Dear Mr CAST, Thankyou for your letter, which I have now filed in a draw marked "Disgruntled Ex Employees". For that is what your letter reminded me of. Whilst Ms Meire is guilty of causing embarrassment to herself on many occasions, the evidence provided by you does not prove that she has brought any Football body into disrepute. She appears to have outdated opinions on Football fans in general, and is obviously jumping on a bandwagon, that left years ago, to try to further her standing.
Your letter shows me that you are upset by Ms Meire`s opinions of you personally and your supporter friends at Charlton. Well Mr CAST, I would suggest that you grow yourself a pair and get over it. I`m sure that you are a Big Boy and can accept a bit of name calling. I`m sure Ms Meire has had far worse aimed at her by you and your mates.
Should you have any further evidence of your claim, please do not hesitate to send it to -- somebodywhogivesashit@thefa.cock
Meanwhile, please continue throwing objects onto the pitch, as I`m sure we will capture your image at sometime, and we will be able to take the type of action you are seeking, against you.
I quoted the relevant section of the act about halfway down page 2 of this thread. "Missile" in this instance means anything thrown onto or towards the pitch. Under the law, beach balls, stress balls etc would count as missiles.
At no point did i throw my beachball towards the pitch. The wind took control of said beachball and blew it onto play playing area. How can i control the direction of the wind?
I quoted the relevant section of the act about halfway down page 2 of this thread. "Missile" in this instance means anything thrown onto or towards the pitch. Under the law, beach balls, stress balls etc would count as missiles.
At no point did i throw my beachball towards the pitch. The wind took control of said beachball and blew it onto play playing area. How can i control the direction of the wind?
Could there be grounds to say that in fact it is Duchatelet who is racist?
Making comments about Chinese ownership a ruining football , and seemingly turning down an approach for Charlton on the fact that it was from a Thai investor - hence his comments made in Belgium after buying STTV
Well done to everyone involved. Just wrote two posts about it on Weibo using my Charlton news update account. Not that what I wrote will be of any help but it's great I finally have something positive to write about since the protest at the last home game.
Could there be grounds to say that in fact it is Duchatelet who is racist?
Making comments about Chinese ownership a ruining football , and seemingly turning down an approach for Charlton on the fact that it was from a Thai investor - hence his comments made in Belgium after buying STTV
I believe his thinking was along the lines of you have Europeans, brothers under the skin and all that, and then foreigners. Oh and after foreigners you have the Chinese!
Prague not surprising EUFA ignored Peter --- vote Out Out June 23rd !!
Swiss slimebags, mate, like FIFA, THE IOC, and various tax evading companies whose products you eat and drink. Out of reach of the EU, or so they hope,that's why they are there.
Vote Remain, join with our European friends to go after these global criminals.:-)
PS did you see how the cheese eating surrender monkeys deal with Google?
Could there be grounds to say that in fact it is Duchatelet who is racist?
Making comments about Chinese ownership a ruining football , and seemingly turning down an approach for Charlton on the fact that it was from a Thai investor - hence his comments made in Belgium after buying STTV
I believe his thinking was along the lines of you have Europeans, brothers under the skin and all that, and then foreigners. Oh and after foreigners you have the Chinese!
Roland does like to categorise doesn't he?
Dave Whelan wound up out of football for making unfortunate comments. Duchatelet's comments and actions aren't really in that league. I do believe his remarks (and his non-existent sense of irony) are typical of the paternalistic, small-minded parochial view of the world he seems to have though.
I quoted the relevant section of the act about halfway down page 2 of this thread. "Missile" in this instance means anything thrown onto or towards the pitch. Under the law, beach balls, stress balls etc would count as missiles.
There are exceptions for objects that have lawful authority to be on the pitch and the match balls would fall into that category. They're not daft these lawmakers!
Whether you like it or not, @mametz is spot on: throwing things on to the field of play is illegal. This was discussed at length at the time, and I'm quite confused as to the reception he's getting for stating a fact whilst providing the relevant quotations to support this.
My point remains that I still feel CAST were correct in their statement, and have never directly endorsed any criminal behaviour. That remains a point of opinion though, but it's worth highlighting that Mametz isn't attacking CAST.. He is simply making a genuine observation.
There genuinely isn't a requirement for every difference of opinion to result in an argument. Nor does everything need to devolve in to a "You're either with us or against us" mentality.
Whether you like it or not, @mametz is spot on: throwing things on to the field of play is illegal. This was discussed at length at the time, and I'm quite confused as to the reception he's getting for stating a fact whilst providing the relevant quotations to support this.
My point remains that I still feel CAST were correct in there statement, have never directly endorsed any criminal behaviour. That remains a point of opinion though, but it's worth highlighting that Mametz isn't attacking CAST.. Just making a genuine observation.
There genuinely isn't a requirement for every difference of opinion to result in an argument.
That's it, be reasonable, ruin all the fun!!!!
We're suffering from going cold turkey from the protests.
Whether you like it or not, @mametz is spot on: throwing things on to the field of play is illegal. This was discussed at length at the time, and I'm quite confused as to the reception he's getting for stating a fact whilst providing the relevant quotations to support this.
My point remains that I still feel CAST were correct in their statement, and have never directly endorsed any criminal behaviour. That remains a point of opinion though, but it's worth highlighting that Mametz isn't attacking CAST.. He is simply making a genuine observation.
There genuinely isn't a requirement for every difference of opinion to result in an argument. Nor does everything need to devolve in to a "You're either with us or against us" mentality.
mametz must be PL54 reincarnated. The Old Bill made it clear to CARD that they would not act on beach balls and stress balls being thrown in the direction of the pitch in exactly the same way that they wouldn't if you throw the match ball back. There is no exception as s/he claims, but there is sensible policing decisions in these cases.
Whether you like it or not, @mametz is spot on: throwing things on to the field of play is illegal. This was discussed at length at the time, and I'm quite confused as to the reception he's getting for stating a fact whilst providing the relevant quotations to support this.
My point remains that I still feel CAST were correct in their statement, and have never directly endorsed any criminal behaviour. That remains a point of opinion though, but it's worth highlighting that Mametz isn't attacking CAST.. He is simply making a genuine observation.
There genuinely isn't a requirement for every difference of opinion to result in an argument. Nor does everything need to devolve in to a "You're either with us or against us" mentality.
mametz must be PL54 reincarnated. The Old Bill made it clear to CARD that they would not act on beach balls and stress balls being thrown in the direction of the pitch in exactly the same way that they wouldn't if you throw the match ball back. There is no exception as s/he claims, but there is sensible policing decisions in these cases.
The police are in attendance to prevent a breach of the peace. I'm not sure where Mametz claimed there was an exception made, but I do agree in that sensible policing would suggest the objects posed no risk and as such there was no requirement to arrest those who threw them.
That doesn't detract from Mametz point that throwing them was technically illegal, as per The Football Offences Act 1991 (s2), even though police didn't act and the objects were harmless.
It is an offence for a person at a designated football match to throw anything at or towards—
(a)the playing area, or any area adjacent to the playing area to which spectators are not generally admitted, or
(b)any area in which spectators or other persons are or may be present,
without lawful authority or lawful excuse (which shall be for him to prove).
Without lawful authority or excuse, objects were thrown on to the playing area. It contravened that law in black and white, Mametz is 100% correct.
Furthermore, he's openly stated that he supports both CAST and CARD but wouldn't want them to undermine their position should someone point out this inconsistency - both fair and likely IMO.
The response he's getting for making a valid observation, grounded in fact, is pretty harsh.
Whether you like it or not, @mametz is spot on: throwing things on to the field of play is illegal. This was discussed at length at the time, and I'm quite confused as to the reception he's getting for stating a fact whilst providing the relevant quotations to support this.
My point remains that I still feel CAST were correct in their statement, and have never directly endorsed any criminal behaviour. That remains a point of opinion though, but it's worth highlighting that Mametz isn't attacking CAST.. He is simply making a genuine observation.
There genuinely isn't a requirement for every difference of opinion to result in an argument. Nor does everything need to devolve in to a "You're either with us or against us" mentality.
mametz must be PL54 reincarnated. The Old Bill made it clear to CARD that they would not act on beach balls and stress balls being thrown in the direction of the pitch in exactly the same way that they wouldn't if you throw the match ball back. There is no exception as s/he claims, but there is sensible policing decisions in these cases.
Thank you LuckyReds for explaining that. I am not seeking to wind anyone up and I am definitely not PL54 reincarnated. As I have said I support the protests wholeheartedly and I take part in them. I support CAST in their attempts to bring Katrien's misdemeanours to light. However I believe that their letter is flawed because they have stated something that, in my opinion , is a best disingenuous and at worst untruthful. As this letter is an attempt to persuade the FA to enquire into Katrien's unacceptable behaviour I feel that it's own lack of candour is a mistake. I first expressed this opinion 24 hours ago as far as I'm aware no one speaking on behalf of CAST has attempted to convincingly contradict me. Lucky Reds has, and as he states there is some difference of opinion between us.
More worryingly, some of the criticism of me seems not because I am wrong in my conclusions but merely because I have had the temerity to challenge CAST. I have no problem at all with someone explaining how my reasoning is wrong but I do have a problem where any questioning of certain people or organisations is seen as being a wind up or somehow traitorous.
With regard to Tellytubby's point about the police, their inaction doesn't lessen the illegality of the act. They quite sensibly decided not to waste their time on such a minor crime but it was a crime nonetheless.
Perception is key. Comparing fans actions to serious racist allegations and throwing beachballs are different entirities. One can ruin lives or at the very least upset/cause offence, the other pauses or slows down a game of football, and in fact didn't stop the game play at all in the last game of season. Only the flares etc. did and that happens at any said football game.
We can't win this fight being completely Holy, we have to tread in and around the 'line'. They are ruining lives, sounds extreme but they are - ruin CAFC you ruin ALOT more than a Football club, you ruin the community and a lot more on top.
Perception is key. Comparing fans actions to serious racist allegations and throwing beachballs are different entirities. One can ruin lives or at the very least upset/cause offence, the other pauses or slows down a game of football, and in fact didn't stop the game play at all in the last game of season. Only the flares etc. did and that happens at any said football game.
We can't win this fight being completely Holy, we have to tread in and around the 'line'. They are ruining lives, sounds extreme but they are - ruin CAFC you ruin ALOT more than a Football club, you ruin the community and a lot more on top.
I haven't compared racism to the throwing beach balls though have I?
What I have pointed out is that CAST said that they have never "condoned" any illegal acts when as a member of CARD they have been involved in the organising, planning and direction of throwing things onto the pitch which is illegal.
With regard to your point, Iainment, I was not seeking to undermine either of the two organisations that you mention but rather to warn CAST that they were in danger of undermining themselves by not being entirely candid in their letter to the FA. As I keep repeating I support the protests and take part in, and in some cases, help organise them myself.
With regard to Athletico's point about not being "holy". I agree. No argument from me there.
You might not be seeking it but sometimes things are best left unsaid. As we know any team performs best with a united front. Don't give anything to the other side, let them work it out themselves.
Perception is key. Comparing fans actions to serious racist allegations and throwing beachballs are different entirities. One can ruin lives or at the very least upset/cause offence, the other pauses or slows down a game of football, and in fact didn't stop the game play at all in the last game of season. Only the flares etc. did and that happens at any said football game.
We can't win this fight being completely Holy, we have to tread in and around the 'line'. They are ruining lives, sounds extreme but they are - ruin CAFC you ruin ALOT more than a Football club, you ruin the community and a lot more on top.
This is a significant point. It is about perception and of course proportion. The Act was brought in to curb racism and was specifically designed to eradicate appalling behaviour and racist comments directed against black and other ethnic minorities. An unforeseen and later effect has seen cases come to court where any reference to Nationality can be considered racist in certain circumstances and 'the law' can seem to defy logic. For example: A successful prosecution occurred some years ago when a Hearts fan called Craig Bellamy ' a wee Welsh barsteward'. Now Bellamy is arguably 'wee' is most definitely Welsh but to my knowledge anyway is not a bar****. However, it was the reference to him being Welsh which secured the conviction.
For Meire to complain about being called a Belgian so and so and then to equate that with racist chanting of 15 years ago is totally inappropriate. YES, they are both wrong in the eyes of the law but a sense of proportion should be applied and it is quite right that CAST should question Meire's outrageous comments.
You might not be seeking it but sometimes things are best left unsaid. As we know any team performs best with a united front. Don't give anything to the other side, let them work it out themselves.
I can see where you are coming from and in many cases I would agree with you but when one is calling for an enquiry into somebody else's integrity it is important that one's statement of the facts is beyond reproach.
You might not be seeking it but sometimes things are best left unsaid. As we know any team performs best with a united front. Don't give anything to the other side, let them work it out themselves.
I can see where you are coming from and in many cases I would agree with you but when one is calling for an enquiry into somebody else's integrity it is important that one's statement of the facts is beyond reproach.
Again, Proportion.
For Meire to claim that being called Belgian is in the same league/equates (in her eyes) with the insults hurled at Black players 15 years ago is wholly disproportionate and can and should be legitimately questioned.
Really can't understand why there is such a burning concern by you to turn the whole thing around against CAST who have acted in good faith in bringing this to the attention of the FA. What is there to gain by this? The complaint has been registered, Meire will have to make some response. Let her defend her words and comments. Why analyse to the nth degree the technicalities of the complaint?
You might not be seeking it but sometimes things are best left unsaid. As we know any team performs best with a united front. Don't give anything to the other side, let them work it out themselves.
I can see where you are coming from and in many cases I would agree with you but when one is calling for an enquiry into somebody else's integrity it is important that one's statement of the facts is beyond reproach.
Again, Proportion.
For Meire to claim that being called Belgian is in the same league/equates (in her eyes) with the insults hurled at Black players 15 years ago is wholly disproportionate and can and should be legitimately questioned.
Really can't understand why there is such a burning concern by you to turn the whole thing around against CAST who have acted in good faith in bringing this to the attention of the FA. What is there to gain by this? The complaint has been registered, Meire will have to make some response. Let her defend her words and comments. Why analyse to the nth degree the technicalities of the complaint?
I agree totally agree with your first paragraph.
With regard to your second paragraph there is no " burning concern" by me to turn the "whole thing against CAST". I originally pointed out that I believed that they had made an error in their letter.This was a short posting of a few lines. T he rest of my postings have been responses to other people. In the case of LuckyReds it was a debate over my interpretation of CAST's letter, which is fair enough. There have been other posts basically saying my understanding of the 1991 Act was incorrect and I responded to those. Others, including you implied that I am waging some form of vendetta against CAST and CARD. I am not. For the umpteenth time I will say I support the protests and I take part in them, since the turn of the year I have arrived early for matches to distribute literature, masks, unofficial programmes, beach balls, stress balls etc. Hardly the actions of someone who has a burning desire to harm either of the two organisations concerned. If no-one had responded to my original, rather short post, I would have left it that. If you look at this thread the "n'th degree" you talk about has been initiated by others and not me.
You might not be seeking it but sometimes things are best left unsaid. As we know any team performs best with a united front. Don't give anything to the other side, let them work it out themselves.
I can see where you are coming from and in many cases I would agree with you but when one is calling for an enquiry into somebody else's integrity it is important that one's statement of the facts is beyond reproach.
Again, Proportion.
For Meire to claim that being called Belgian is in the same league/equates (in her eyes) with the insults hurled at Black players 15 years ago is wholly disproportionate and can and should be legitimately questioned.
Really can't understand why there is such a burning concern by you to turn the whole thing around against CAST who have acted in good faith in bringing this to the attention of the FA. What is there to gain by this? The complaint has been registered, Meire will have to make some response. Let her defend her words and comments. Why analyse to the nth degree the technicalities of the complaint?
I agree totally agree with your first paragraph.
With regard to your second paragraph there is no " burning concern" by me to turn the "whole thing against CAST". I originally pointed out that I believed that they had made an error in their letter.This was a short posting of a few lines. T he rest of my postings have been responses to other people. In the case of LuckyReds it was a debate over my interpretation of CAST's letter, which is fair enough. There have been other posts basically saying my understanding of the 1991 Act was incorrect and I responded to those. Others, including you implied that I am waging some form of vendetta against CAST and CARD. I am not. For the umpteenth time I will say I support the protests and I take part in them, since the turn of the year I have arrived early for matches to distribute literature, masks, unofficial programmes, beach balls, stress balls etc. Hardly the actions of someone who has a burning desire to harm either of the two organisations concerned. If no-one had responded to my original, rather short post, I would have left it that. If you look at this thread the "n'th degree" you talk about has been initiated by others and not me.
ok, fruitless to argue the points further. You support the protests fine I get that. Must agree to differ then with regard to your suggestion (is that it?) that the CAST letter is somehow invalidated or diluted and I have come to the debate late so maybe this has all been aired with Lucky Reds. Goodnight.
You might not be seeking it but sometimes things are best left unsaid. As we know any team performs best with a united front. Don't give anything to the other side, let them work it out themselves.
I can see where you are coming from and in many cases I would agree with you but when one is calling for an enquiry into somebody else's integrity it is important that one's statement of the facts is beyond reproach.
Again, Proportion.
For Meire to claim that being called Belgian is in the same league/equates (in her eyes) with the insults hurled at Black players 15 years ago is wholly disproportionate and can and should be legitimately questioned.
Really can't understand why there is such a burning concern by you to turn the whole thing around against CAST who have acted in good faith in bringing this to the attention of the FA. What is there to gain by this? The complaint has been registered, Meire will have to make some response. Let her defend her words and comments. Why analyse to the nth degree the technicalities of the complaint?
I agree totally agree with your first paragraph.
With regard to your second paragraph there is no " burning concern" by me to turn the "whole thing against CAST". I originally pointed out that I believed that they had made an error in their letter.This was a short posting of a few lines. T he rest of my postings have been responses to other people. In the case of LuckyReds it was a debate over my interpretation of CAST's letter, which is fair enough. There have been other posts basically saying my understanding of the 1991 Act was incorrect and I responded to those. Others, including you implied that I am waging some form of vendetta against CAST and CARD. I am not. For the umpteenth time I will say I support the protests and I take part in them, since the turn of the year I have arrived early for matches to distribute literature, masks, unofficial programmes, beach balls, stress balls etc. Hardly the actions of someone who has a burning desire to harm either of the two organisations concerned. If no-one had responded to my original, rather short post, I would have left it that. If you look at this thread the "n'th degree" you talk about has been initiated by others and not me.
I would qualify this by saying I'm extremely drunk. After all it's champions league final day. But you are a tit aren't you.
You might not be seeking it but sometimes things are best left unsaid. As we know any team performs best with a united front. Don't give anything to the other side, let them work it out themselves.
I can see where you are coming from and in many cases I would agree with you but when one is calling for an enquiry into somebody else's integrity it is important that one's statement of the facts is beyond reproach.
Again, Proportion.
For Meire to claim that being called Belgian is in the same league/equates (in her eyes) with the insults hurled at Black players 15 years ago is wholly disproportionate and can and should be legitimately questioned.
Really can't understand why there is such a burning concern by you to turn the whole thing around against CAST who have acted in good faith in bringing this to the attention of the FA. What is there to gain by this? The complaint has been registered, Meire will have to make some response. Let her defend her words and comments. Why analyse to the nth degree the technicalities of the complaint?
I agree totally agree with your first paragraph.
With regard to your second paragraph there is no " burning concern" by me to turn the "whole thing against CAST". I originally pointed out that I believed that they had made an error in their letter.This was a short posting of a few lines. T he rest of my postings have been responses to other people. In the case of LuckyReds it was a debate over my interpretation of CAST's letter, which is fair enough. There have been other posts basically saying my understanding of the 1991 Act was incorrect and I responded to those. Others, including you implied that I am waging some form of vendetta against CAST and CARD. I am not. For the umpteenth time I will say I support the protests and I take part in them, since the turn of the year I have arrived early for matches to distribute literature, masks, unofficial programmes, beach balls, stress balls etc. Hardly the actions of someone who has a burning desire to harm either of the two organisations concerned. If no-one had responded to my original, rather short post, I would have left it that. If you look at this thread the "n'th degree" you talk about has been initiated by others and not me.
I would qualify this by saying I'm extremely drunk. After all it's champions league final day. But you are a tit aren't you.
I expect it is the drink, but even for you that is lame.
I agree with @mametz on the technical point, I recall us discussing the technical illegality of throwing even non-dangerous items towards the playing area and the fact that any court would take a more pragmatic view of the legislation.
That said, I wholeheartedly support the complaint the Trust has made on behalf of its members and supporters generally.
We all understand what the drafting was supposed to mean, regardless of this point. And the complaint has now been made so I can't really see what purpose the ongoing debate has other than to annoy.
After consideration, the Charlton Athletic Supporters' Trust have now made a formal complaint to the FA regarding comments made by CEO Katrien Meire earlier this month.
We have asked The FA to investigate a breach of conduct regulations and the possibility of bringing the game into disrepute.
You might not be seeking it but sometimes things are best left unsaid. As we know any team performs best with a united front. Don't give anything to the other side, let them work it out themselves.
I can see where you are coming from and in many cases I would agree with you but when one is calling for an enquiry into somebody else's integrity it is important that one's statement of the facts is beyond reproach.
@Mametz I suggest you revisit your third hand reference to the Football Offences Act and correct your facts.
The law does not make it an offence to throw to throw "anything" on the pitch, it categorically refers to throwing "any missile" in the direction of the pitch.
So you could throw a crisp packet into the air that lands on the pitch and it would not be an offence because (i) it is not a missile if it does not have a target and (ii) a missile has the character of a weapon see Webster definition:
"...an object (as a weapon) thrown or projected usually so as to strike something at a distance"
For a beach ball or any other object to be defined as a missile it must have been propelled with force intended to cause injury.
Comments
Thankyou for your letter, which I have now filed in a draw marked "Disgruntled Ex Employees". For that is what your letter reminded me of.
Whilst Ms Meire is guilty of causing embarrassment to herself on many occasions, the evidence provided by you does not prove that she has brought
any Football body into disrepute.
She appears to have outdated opinions on Football fans in general, and is obviously jumping on a bandwagon, that left years ago, to try to further her standing.
Your letter shows me that you are upset by Ms Meire`s opinions of you personally and your supporter friends at Charlton.
Well Mr CAST, I would suggest that you grow yourself a pair and get over it. I`m sure that you are a Big Boy and can accept a bit of name calling.
I`m sure Ms Meire has had far worse aimed at her by you and your mates.
Should you have any further evidence of your claim, please do not hesitate to send it to -- somebodywhogivesashit@thefa.cock
Meanwhile, please continue throwing objects onto the pitch, as I`m sure we will capture your image at sometime, and we will be able to take the type of action you are seeking, against you.
Yours complacently
Incontinentia Buttocks
FA spokesperson.
Making comments about Chinese ownership a ruining football , and seemingly turning down an approach for Charlton on the fact that it was from a Thai investor - hence his comments made in Belgium after buying STTV
Roland does like to categorise doesn't he?
Vote Remain, join with our European friends to go after these global criminals.:-)
PS did you see how the cheese eating surrender monkeys deal with Google?
My point remains that I still feel CAST were correct in their statement, and have never directly endorsed any criminal behaviour. That remains a point of opinion though, but it's worth highlighting that Mametz isn't attacking CAST.. He is simply making a genuine observation.
There genuinely isn't a requirement for every difference of opinion to result in an argument. Nor does everything need to devolve in to a "You're either with us or against us" mentality.
We're suffering from going cold turkey from the protests.
That doesn't detract from Mametz point that throwing them was technically illegal, as per The Football Offences Act 1991 (s2), even though police didn't act and the objects were harmless. Without lawful authority or excuse, objects were thrown on to the playing area. It contravened that law in black and white, Mametz is 100% correct.
Furthermore, he's openly stated that he supports both CAST and CARD but wouldn't want them to undermine their position should someone point out this inconsistency - both fair and likely IMO.
The response he's getting for making a valid observation, grounded in fact, is pretty harsh.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/football_related_offences/#a04
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/19/section/2
More worryingly, some of the criticism of me seems not because I am wrong in my conclusions but merely because I have had the temerity to challenge CAST. I have no problem at all with someone explaining how my reasoning is wrong but I do have a problem where any questioning of certain people or organisations is seen as being a wind up or somehow traitorous.
With regard to Tellytubby's point about the police, their inaction doesn't lessen the illegality of the act. They quite sensibly decided not to waste their time on such a minor crime but it was a crime nonetheless.
We can't win this fight being completely Holy, we have to tread in and around the 'line'. They are ruining lives, sounds extreme but they are - ruin CAFC you ruin ALOT more than a Football club, you ruin the community and a lot more on top.
What I have pointed out is that CAST said that they have never "condoned" any illegal acts when as a member of CARD they have been involved in the organising, planning and direction of throwing things onto the pitch which is illegal.
With regard to your point, Iainment, I was not seeking to undermine either of the two organisations that you mention but rather to warn CAST that they were in danger of undermining themselves by not being entirely candid in their letter to the FA. As I keep repeating I support the protests and take part in, and in some cases, help organise them myself.
With regard to Athletico's point about not being "holy". I agree. No argument from me there.
As we know any team performs best with a united front. Don't give anything to the other side, let them work it out themselves.
The Act was brought in to curb racism and was specifically designed to eradicate appalling behaviour and racist comments directed against black and other ethnic minorities. An unforeseen and later effect has seen cases come to court where any reference to Nationality can be considered racist in certain circumstances and 'the law' can seem to defy logic.
For example: A successful prosecution occurred some years ago when a Hearts fan called Craig Bellamy ' a wee Welsh barsteward'. Now Bellamy is arguably 'wee' is most definitely Welsh but to my knowledge anyway is not a bar****. However, it was the reference to him being Welsh which secured the conviction.
For Meire to complain about being called a Belgian so and so and then to equate that with racist chanting of 15 years ago is totally inappropriate. YES, they are both wrong in the eyes of the law but a sense of proportion should be applied and it is quite right that CAST should question Meire's outrageous comments.
For Meire to claim that being called Belgian is in the same league/equates (in her eyes) with the insults hurled at Black players 15 years ago is wholly disproportionate and can and should be legitimately questioned.
Really can't understand why there is such a burning concern by you to turn the whole thing around against CAST who have acted in good faith in bringing this to the attention of the FA.
What is there to gain by this? The complaint has been registered, Meire will have to make some response. Let her defend her words and comments. Why analyse to the nth degree the technicalities of the complaint?
With regard to your second paragraph there is no " burning concern" by me to turn the "whole thing against CAST". I originally pointed out that I believed that they had made an error in their letter.This was a short posting of a few lines. T
he rest of my postings have been responses to other people. In the case of LuckyReds it was a debate over my interpretation of CAST's letter, which is fair enough. There have been other posts basically saying my understanding of the 1991 Act was incorrect and I responded to those. Others, including you implied that I am waging some form of vendetta against CAST and CARD. I am not. For the umpteenth time I will say I support the protests and I take part in them, since the turn of the year I have arrived early for matches to distribute literature, masks, unofficial programmes, beach balls, stress balls etc. Hardly the actions of someone who has a burning desire to harm either of the two organisations concerned. If no-one had responded to my original, rather short post, I would have left it that. If you look at this thread the "n'th degree" you talk about has been initiated by others and not me.
But you are a tit aren't you.
That said, I wholeheartedly support the complaint the Trust has made on behalf of its members and supporters generally.
We all understand what the drafting was supposed to mean, regardless of this point. And the complaint has now been made so I can't really see what purpose the ongoing debate has other than to annoy.
The law does not make it an offence to throw to throw "anything" on the pitch, it categorically refers to throwing "any missile" in the direction of the pitch.
So you could throw a crisp packet into the air that lands on the pitch and it would not be an offence because (i) it is not a missile if it does not have a target and (ii) a missile has the character of a weapon see Webster definition:
"...an object (as a weapon) thrown or projected usually so as to strike something at a distance"
For a beach ball or any other object to be defined as a missile it must have been propelled with force intended to cause injury.
Get a life.