Supporter Banned
-
- Posts: 17277
- Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2016 1:57 pm
- Been Liked: 6490 times
- Has Liked: 2919 times
- Location: Fife
Re: Supporter Banned
Hes a ginger as well
-
- Posts: 9474
- Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:47 pm
- Been Liked: 1185 times
- Has Liked: 779 times
Re: Supporter Banned
Deserved banning really, some people are too quick to shoot from the hip, it may set an example & stop others doing the same, difficult to comprehend in any circumstances really, it's not as if we lost the game the result virtually sealed safety, but instead of being happy & satisfied with the important win, the focus was to bang on about a dead bloke & a submarine, nah it's not on it's a sick & abnormal thing to do in my opinion.
-
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 4:55 pm
- Been Liked: 8 times
- Has Liked: 31 times
Re: Supporter Banned
And how is this different from that song our lot throw up about jack walker up on ocasion? Should they also be banned or is it just wenn it's being tweeted or posted?
-
- Posts: 7361
- Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2016 8:45 pm
- Been Liked: 2220 times
- Has Liked: 2211 times
Re: Supporter Banned
Is that the song where there is a reference to a heart attack?chocolatestarfish wrote:And how is this different from that song our lot throw up about jack walker up on ocasion? Should they also be banned or is it just wenn it's being tweeted or posted?
The heart attack he never actually had?
-
- Posts: 5125
- Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 11:50 am
- Been Liked: 1127 times
- Has Liked: 1238 times
Re: Supporter Banned
I think police time would be better put to use by trying to solve violent crimes and burglaries than getting involved in school yard name calling.
I understand Burnley fc banning him they obviously don't want to be associated with such behaviour, but to ruin a man and his families lively hood over school yard banter is ridiculous
I understand Burnley fc banning him they obviously don't want to be associated with such behaviour, but to ruin a man and his families lively hood over school yard banter is ridiculous
These 2 users liked this post: groove ClaretnGreen
-
- Posts: 5900
- Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2016 10:40 pm
- Been Liked: 1772 times
- Has Liked: 359 times
- Location: The Banana Stand
Re: Supporter Banned
Initially I thought it was harsh banning him over a tweet which was in bad taste, but then I realised he tweeted similar stuff over and over. Some of them read as quite aggressive. I don’t understand why people behave like that. I’m self employed and I’d never swear on twitter because you never know who is doing due diligence on you.
I wouldn’t go as far as helping to ruin the guys business though, that’s not fair. However I wouldn't want to have any dealings with him.
I’ll be steering clear.
I wouldn’t go as far as helping to ruin the guys business though, that’s not fair. However I wouldn't want to have any dealings with him.
I’ll be steering clear.
-
- Posts: 2653
- Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 8:26 pm
- Been Liked: 505 times
- Has Liked: 245 times
Re: Supporter Banned
Game over for the supposedly now closed business
-
- Posts: 10328
- Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 10:36 pm
- Been Liked: 3342 times
- Has Liked: 1964 times
Re: Supporter Banned
As if you’d close the business after that.
Rebrand maybe but you wouldn’t close it down altogether.
Rebrand maybe but you wouldn’t close it down altogether.
-
- Posts: 7312
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:06 pm
- Been Liked: 1827 times
- Has Liked: 3964 times
Re: Supporter Banned
Thankfully most of us are now living in 2019.turbo5 wrote: Dread to think how many people would be banned if they could historically go back to the 1980's some of the songs and chants were vile.
How far do you want to go back in order to justify something?
This user liked this post: ZizkovClaret
-
- Posts: 7312
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:06 pm
- Been Liked: 1827 times
- Has Liked: 3964 times
Re: Supporter Banned
I would imagine that's what he'll do.Bordeauxclaret wrote:As if you’d close the business after that.
Rebrand maybe but you wouldn’t close it down altogether.
Don't see how he could continue to operate the same business out of Turf Moor after all this adverse publicity.
-
- Posts: 7070
- Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2016 12:50 pm
- Been Liked: 2176 times
- Has Liked: 3110 times
- Location: Praha
- Contact:
Re: Supporter Banned
Relocating to Swansea and Bristol?nil_desperandum wrote:I would imagine that's what he'll do.
Don't see how he could continue to operate the same business out of Turf Moor after all this adverse publicity.
-
- Posts: 8367
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:50 pm
- Been Liked: 2977 times
- Has Liked: 2075 times
- Location: Burnley
Re: Supporter Banned
What a vile creature that is. What on earth goes through the heads of
people like this ?
Not much I would suggest. Public flogging too good.
people like this ?
Not much I would suggest. Public flogging too good.
-
- Posts: 2937
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 12:37 am
- Been Liked: 1035 times
- Has Liked: 509 times
Re: Supporter Banned
I’d normally say that a permanent ban from a Turf Moor would be harsh, and perhaps a temporary ban (6 months or 1 season) would teach the person a lesson. We have started to get overly hysterical about words on the internet (in this case especially because it’s recent, and it’s horrible) which aren’t directed at the person who is supposedly “upset”, or “distressed”. I can’t do with the exaggeration of it all.
This guy has had a ban before though, and was done for drink driving last year too, so at best he’s not the brightest, and at worst comes across as a total pillock.
I’ll probably get a ban from the Turf now for causing a great deal of “alarm” by calling him a pillock.
This guy has had a ban before though, and was done for drink driving last year too, so at best he’s not the brightest, and at worst comes across as a total pillock.
I’ll probably get a ban from the Turf now for causing a great deal of “alarm” by calling him a pillock.
-
- Posts: 309
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:19 pm
- Been Liked: 114 times
- Has Liked: 164 times
- Location: Burnley
Re: Supporter Banned
I am not justifying his behaviour I am pointing out that if they went back in time they would be a lot of Burnley fans banned. I am sure they wouldn't spend time and money investigating that because it was pre-social media. They did go a few years back for Andre Gray's tweets. Even without social media for more serious crimes like grooming cases from the 1970's and1980's they have dug up the past. Then that poor soilder from the Paras in his 70's being investigated for the bloody Sunday event.nil_desperandum wrote:Thankfully most of us are now living in 2019.
How far do you want to go back in order to justify something?
-
- Posts: 7070
- Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2016 12:50 pm
- Been Liked: 2176 times
- Has Liked: 3110 times
- Location: Praha
- Contact:
Re: Supporter Banned
If there is a case to answer, there is a case to answerturbo5 wrote:I am not justifying his behaviour I am pointing out that if they went back in time they would be a lot of Burnley fans banned. I am sure they wouldn't spend time and money investigating that because it was pre-social media. They did go a few years back for Andre Gray's tweets. Even without social media for more serious crimes like grooming cases from the 1970's and1980's they have dug up the past. Then that poor soilder from the Paras in his 70's being investigated for the bloody Sunday event.
-
- Posts: 8529
- Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 10:06 pm
- Been Liked: 2473 times
- Has Liked: 2010 times
Re: Supporter Banned
Do you actually think the police put man hours into surfing the net?Top Claret wrote:I think police time would be better put to use by trying to solve violent crimes and burglaries than getting involved in school yard name calling.
I understand Burnley fc banning him they obviously don't want to be associated with such behaviour, but to ruin a man and his families lively hood over school yard banter is ridiculous
This a crime, the crime has been reported, the police investigate the crime. In the course of their investigation they might check the guys posting history on social media but that’s all.
-
- Posts: 7361
- Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2016 8:45 pm
- Been Liked: 2220 times
- Has Liked: 2211 times
Re: Supporter Banned
Aye, that poor soldier must've been petrified, being forced to open fire on unarmed civilians.turbo5 wrote:I am not justifying his behaviour I am pointing out that if they went back in time they would be a lot of Burnley fans banned. I am sure they wouldn't spend time and money investigating that because it was pre-social media. They did go a few years back for Andre Gray's tweets. Even without social media for more serious crimes like grooming cases from the 1970's and1980's they have dug up the past. Then that poor soilder from the Paras in his 70's being investigated for the bloody Sunday event.
This user liked this post: ZizkovClaret
-
- Posts: 7312
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:06 pm
- Been Liked: 1827 times
- Has Liked: 3964 times
Re: Supporter Banned
Partially agree, but the part that you overlook is that attitudes, but more importantly, laws change over a period of time.turbo5 wrote:I am not justifying his behaviour I am pointing out that if they went back in time they would be a lot of Burnley fans banned. I am sure they wouldn't spend time and money investigating that because it was pre-social media. They did go a few years back for Andre Gray's tweets. Even without social media for more serious crimes like grooming cases from the 1970's and1980's they have dug up the past. Then that poor soilder from the Paras in his 70's being investigated for the bloody Sunday event.
Laws on murder haven't changed significantly, but the laws in such areas as race, gender and equality have.
-
- Posts: 7361
- Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2016 8:45 pm
- Been Liked: 2220 times
- Has Liked: 2211 times
Re: Supporter Banned
That's a bit rich, coming from you!Quickenthetempo wrote:You're a bellend of the highest order aren't you?
However, if you'd care to point out where my post is inaccurate, then I'm all eyes!
-
- Posts: 18097
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:35 am
- Been Liked: 3875 times
- Has Liked: 2073 times
Re: Supporter Banned
Go and talk to soldiers who served over there, most were scared shitless every night, coming under attack after attack.fidelcastro wrote:That's a bit rich, coming from you!
However, if you'd care to point out where my post is inaccurate, then I'm all eyes!
You make it out like he just opened fire randomly on someone carrying bread and milk from Asda.
This user liked this post: turbo5
-
- Posts: 7361
- Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2016 8:45 pm
- Been Liked: 2220 times
- Has Liked: 2211 times
Re: Supporter Banned
Scared of a civil rights march... righto.
Re: Supporter Banned
Aye - cos that’s all they did....nice pleasant peaceful marches singing Irish ditties and dishing out lovely hot potato pie to those cheeky soldiers - righto !fidelcastro wrote:Scared of a civil rights march... righto.
This user liked this post: turbo5
-
- Posts: 7361
- Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2016 8:45 pm
- Been Liked: 2220 times
- Has Liked: 2211 times
Re: Supporter Banned
Proportionate response... aye.TVC15 wrote:Aye - cos that’s all they did....nice pleasant peaceful marches singing Irish ditties and dishing out lovely hot potato pie to those cheeky soldiers - righto !
Re: Supporter Banned
Ok....i’m sure you know all the details.fidelcastro wrote:Proportionate response... aye.
Btw what is a “proportionate response” to decades of terrorism and murdering hundreds of innocent people ?...just wondering like
-
- Posts: 1151
- Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 5:38 pm
- Been Liked: 435 times
- Has Liked: 176 times
Re: Supporter Banned
send 2 shillings and 4 pence we are going to a dance
-
- Posts: 2653
- Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 8:26 pm
- Been Liked: 505 times
- Has Liked: 245 times
Re: Supporter Banned
Dont use twitter simples
Re: Supporter Banned
Do you think it is proportionate to open fire on people that you have no reason to think were involved in the terrorism? Or would proportionality dictate that to shoot people you would have to have a genuine belief the people you are killing were involved in the terrorism or pose an immediate threat to life?TVC15 wrote:Ok....i’m sure you know all the details.
Btw what is a “proportionate response” to decades of terrorism and murdering hundreds of innocent people ?...just wondering like
-
- Posts: 7070
- Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2016 12:50 pm
- Been Liked: 2176 times
- Has Liked: 3110 times
- Location: Praha
- Contact:
Re: Supporter Banned
If only there was some process where a judge could be employed to determine if he acted lawfully or not.....Quickenthetempo wrote:Go and talk to soldiers who served over there, most were scared shitless every night, coming under attack after attack.
You make it out like he just opened fire randomly on someone carrying bread and milk from Asda.
Re: Supporter Banned
I’m guessing that is a rhetorical question.Reckoner wrote:Do you think it is proportionate to open fire on people that you have no reason to think were involved in the terrorism? Or would proportionality dictate that to shoot people you would have to have a genuine belief the people you are killing were involved in the terrorism or pose an immediate threat to life?
Re: Supporter Banned
Plain thick.
-
- Posts: 25445
- Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 12:46 am
- Been Liked: 6930 times
- Has Liked: 11660 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: Supporter Banned
The first two words on his Twitter profile bio raised eyebrows... "Proud dad".
This user liked this post: nil_desperandum