Supporter Banned

This Forum is the main messageboard to discuss all things Claret and Blue and beyond
Steve1956
Posts: 17178
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2016 1:57 pm
Been Liked: 6463 times
Has Liked: 2896 times
Location: Fife

Re: Supporter Banned

Post by Steve1956 » Mon Apr 15, 2019 10:37 pm

Hes a ginger as well

Jakubclaret
Posts: 9434
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:47 pm
Been Liked: 1179 times
Has Liked: 778 times

Re: Supporter Banned

Post by Jakubclaret » Mon Apr 15, 2019 11:35 pm

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.

chocolatestarfish
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 4:55 pm
Been Liked: 8 times
Has Liked: 31 times

Re: Supporter Banned

Post by chocolatestarfish » Mon Apr 15, 2019 11:49 pm

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?

fidelcastro
Posts: 7235
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2016 8:45 pm
Been Liked: 2194 times
Has Liked: 2175 times

Re: Supporter Banned

Post by fidelcastro » Mon Apr 15, 2019 11:59 pm

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?
Is that the song where there is a reference to a heart attack?

The heart attack he never actually had?

:oops:

Top Claret
Posts: 5125
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 11:50 am
Been Liked: 1127 times
Has Liked: 1238 times

Re: Supporter Banned

Post by Top Claret » Tue Apr 16, 2019 6:25 am

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
These 2 users liked this post: groove ClaretnGreen

claptrappers_union
Posts: 5755
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2016 10:40 pm
Been Liked: 1745 times
Has Liked: 344 times
Location: The Banana Stand

Re: Supporter Banned

Post by claptrappers_union » Tue Apr 16, 2019 7:14 am

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.

theroyaldyche
Posts: 2653
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 8:26 pm
Been Liked: 505 times
Has Liked: 245 times

Re: Supporter Banned

Post by theroyaldyche » Tue Apr 16, 2019 8:22 am

Game over for the supposedly now closed business

Bordeauxclaret
Posts: 10272
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 10:36 pm
Been Liked: 3327 times
Has Liked: 1938 times

Re: Supporter Banned

Post by Bordeauxclaret » Tue Apr 16, 2019 8:45 am

As if you’d close the business after that.

Rebrand maybe but you wouldn’t close it down altogether.

nil_desperandum
Posts: 7298
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:06 pm
Been Liked: 1823 times
Has Liked: 3948 times

Re: Supporter Banned

Post by nil_desperandum » Tue Apr 16, 2019 8:57 am

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.
Thankfully most of us are now living in 2019.
How far do you want to go back in order to justify something?
This user liked this post: ZizkovClaret

nil_desperandum
Posts: 7298
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:06 pm
Been Liked: 1823 times
Has Liked: 3948 times

Re: Supporter Banned

Post by nil_desperandum » Tue Apr 16, 2019 8:59 am

Bordeauxclaret wrote:As if you’d close the business after that.

Rebrand maybe but you wouldn’t close it down altogether.
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.

ŽižkovClaret
Posts: 6956
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2016 12:50 pm
Been Liked: 2143 times
Has Liked: 3060 times
Location: Praha
Contact:

Re: Supporter Banned

Post by ŽižkovClaret » Tue Apr 16, 2019 9:16 am

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.
Relocating to Swansea and Bristol?

Funkydrummer
Posts: 8306
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:50 pm
Been Liked: 2949 times
Has Liked: 2063 times
Location: Burnley

Re: Supporter Banned

Post by Funkydrummer » Tue Apr 16, 2019 9:25 am

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.

Claretforever
Posts: 2928
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 12:37 am
Been Liked: 1035 times
Has Liked: 507 times

Re: Supporter Banned

Post by Claretforever » Tue Apr 16, 2019 10:03 am

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.

turbo5
Posts: 308
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:19 pm
Been Liked: 113 times
Has Liked: 164 times
Location: Burnley

Re: Supporter Banned

Post by turbo5 » Tue Apr 16, 2019 10:31 am

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?
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.

ŽižkovClaret
Posts: 6956
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2016 12:50 pm
Been Liked: 2143 times
Has Liked: 3060 times
Location: Praha
Contact:

Re: Supporter Banned

Post by ŽižkovClaret » Tue Apr 16, 2019 10:39 am

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.
If there is a case to answer, there is a case to answer

Tricky Trevor
Posts: 8321
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 10:06 pm
Been Liked: 2439 times
Has Liked: 1978 times

Re: Supporter Banned

Post by Tricky Trevor » Tue Apr 16, 2019 10:46 am

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
Do you actually think the police put man hours into surfing the net?
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.

fidelcastro
Posts: 7235
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2016 8:45 pm
Been Liked: 2194 times
Has Liked: 2175 times

Re: Supporter Banned

Post by fidelcastro » Tue Apr 16, 2019 10:48 am

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.
Aye, that poor soldier must've been petrified, being forced to open fire on unarmed civilians.
This user liked this post: ZizkovClaret

nil_desperandum
Posts: 7298
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:06 pm
Been Liked: 1823 times
Has Liked: 3948 times

Re: Supporter Banned

Post by nil_desperandum » Tue Apr 16, 2019 10:50 am

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.
Partially agree, but the part that you overlook is that attitudes, but more importantly, laws change over a period of time.
Laws on murder haven't changed significantly, but the laws in such areas as race, gender and equality have.

fidelcastro
Posts: 7235
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2016 8:45 pm
Been Liked: 2194 times
Has Liked: 2175 times

Re: Supporter Banned

Post by fidelcastro » Tue Apr 16, 2019 11:07 am

Quickenthetempo wrote:You're a bellend of the highest order aren't you?
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!

Quickenthetempo
Posts: 17913
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:35 am
Been Liked: 3841 times
Has Liked: 2065 times

Re: Supporter Banned

Post by Quickenthetempo » Tue Apr 16, 2019 11:15 am

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!
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.
This user liked this post: turbo5

fidelcastro
Posts: 7235
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2016 8:45 pm
Been Liked: 2194 times
Has Liked: 2175 times

Re: Supporter Banned

Post by fidelcastro » Tue Apr 16, 2019 11:28 am

Scared of a civil rights march... righto.

TVC15
Posts: 8211
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:09 pm
Been Liked: 3321 times
Has Liked: 601 times

Re: Supporter Banned

Post by TVC15 » Tue Apr 16, 2019 11:35 am

fidelcastro wrote:Scared of a civil rights march... righto.
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 !
This user liked this post: turbo5

fidelcastro
Posts: 7235
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2016 8:45 pm
Been Liked: 2194 times
Has Liked: 2175 times

Re: Supporter Banned

Post by fidelcastro » Tue Apr 16, 2019 11:39 am

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 !
Proportionate response... aye.

TVC15
Posts: 8211
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:09 pm
Been Liked: 3321 times
Has Liked: 601 times

Re: Supporter Banned

Post by TVC15 » Tue Apr 16, 2019 11:45 am

fidelcastro wrote:Proportionate response... aye.
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

pureclaret
Posts: 1143
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 5:38 pm
Been Liked: 433 times
Has Liked: 176 times

Re: Supporter Banned

Post by pureclaret » Tue Apr 16, 2019 11:52 am

send 2 shillings and 4 pence we are going to a dance

theroyaldyche
Posts: 2653
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 8:26 pm
Been Liked: 505 times
Has Liked: 245 times

Re: Supporter Banned

Post by theroyaldyche » Tue Apr 16, 2019 11:56 am

Dont use twitter simples

Reckoner
Posts: 218
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2017 9:33 pm
Been Liked: 124 times
Has Liked: 3 times

Re: Supporter Banned

Post by Reckoner » Tue Apr 16, 2019 11:58 am

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
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?

ŽižkovClaret
Posts: 6956
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2016 12:50 pm
Been Liked: 2143 times
Has Liked: 3060 times
Location: Praha
Contact:

Re: Supporter Banned

Post by ŽižkovClaret » Tue Apr 16, 2019 12:00 pm

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.
If only there was some process where a judge could be employed to determine if he acted lawfully or not.....

TVC15
Posts: 8211
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:09 pm
Been Liked: 3321 times
Has Liked: 601 times

Re: Supporter Banned

Post by TVC15 » Tue Apr 16, 2019 12:05 pm

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?
I’m guessing that is a rhetorical question.

Blackrod
Posts: 5114
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 12:41 pm
Been Liked: 1348 times
Has Liked: 608 times

Re: Supporter Banned

Post by Blackrod » Wed Apr 17, 2019 1:52 pm

Plain thick.

FactualFrank
Posts: 25445
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 12:46 am
Been Liked: 6930 times
Has Liked: 11660 times
Location: Leeds

Re: Supporter Banned

Post by FactualFrank » Wed Apr 17, 2019 2:03 pm

The first two words on his Twitter profile bio raised eyebrows... "Proud dad".
This user liked this post: nil_desperandum

Post Reply