Don't understand catford, it's like someone has just got all the alcoholics, homeless, skagheads and general scum and put them there. I was once walking along the street in catford with a mate and a ginger bloke with one eye wearing a millwall track suit (swear on my life) out of the blue just looks at us and goes 'what the fuck did you say about my mother?!'. Very strange place
Original poster could maybe have tried to justify the song by using banter card in the ground, but singing it in Brighton high street negates any bantering claims.
Next time, just burn a union flag whilst screaming "death to British soldiers" and you'll be fine as the old bill will be too busy protecting you from other members of the public....................
Personally think the guy's been treated unfairly, can't see how that is homophobic? Also can't stand people on there high horses about people that get pissed before football, I do it all the time at away games and can garauntee that i've caused as much trouble as any of you tee total angels. Another pet hate of mine is when automatically people assume if someone is nicked/thrown out then he must have done something, I know at least one person on saturday was thrown out for no reason as I witnessed the whole thing. One last thing, I wish the old bill would do me a favour and remove the bums from catford under that section 26 or whatever as it would make my walk to work every morning a lot more pleasant.
Don't understand catford, it's like someone has just got all the alcoholics, homeless, skagheads and general scum and put them there. I was once walking along the street in catford with a mate and a ginger bloke with one eye wearing a millwall track suit (swear on my life) out of the blue just looks at us and goes 'what the fuck did you say about my mother?!'. Very strange place
Where's home for you OBH?
Beckenham/Penge way
They're not very close are they. I Used to drink in The Bridge in Penge
Penge high street and beckenham high street are connected by one long road, live inbetween the two high streets.
Penge is a scaled down version of Catford FULL of palice.
Plus I see the phrase "high horse" is the new "guardian reader". The guy asked whether we thought he had been unfairly treated. Some thought he hadn't and explained why they thought that. If he didn't want to know he didn't need to start a special thread just for the purpose. FFS.
We both know there are some on this forum who relish threads like this as an opportunity to put their put their noses up, doesn't matter which 'brigade' they belong to.
Go on then, name names.
You.
The thing is Gary that there is absolutely nothing that you can point to that I have written on this thread that is anything other than informative and developmental. You have not bothered to counter anything I have said at all, and seem to feel that if you say so and so is on their 'high horse' again then that will render what they say meaningless and it trumps everything...simply because you declare it to be so. If you have any specifics why not put them on the table?
You can call it informative and developmental and I'll call it over the top and irrelevant. The OP is obviously a young lad that went a bit too far and the link you posted is blowing it all out of proportion. It comes across to me like taking a moral high ground.
How is adding information to a debate taking the moral high ground?
At my Dads funeral yesterday this thread was discussed by some of us older Covered Enders and while not condoning what BA did we felt that some on here would be shocked and mortified at the behaviour of our `yoof' at 70's Kent cup games where we literally took Gillingham and Norwood apart.
Yep and he know's me. He will be screaming his normal stuff then see me and give me the thumbs up. He's harmless and a funny guy, have never actually seen him take a swig of drink he's forever holding. Obviously to people who don't know of him he could be quite scary.
Were you given any warning by the Police before they confiscated your ticket and told you to leave Brighton? My guess is that you were and you left that bit out of the story. If you were warned and then just carried on for a "laugh" as you say then I'm afraid you got what you deserved and probably less than you deserved for your subsequent behaviour. Trying to seek justification in what you describe as the more lenient treatment of Muslim extremists (for whom I have no sympathy whatsoever btw) is no justification whatsoever - two wrongs don't make a right.
I can think of stupid things I did when young (and not so young!) so learn from it and move on.
However do learn from it; Brighton has a large gay population many of whom will have experienced hatred as a result. It's a hot issue there in particular and the fact that you were singing what you were singing suggests you knew that! The unofficial blessing of a few random Brighton fans is not enough to countermand the law or Police!
As for not leaving when warned ... that was stupid and you only have yourself to blame.
Re extremists - If that was the case then they should have been arrested and charged.
By the way holding these opinions does not mean that I like prawn sandwiches!
Were you given any warning by the Police before they confiscated your ticket and told you to leave Brighton? My guess is that you were and you left that bit out of the story. If you were warned and then just carried on for a "laugh" as you say then I'm afraid you got what you deserved and probably less than you deserved for your subsequent behaviour. Trying to seek justification in what you describe as the more lenient treatment of Muslim extremists (for whom I have no sympathy whatsoever btw) is no justification whatsoever - two wrongs don't make a right.
I'm bored of keep saying it! NO i didn't get warned! My ticket got taken of me straight away, without warning! Hence the reason I'v been asking 'Was i hard done by'! Yes, i should of got arrested for breaching section 27. But, what iv been trying to get across is, should I at least had a warning....
Okay, I know I shouldn't bother (and I'm not debating here whether I think the law is right or wrong, just that it exists). Here goes:
Law is written in a complex way. But it does that for a reason. Many years ago, a barrister explained to me that you have to look at each word in a section in order and have a precise understanding of what each word means.
Here's some extracts from S27.
First the title: "Directions to individuals who represent a risk of disorder"
Note in particular the use of the word risk. It's not indicating that you personally are necessarily going to start something but, for example, that your mere presence might provoke someone else to give you a smack.
This is expanded further in (2)... test is— (a)that the presence of the individual in that locality is likely, in all the circumstances, to cause or to contribute to the occurrence of alcohol-related crime or disorder in that locality, or to cause or to contribute to a repetition or continuance there of such crime or disorder; and (b)that the giving of a direction under this section to that individual is necessary for the purpose of removing or reducing the likelihood of there being such crime or disorder in that locality during the period for which the direction has effect or of there being a repetition or continuance in that locality during that period of such crime or disorder.
The underlining is my emphasis to draw your attention to particular important words/phrases.
The Act then goes on to say : 3)A direction under this section (a)must be given in writing...
Now, to answer your question. Should you have been given a verbal warning first? The answer to this question is almost certainly no. Others in the vicinity who had heard what you were singing might have been inclined to start trouble whatever your inclinations were. The plod's job was to get you out of the way to avoid this.
Second the Act is silent on verbal warnings. Let's say such a warning had been given and had failed to have the desired effect and the Plod then went on to give a written S27. In any subsequent legal prodceedings, this would have given Counsel the opportunity to question what had changed in between the two events and call into question whether the plod was correct in the first instance to issue a warning with no legal standing or that the officer was wrong in law to have given the verbal warning as the Act does not provide for such an event.
No sensible policeman is going to bother with the risk of all that happening and him being embarrassed in Court by abrasive questioning from a smart defence Counsel when he can just act within the law and get his job done.
Look at it this way: do you think a typical plod is going to bother with all the palaver of a written S27 notice if he thinks he could get away with a little bit of "friendly advice"? No, nor do I.
I hope that helps you to understand that the police officer probably had little option but to deal with you in the way he did.
You can't overestimate how sensitive they are to homophobic stuff like that down here. It's bordering on paranoia. More straight people ready to take offence on behalf of the gays than the gays to be honest.
I live down here (have done for 14 years) and was in the pub on Thursday night telling a story about how one of my mates a few years ago was homophobic and we had to bundle him out of a pub that we'd gone into that we hadn't realised had been a gay night before he got into trouble. The story was taking the piss out of my mate and in no way homophobic - quite the opposite - but the pub went quiet as the people around me were eavesdropping the conversation and getting ready to be offended. Was quite surreal.
A bit of a joke really. When I go out with my gay mates in Kemptown occasionally (the gay part of town) you don't get it at all. Go out in Hove and there are armies of right-on straight people ready to take offence on their behalf.
So - based on my experiences I'm not surprised the police were so heavy handed with you.
The other problem is that a lot of fans come down here and sing "does your boyfriend know you're here", which most people I think agree isn't really offensive and is more puerile/Carry On humour - but unfortunately some then go on to sing various Aids songs which I think most would agree AREN'T acceptable, which is why the police stamp it out before it goes that far (not suggesting you would have done, but by being allowed to get away with it, it could have led others to take things further).
Leaburn, you can't take action against someone for something they possibly would consider doing in the future!
I can't see that "Does Your Boyfriend Know You're Here" is homophobic - there is no hate in those lyrics and there is actually nothing in there that says it's directed at gay men. It's a laugh - everyone knows that the Brighton support is not 100% gay - that's the joke. Copper was being an arse and OP was naive to try and get into the ground after the arse had told him to get out of town.
Leaburn, you can't take action against someone for something they possibly would consider doing in the future!
I can't see that "Does Your Boyfriend Know You're Here" is homophobic - there is no hate in those lyrics and there is actually nothing in there that says it's directed at gay men. It's a laugh - everyone knows that the Brighton support is not 100% gay - that's the joke. Copper was being an arse and OP was naive to try and get into the ground after the arse had told him to get out of town.
"Does your boyfriend know you're here" is definitely homophobic. Why else would it be directed towards fans of Brighton, the city in this country which is most closely associated with gay culture ? The purpose of the song is to ridicule people of Brighton as being gay because us macho straight football guys are all straight as an arrow and homosexuality is to be looked down on. I'm not saying everyone who sings the song is homophobic, that would require a level of thought that I highly doubt is invested in the decision to join in with the song.
As for the OP, maybe he was a little harshly delt with not to be warned before getting his ticket taken off of him, just take it as a lesson learned and part of your footballing education.
Leaburn, you can't take action against someone for something they possibly would consider doing in the future!
Of course you can if you believe their current actions could lead to something.
Really? Shit, arrest me now I might someday commit a crime... :-)
But you're not doing anything to suggest a future crime are you?
I know it's an extreme example but if someone was giving you death threats, would you expect the police to take certain action to try and prevent it or just ignore it and wait until it happens?
We'll have to agree to differ SE9 - I see it as a joke, you see it as something more sinister. It's a joke because everyone knows it's ridiculous to suggest that all Brighton fans are gay.
WSS, that is an extreme example and I don't think it in any way proves your point. I really don't see that there is any "threat" in that song and I have never heard it lead to anything more offensive at any game I've been to. But I don't feel that strongly about this so I would prefer to leave it there.
Leaburn, you can't take action against someone for something they possibly would consider doing in the future!
Of course you can. If you'd read the extracts of the relevant Act I posted above, you'd have noticed that is almost precisely what it is designed to do: take pre-emptive action to prevent escalation.
The original poster is " bored" with people's questions!?
There is no apparent regret for what was basically homophobic yobbish behaviour in the name of our club. Not even in the vicinity of the Amex, but instead in the High Street which is a fare distance from the ground and some of you seem to think that this is all ok - no it's not!
You were asking for trouble with a predictable result and the opportunity to avoid being arrested ignored. Being told to get out of town was your warning!
I see that Charlton Ladies play Brighton Ladies this weekend, would you be arrested there for the 'does your boyfriend know you're hear chant'?
To get the desired official "football banter™" effect, the ladies team would need to be playing in an area with a large lesbian population, and subsequently, the chant would need to be modified to "does your girlfriend know you're here".
Even in this case you need not worry about repurcussions related to a chant of this sort being seen as homophobic, as it will be simply dismissed as "football banter™", due to taking place at a football match.
I see that Charlton Ladies play Brighton Ladies this weekend, would you be arrested there for the 'does your boyfriend know you're hear chant'?
You are entirely missing the point. The OP was NOT arrested for chanting. He was arrested for ignoring the directions of a police officer, namely the terms of the section 27 notice.
This board is utterly obsessed with gay people living in Brighton. It's ridiculous.
If anyone can find a thread about going to Brighton that doesn't have some sort of cheap joke in it, i'd be pretty surprised. And the jokes really are cheap.
Gay people live in Brighton. And London. Get. Over. It.
This board is utterly obsessed with gay people living in Brighton. It's ridiculous.
If anyone can find a thread about going to Brighton that doesn't have some sort of cheap joke in it, i'd be pretty surprised. And the jokes really are cheap.
Gay people live in Brighton. And London. Get. Over. It.
One or two are obsessed maybe, but the whole board??
Comments
However do learn from it; Brighton has a large gay population many of whom will have experienced hatred as a result. It's a hot issue there in particular and the fact that you were singing what you were singing suggests you knew that! The unofficial blessing of a few random Brighton fans is not enough to countermand the law or Police!
As for not leaving when warned ... that was stupid and you only have yourself to blame.
Re extremists - If that was the case then they should have been arrested and charged.
By the way holding these opinions does not mean that I like prawn sandwiches!
Law is written in a complex way. But it does that for a reason. Many years ago, a barrister explained to me that you have to look at each word in a section in order and have a precise understanding of what each word means.
Here's some extracts from S27.
First the title: "Directions to individuals who represent a risk of disorder"
Note in particular the use of the word risk. It's not indicating that you personally are necessarily going to start something but, for example, that your mere presence might provoke someone else to give you a smack.
This is expanded further in
(2)... test is—
(a)that the presence of the individual in that locality is likely, in all the circumstances, to cause or to contribute to the occurrence of alcohol-related crime or disorder in that locality, or to cause or to contribute to a repetition or continuance there of such crime or disorder; and
(b)that the giving of a direction under this section to that individual is necessary for the purpose of removing or reducing the likelihood of there being such crime or disorder in that locality during the period for which the direction has effect or of there being a repetition or continuance in that locality during that period of such crime or disorder.
The underlining is my emphasis to draw your attention to particular important words/phrases.
The Act then goes on to say :
3)A direction under this section (a)must be given in writing...
Now, to answer your question. Should you have been given a verbal warning first? The answer to this question is almost certainly no. Others in the vicinity who had heard what you were singing might have been inclined to start trouble whatever your inclinations were. The plod's job was to get you out of the way to avoid this.
Second the Act is silent on verbal warnings. Let's say such a warning had been given and had failed to have the desired effect and the Plod then went on to give a written S27. In any subsequent legal prodceedings, this would have given Counsel the opportunity to question what had changed in between the two events and call into question whether the plod was correct in the first instance to issue a warning with no legal standing or that the officer was wrong in law to have given the verbal warning as the Act does not provide for such an event.
No sensible policeman is going to bother with the risk of all that happening and him being embarrassed in Court by abrasive questioning from a smart defence Counsel when he can just act within the law and get his job done.
Look at it this way: do you think a typical plod is going to bother with all the palaver of a written S27 notice if he thinks he could get away with a little bit of "friendly advice"? No, nor do I.
I hope that helps you to understand that the police officer probably had little option but to deal with you in the way he did.
I live down here (have done for 14 years) and was in the pub on Thursday night telling a story about how one of my mates a few years ago was homophobic and we had to bundle him out of a pub that we'd gone into that we hadn't realised had been a gay night before he got into trouble. The story was taking the piss out of my mate and in no way homophobic - quite the opposite - but the pub went quiet as the people around me were eavesdropping the conversation and getting ready to be offended. Was quite surreal.
A bit of a joke really. When I go out with my gay mates in Kemptown occasionally (the gay part of town) you don't get it at all. Go out in Hove and there are armies of right-on straight people ready to take offence on their behalf.
So - based on my experiences I'm not surprised the police were so heavy handed with you.
The other problem is that a lot of fans come down here and sing "does your boyfriend know you're here", which most people I think agree isn't really offensive and is more puerile/Carry On humour - but unfortunately some then go on to sing various Aids songs which I think most would agree AREN'T acceptable, which is why the police stamp it out before it goes that far (not suggesting you would have done, but by being allowed to get away with it, it could have led others to take things further).
I can't see that "Does Your Boyfriend Know You're Here" is homophobic - there is no hate in those lyrics and there is actually nothing in there that says it's directed at gay men. It's a laugh - everyone knows that the Brighton support is not 100% gay - that's the joke. Copper was being an arse and OP was naive to try and get into the ground after the arse had told him to get out of town.
As for the OP, maybe he was a little harshly delt with not to be warned before getting his ticket taken off of him, just take it as a lesson learned and part of your footballing education.
I know it's an extreme example but if someone was giving you death threats, would you expect the police to take certain action to try and prevent it or just ignore it and wait until it happens?
WSS, that is an extreme example and I don't think it in any way proves your point. I really don't see that there is any "threat" in that song and I have never heard it lead to anything more offensive at any game I've been to. But I don't feel that strongly about this so I would prefer to leave it there.
There is no apparent regret for what was basically homophobic yobbish behaviour in the name of our club. Not even in the vicinity of the Amex, but instead in the High Street which is a fare distance from the ground and some of you seem to think that this is all ok - no it's not!
You were asking for trouble with a predictable result and the opportunity to avoid being arrested ignored. Being told to get out of town was your warning!
Even in this case you need not worry about repurcussions related to a chant of this sort being seen as homophobic, as it will be simply dismissed as "football banter™", due to taking place at a football match.
If anyone can find a thread about going to Brighton that doesn't have some sort of cheap joke in it, i'd be pretty surprised. And the jokes really are cheap.
Gay people live in Brighton. And London. Get. Over. It.
I agree with you on your final point though.