offense to hurt people's feelings or say mean words, that's your prerogative. Just realize that policies like these are indefensible to anyone that lives in a place where there is actually freedom of speech and freedom of thought.

Oh dear, Mikey, it looks like you've gotten confused.

John Terry and Monkey-Man are two different people.

Terry was not convicted of assault, because it could not be proved that his words were used as an insult/threat. They were, by Terry's own admission, racist - and so FIFA found him in breech of their conditions.

Monkey Man is probably being charged with some form of "Breech of the peace" type offence. But because it is racially motivated, it gets bumped up a notch.

Also it gets ramped up because it happened at a football game. Traditionally football firms (gangs) have been recruiting grounds for white supremacist groups like Blood and Honour and Combat 18. Back in the late 70's through to the mid 80's, "Paki-Bashing" was practically a hobby to these sort of people, and roving gangs intent of finding and flat-out murdering brown people, all under the cover of being footie fans, means the police tend to come down on footie hooligan racists like a ton of bricks.

It is thanks to tough action like this that these gangs are rare nowadays... In fact, they've changed tact and morphed into the EDL, framing themselves as a protest movement - the notion of "paki bashing" is the same, but the cover ("concern" about Islamic extremism over outright white supremacy/fascism) and the reason for large gatherings (Protest marches over after-game pub crawls) have changed.

Yes, the UK is, in word if not always in deed, thoroughly intolerant of racism. And I'll admit that some of our laws (like the aforementioned Racial and Religious Hatred Act, and Sec. 127 the Communications Act as another example) are poorly worded and pretty fucking draconian, but I'm not apologizing for putting the boot in to racists.

silly wd40, expecting mikhail to grasp things like "context" or actually do some research before he pronounces on this thread from on high

don't you realise how valuable his time is

Mr.Doobie wrote:

Quote :

So when was the last time the police got involved in a bullying incident?

I volunteer at an after school program for children with emotional disabilities, and just the other day we had to call in the police because one of the children was threatening to take another into the bathroom and rape her.

Which is a violent threat.

Which is illegal.

Which is a criminal offence. This guy did a monkey impression. No threats, no violence, no intimidation, harrassment or affray.

Quote :

As is hate speech in the UK, unless I misunderstand.

The man did a fucking monkey impression, ffs! Perhaps the player should be more concerned with the game.

Quote :

Free speech does not protect from the consequences of your speech.

That's true, and I can accept that if - and only if - it can be proven that actions were taken as a direct consequence of your speech, and that your speech was intended such. (Catcher in the Rye, anyone?)

Quote :

But hey, if you want to live in an Orwellian shit hole of a nation on a backwater island where it's a criminal offense to hurt people's feelings or say mean words, that's your prerogative. Just realize that policies like these are indefensible to anyone that lives in a place where there is actually freedom of speech and freedom of thought.

Exactly!! What people don't realise is that once the rules are set in stone, all that needs to be defined is the boundaries, and they can be changed. This is just the thin end of the wedge. Today it's racism, tomorrow it's insulting fat people, then it's insulting stupid people *insert predictable joke* ...once there's a rule for insulting people, anybody can make the case for why they themselves shouldn't have to be insulted, and eventually they'll have to create a blanket ruling that makes insulting anyone, anytime, anywhere, a criminal offence. People will be too afraid to speak, for fear of inadvertently (and unintentionally) committing a criminal offence. THAT is an Orwellian society, and that is what I don't want.

Be careful what you wish for, people. I hate racism as much as the next person, but - as Mickey said - I don't want to live in a society where we have to worry that making light banter can become a criminal offence (yes I know this wasn't light banter but that's where it'll end up).

Come on, who here hasn't said something in good fun, and accidentally touched a nerve? Under these laws that would be a criminal offence and you could go to court for it. Is that what you want? Judging by some of the comments I see here, I suppose it is. It surprises me sometimes that liberals - people who are supposed to champion the idea of freedom - are so keen to control and suppress the freedom of others who say things that they don't agree with. "How dare you say that? You fascist!!" - seems like a contradiction in terms to me.

That said, as mentioned before, FIFA have the right to include such clauses as terms and conditions relating to the sale of their ticket (which they probably do). If they feel that those terms and conditions have been broken then they have the right to hold a tribunal, or instigate legal action. The police doesn't have to get involved, and it doesn't have to be a criminal offence.

Spoiler:

Those four paragraphs you got at the end are full of logical fallacies like WOAH

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Quote :

This guy did a monkey impression.

At a black guy.

Quote :

(Catcher in the Rye, anyone?)

That's a shitty book.

The thought police aren't coming for you because that would be impossible to police, this guy might not even be punished anyway because the laws he's being prosecuted under seem so vague, and I'm not losing any sleep because some clownshoe is getting fined for being racist.

Cunovendus wrote:

So when was the last time the police got involved in a bullying incident?

I've heard that this happens quite often.

Quote :

Exactly!! What people don't realise is that once the rules are set in stone, all that needs to be defined is the boundaries, and they can be changed. This is just the thin end of the wedge.

If you get to use this line, then I get to use the thin end of the wedge argument about making monkey impressions at black people and where labelling an ethnic group as sub-human inevitably leads.

Mr.Doobie wrote:

Quote :

This guy did a monkey impression.

At a black guy.

That's actually a step down - there are some football stadiums that still have a ban on bananas as a holdover from the 80's because "fans" would throw those at black players.

But "OH NOES! MAH FREE SPEECH!"

Mr.Doobie wrote:

Quote :

(Catcher in the Rye, anyone?)

That's a shitty book.

No, it's not. Also, you do realize your post consisted of:

- a macro;

- a point everybody else has already made, but better;

- an opinion that you then didn't clarify, because, obviously, we should believe it just because you said it?

You're such a gem.

On the issue of freedom of speech, it's probably best to let this one go. The incident is being investigated. That's all. No one had been arrested or prosecuted at the time when the article was written, and this may not happen at all. There are laws that infringe on freedom of speech in the UK, but they have yet to be invoked here, and there is a need for laws such as ones banning incitement to racial hatred.

There are much bigger threats to freedom of speech in the UK and the US, and much more worrying cases that you could focus on. The article hasn't given any evidence to demonstrate an actual problem here. If you want to watch this space for proof of one, go ahead, but leave it alone for now.

Cunovendus wrote:

The man did a fucking monkey impression, ffs! Perhaps the player should be more concerned with the game.

God, toughen up, bullying victims! It's only WORDS.

Quote :

Catcher in the Rye

Good Christ that book is overrated. The only thing I remember about it is Holden writing an essay about his dead brother writing poems on his catcher's mitt for some douchebag who was too lazy to do his own homework, and the douchebag told him the essay was shit. And I only remember that because they referenced it in Ghost in the Shell: Standalone Complex.

Quote :

Orwellian

Oh, you've read 1984? I gave up at the part where Winston reminisces about stealing his little sister's chocolate ration. Depressing pile of shite. I prefer V for Vendetta.

Quote :

Come on, who here hasn't said something in good fun, and accidentally touched a nerve?

I know I make monkey gestures around black people all the time. Fuck them if they don't like my spontaneous King Kong impressions.

Anon wrote:

On the issue of freedom of speech, it's probably best to let this one go.

Anon, I don't think you understand what's at stake here. Cunovendus is in danger of losing hir right to insult fat people possibly. I know I'd rather live in a world where a whole stadium of white supremacists can hurl racial abuse at non-white soccer players while the police can't do anything but sit with their thumbs up their asses than a world where Cunovendus can't insult fat people.

Quote :

- an opinion that you then didn't clarify, because, obviously, we should believe it just because you said it?

Obviously because my taste in arts and literature is impeccable and anyone who disagrees is clearly wrong.

Cuno, if you can't see a problem with making a monkey gesture at a black man, when comparing blacks to monkeys was traditionally used to demean them and establish white superiority over blacks within the consciousness of society, then I really don't know what to say to you.

Hot Cancer wrote:

Cuno, if you can't see a problem with making a monkey gesture at a black man, when comparing blacks to monkeys was traditionally used to demean them and establish white superiority over blacks within the consciousness of society, then I really don't know what to say to you.

No, he's just scared the thought police are after him.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Quote :

Catcher in the Rye

Good Christ that book is overrated.

And that's the nicest thing you can say about it. No wonder J.D. Salinger spent so much of his life as a recluse...probably didn't want to hear any of the (well-deserved)criticism of that literary stinkbomb.

@Hot Cancer: I do know what to say to Cuno-- "Get some cash from your bank account and buy a clue, meathead!"

Cyberwulf wrote:

Cunovendus wrote:

We are definitely losing the right to free speech in this country, when one can actually face police action for saying/doing something racist.

I know! What's next? Punishing kids for bullying?

imo murder all racists

Cyberwulf wrote:

Quote :

Catcher in the Rye

Good Christ that book is overrated. The only thing I remember about it is Holden writing an essay about his dead brother writing poems on his catcher's mitt for some douchebag who was too lazy to do his own homework, and the douchebag told him the essay was shit. And I only remember that because they referenced it in Ghost in the Shell: Standalone Complex.

Quote :

Orwellian

Oh, you've read 1984? I gave up at the part where Winston reminisces about stealing his little sister's chocolate ration. Depressing pile of shite. I prefer V for Vendetta.

Catcher in the Rye I'll grant you -- it's more of an acquired taste. Though, really, your only argument is I don't remember it, disregarding the fact that it was one of the first books that gave teenagers a voice. Yeah yeah, insert easy joke about how teenagers are all stupid and don't deserve a voice, but this was in the fifties, where the whole idea of a teenager was a foreign concept and most people had to wait until their twenties to gain some sort of autonomy. Anyway. I love it, and I loved it even more when I was sixteen and I read it first. I liked the pointless meandering.

But you cannot, cannot go and dismiss 1984 as a 'pile of shit'. It's depressing as hell, but it's a wonderfully written novel that perfectly exemplifies all the dangers of any sort of totalitarian regime without ever descending into a parody of one sort of government. It's a tricky thing, but Orwell pulls it off flawlessly. V for Vendetta is good, very much so, but 1984 encompasses a broader sort of message.