Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Letters From Club - Agreed Behavioural Contracts ????
Comments
-
Try the Guardian then.colthe3rd said:
Do we know exactly what they were? I'd rather rely on someone other than talksport for accuracy.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Yet it appears the tweets in question do not fall within that scope, according to TalkSport, who have vetted the tweets.colthe3rd said:
I am aware of it but I'm also aware of this caveat that we have incorporated as a part of itStu_of_Kunming said:
Why would anyone need to brush up on their definition of free speech? Have you read Art. 10 of The Human Rights Act?colthe3rd said:
Why what? Elaborate please Stu.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Why?colthe3rd said:I know I'll be in the minority here but I don't think the club have done that much wrong here.
And for those banging on about free speech, you may want to brush up on that definition before you throw it about in regards to this instance.
"including threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior intending or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress or cause a breach of the peace"
If he has been using foul and abusive language towards people at the club (both online and at the ground) then I have little sympathy. Yes, the club could have handled this better but if you are going to be abusive 1. that's no way to try and protest and 2. you have to suffer any sort of repercussions that come along with it.6 -
"The comments made by the fan, on social media and captured on camera at the Valley, contained profanities but are not thought to be defamatory in nature, and indeed the club have not claimed as such."Big_Bad_World said:
Try the Guardian then.colthe3rd said:
Do we know exactly what they were? I'd rather rely on someone other than talksport for accuracy.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Yet it appears the tweets in question do not fall within that scope, according to TalkSport, who have vetted the tweets.colthe3rd said:
I am aware of it but I'm also aware of this caveat that we have incorporated as a part of itStu_of_Kunming said:
Why would anyone need to brush up on their definition of free speech? Have you read Art. 10 of The Human Rights Act?colthe3rd said:
Why what? Elaborate please Stu.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Why?colthe3rd said:I know I'll be in the minority here but I don't think the club have done that much wrong here.
And for those banging on about free speech, you may want to brush up on that definition before you throw it about in regards to this instance.
"including threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior intending or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress or cause a breach of the peace"
If he has been using foul and abusive language towards people at the club (both online and at the ground) then I have little sympathy. Yes, the club could have handled this better but if you are going to be abusive 1. that's no way to try and protest and 2. you have to suffer any sort of repercussions that come along with it.
So in other words they don't know for sure but are going on what he has told them.
Like I said I know my view won't be popular here and I don't want to get into petty online arguments with others. There's lots of reasons to criticise the club and ownership but in my opinion this one isn't that bad.2 -
Lets do thatBig_Bad_World said:
Try the Guardian then.colthe3rd said:
Do we know exactly what they were? I'd rather rely on someone other than talksport for accuracy.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Yet it appears the tweets in question do not fall within that scope, according to TalkSport, who have vetted the tweets.colthe3rd said:
I am aware of it but I'm also aware of this caveat that we have incorporated as a part of itStu_of_Kunming said:
Why would anyone need to brush up on their definition of free speech? Have you read Art. 10 of The Human Rights Act?colthe3rd said:
Why what? Elaborate please Stu.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Why?colthe3rd said:I know I'll be in the minority here but I don't think the club have done that much wrong here.
And for those banging on about free speech, you may want to brush up on that definition before you throw it about in regards to this instance.
"including threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior intending or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress or cause a breach of the peace"
If he has been using foul and abusive language towards people at the club (both online and at the ground) then I have little sympathy. Yes, the club could have handled this better but if you are going to be abusive 1. that's no way to try and protest and 2. you have to suffer any sort of repercussions that come along with it.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/aug/12/charlton-athletic-letter-forcing-fans-social-media
Not to mentionThis is unbelievable behaviour from Charlton. Has the Valley been moved to N Korea overnight? https://t.co/yEl5Zuz2K9
— Owen Gibson (@owen_g) August 12, 2016 " />
Not that it's any business of yours as a Spanner...
5 -
It shouldn't matter if it's 1 person or 1000 people that got that letter. The fact is it highlights the cluster fuck our club has become. This shouldn't happen. Whoever wrote it/signed it off or approved it should be fucking embarrassed. I'm glad it's gone viral regardless how 'small' a matter it actually is.26
-
If the words used fell under the remit of a criminal offence I'm sure the club would have involved the Police.colthe3rd said:
"The comments made by the fan, on social media and captured on camera at the Valley, contained profanities but are not thought to be defamatory in nature, and indeed the club have not claimed as such."Big_Bad_World said:
Try the Guardian then.colthe3rd said:
Do we know exactly what they were? I'd rather rely on someone other than talksport for accuracy.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Yet it appears the tweets in question do not fall within that scope, according to TalkSport, who have vetted the tweets.colthe3rd said:
I am aware of it but I'm also aware of this caveat that we have incorporated as a part of itStu_of_Kunming said:
Why would anyone need to brush up on their definition of free speech? Have you read Art. 10 of The Human Rights Act?colthe3rd said:
Why what? Elaborate please Stu.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Why?colthe3rd said:I know I'll be in the minority here but I don't think the club have done that much wrong here.
And for those banging on about free speech, you may want to brush up on that definition before you throw it about in regards to this instance.
"including threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior intending or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress or cause a breach of the peace"
If he has been using foul and abusive language towards people at the club (both online and at the ground) then I have little sympathy. Yes, the club could have handled this better but if you are going to be abusive 1. that's no way to try and protest and 2. you have to suffer any sort of repercussions that come along with it.
So in other words they don't know for sure but are going on what he has told them.
Like I said I know my view won't be popular here and I don't want to get into petty online arguments with others. There's lots of reasons to criticise the club and ownership but in my opinion this one isn't that bad.2 -
The fact is, it's not a small matter. It's a huge matter.
The club have tried to bully and blackmail a fan. A fan who has said and done nothing different from hundreds or maybe thousands of us.
They backed off from the contract idea at the meeting - but that doesn't excuse the letter.
Anyone who thinks the club are in the right on this one needs their fucking head examined.
It's looking and feeling like a police state these days. I am absolutely fuming about it.36 -
Or launched one of Daisy's much feared internal investigationsalan dugdale said:
If the words used fell under the remit of a criminal offence I'm sure the club would have involved the Police.colthe3rd said:
"The comments made by the fan, on social media and captured on camera at the Valley, contained profanities but are not thought to be defamatory in nature, and indeed the club have not claimed as such."Big_Bad_World said:
Try the Guardian then.colthe3rd said:
Do we know exactly what they were? I'd rather rely on someone other than talksport for accuracy.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Yet it appears the tweets in question do not fall within that scope, according to TalkSport, who have vetted the tweets.colthe3rd said:
I am aware of it but I'm also aware of this caveat that we have incorporated as a part of itStu_of_Kunming said:
Why would anyone need to brush up on their definition of free speech? Have you read Art. 10 of The Human Rights Act?colthe3rd said:
Why what? Elaborate please Stu.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Why?colthe3rd said:I know I'll be in the minority here but I don't think the club have done that much wrong here.
And for those banging on about free speech, you may want to brush up on that definition before you throw it about in regards to this instance.
"including threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior intending or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress or cause a breach of the peace"
If he has been using foul and abusive language towards people at the club (both online and at the ground) then I have little sympathy. Yes, the club could have handled this better but if you are going to be abusive 1. that's no way to try and protest and 2. you have to suffer any sort of repercussions that come along with it.
So in other words they don't know for sure but are going on what he has told them.
Like I said I know my view won't be popular here and I don't want to get into petty online arguments with others. There's lots of reasons to criticise the club and ownership but in my opinion this one isn't that bad.1 -
Just wow. The significance of this letter clearly signifies the culture currently at the heart of our club.6
-
With or without glove?mogodon said:
Or launched one of Daisy's much feared internal investigationsalan dugdale said:
If the words used fell under the remit of a criminal offence I'm sure the club would have involved the Police.colthe3rd said:
"The comments made by the fan, on social media and captured on camera at the Valley, contained profanities but are not thought to be defamatory in nature, and indeed the club have not claimed as such."Big_Bad_World said:
Try the Guardian then.colthe3rd said:
Do we know exactly what they were? I'd rather rely on someone other than talksport for accuracy.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Yet it appears the tweets in question do not fall within that scope, according to TalkSport, who have vetted the tweets.colthe3rd said:
I am aware of it but I'm also aware of this caveat that we have incorporated as a part of itStu_of_Kunming said:
Why would anyone need to brush up on their definition of free speech? Have you read Art. 10 of The Human Rights Act?colthe3rd said:
Why what? Elaborate please Stu.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Why?colthe3rd said:I know I'll be in the minority here but I don't think the club have done that much wrong here.
And for those banging on about free speech, you may want to brush up on that definition before you throw it about in regards to this instance.
"including threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior intending or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress or cause a breach of the peace"
If he has been using foul and abusive language towards people at the club (both online and at the ground) then I have little sympathy. Yes, the club could have handled this better but if you are going to be abusive 1. that's no way to try and protest and 2. you have to suffer any sort of repercussions that come along with it.
So in other words they don't know for sure but are going on what he has told them.
Like I said I know my view won't be popular here and I don't want to get into petty online arguments with others. There's lots of reasons to criticise the club and ownership but in my opinion this one isn't that bad.4 - Sponsored links:
-
....but as a football fan?PragueAddick said:
Not that it's any business of yours as a Spanner...Big_Bad_World said:
Try the Guardian then.colthe3rd said:
Do we know exactly what they were? I'd rather rely on someone other than talksport for accuracy.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Yet it appears the tweets in question do not fall within that scope, according to TalkSport, who have vetted the tweets.colthe3rd said:
I am aware of it but I'm also aware of this caveat that we have incorporated as a part of itStu_of_Kunming said:
Why would anyone need to brush up on their definition of free speech? Have you read Art. 10 of The Human Rights Act?colthe3rd said:
Why what? Elaborate please Stu.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Why?colthe3rd said:I know I'll be in the minority here but I don't think the club have done that much wrong here.
And for those banging on about free speech, you may want to brush up on that definition before you throw it about in regards to this instance.
"including threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior intending or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress or cause a breach of the peace"
If he has been using foul and abusive language towards people at the club (both online and at the ground) then I have little sympathy. Yes, the club could have handled this better but if you are going to be abusive 1. that's no way to try and protest and 2. you have to suffer any sort of repercussions that come along with it.7 -
Don't forget to cough....LenGlover said:
With or without glove?mogodon said:
Or launched one of Daisy's much feared internal investigationsalan dugdale said:
If the words used fell under the remit of a criminal offence I'm sure the club would have involved the Police.colthe3rd said:
"The comments made by the fan, on social media and captured on camera at the Valley, contained profanities but are not thought to be defamatory in nature, and indeed the club have not claimed as such."Big_Bad_World said:
Try the Guardian then.colthe3rd said:
Do we know exactly what they were? I'd rather rely on someone other than talksport for accuracy.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Yet it appears the tweets in question do not fall within that scope, according to TalkSport, who have vetted the tweets.colthe3rd said:
I am aware of it but I'm also aware of this caveat that we have incorporated as a part of itStu_of_Kunming said:
Why would anyone need to brush up on their definition of free speech? Have you read Art. 10 of The Human Rights Act?colthe3rd said:
Why what? Elaborate please Stu.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Why?colthe3rd said:I know I'll be in the minority here but I don't think the club have done that much wrong here.
And for those banging on about free speech, you may want to brush up on that definition before you throw it about in regards to this instance.
"including threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior intending or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress or cause a breach of the peace"
If he has been using foul and abusive language towards people at the club (both online and at the ground) then I have little sympathy. Yes, the club could have handled this better but if you are going to be abusive 1. that's no way to try and protest and 2. you have to suffer any sort of repercussions that come along with it.
So in other words they don't know for sure but are going on what he has told them.
Like I said I know my view won't be popular here and I don't want to get into petty online arguments with others. There's lots of reasons to criticise the club and ownership but in my opinion this one isn't that bad.0 -
OK, leads with the club's side, but overall pretty balanced, including quotes from @davo55.InspectorSands said:once again, the BBC relies on the club's take
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/37058470
4 -
Wait - are we allowing football clubs to decide what constitutes "harassment, alarm or distress or cause a breach of the peace" and dishing out justice now ? Silly me, I thought that was a matter for the Police and courts.colthe3rd said:
I am aware of it but I'm also aware of this caveat that we have incorporated as a part of itStu_of_Kunming said:
Why would anyone need to brush up on their definition of free speech? Have you read Art. 10 of The Human Rights Act?colthe3rd said:
Why what? Elaborate please Stu.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Why?colthe3rd said:I know I'll be in the minority here but I don't think the club have done that much wrong here.
And for those banging on about free speech, you may want to brush up on that definition before you throw it about in regards to this instance.
"including threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior intending or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress or cause a breach of the peace"
If he has been using foul and abusive language towards people at the club (both online and at the ground) then I have little sympathy. Yes, the club could have handled this better but if you are going to be abusive 1. that's no way to try and protest and 2. you have to suffer any sort of repercussions that come along with it.1 -
. not bothering.0
-
Players are an exception though because as we all know they never swear or abuse anyone.se9addick said:
Wait are we allowing football clubs to decide what constitutes "harassment, alarm or distress or cause a breach of the peace" and dishing out justice now ? Silly me, I thought that was a matter for the Police and courts.colthe3rd said:
I am aware of it but I'm also aware of this caveat that we have incorporated as a part of itStu_of_Kunming said:
Why would anyone need to brush up on their definition of free speech? Have you read Art. 10 of The Human Rights Act?colthe3rd said:
Why what? Elaborate please Stu.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Why?colthe3rd said:I know I'll be in the minority here but I don't think the club have done that much wrong here.
And for those banging on about free speech, you may want to brush up on that definition before you throw it about in regards to this instance.
"including threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior intending or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress or cause a breach of the peace"
If he has been using foul and abusive language towards people at the club (both online and at the ground) then I have little sympathy. Yes, the club could have handled this better but if you are going to be abusive 1. that's no way to try and protest and 2. you have to suffer any sort of repercussions that come along with it.1 -
What with the bloke who wrote the letter being an ex senior police officer...alan dugdale said:
If the words used fell under the remit of a criminal offence I'm sure the club would have involved the Police.colthe3rd said:
"The comments made by the fan, on social media and captured on camera at the Valley, contained profanities but are not thought to be defamatory in nature, and indeed the club have not claimed as such."Big_Bad_World said:
Try the Guardian then.colthe3rd said:
Do we know exactly what they were? I'd rather rely on someone other than talksport for accuracy.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Yet it appears the tweets in question do not fall within that scope, according to TalkSport, who have vetted the tweets.colthe3rd said:
I am aware of it but I'm also aware of this caveat that we have incorporated as a part of itStu_of_Kunming said:
Why would anyone need to brush up on their definition of free speech? Have you read Art. 10 of The Human Rights Act?colthe3rd said:
Why what? Elaborate please Stu.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Why?colthe3rd said:I know I'll be in the minority here but I don't think the club have done that much wrong here.
And for those banging on about free speech, you may want to brush up on that definition before you throw it about in regards to this instance.
"including threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior intending or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress or cause a breach of the peace"
If he has been using foul and abusive language towards people at the club (both online and at the ground) then I have little sympathy. Yes, the club could have handled this better but if you are going to be abusive 1. that's no way to try and protest and 2. you have to suffer any sort of repercussions that come along with it.
So in other words they don't know for sure but are going on what he has told them.
Like I said I know my view won't be popular here and I don't want to get into petty online arguments with others. There's lots of reasons to criticise the club and ownership but in my opinion this one isn't that bad.
The club are trying to make an example out of people at the moment and they have ex-plod on the books. Don't people think they'd have involved the police if they could?
If they genuinely thought their response was warranted then why not let the bloke record the discussion?
The club are hiding behind their own initiatives and making them sound all official and scary - ABCs and "Banning Orders" - yet people will still dig out the fellow fan before seeing it?
The response to these situations is almost as tedious as the nonsense that evokes them.5 -
Brings a new meaning to the term 'derogeratory,'2
-
Go on you know you want toLuckyReds said:. not bothering.
I can't wait to return to the valley in a month or so I am going to revoke my self imposed ban, and make it my sole goal to find Tony cahone on match day and see how big his cahones let's pick them off one by one,
5 - Sponsored links:
-
-
Perhaps they didn't want to go down that route and just wanted an amicable resolution to the matter.alan dugdale said:
If the words used fell under the remit of a criminal offence I'm sure the club would have involved the Police.colthe3rd said:
"The comments made by the fan, on social media and captured on camera at the Valley, contained profanities but are not thought to be defamatory in nature, and indeed the club have not claimed as such."Big_Bad_World said:
Try the Guardian then.colthe3rd said:
Do we know exactly what they were? I'd rather rely on someone other than talksport for accuracy.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Yet it appears the tweets in question do not fall within that scope, according to TalkSport, who have vetted the tweets.colthe3rd said:
I am aware of it but I'm also aware of this caveat that we have incorporated as a part of itStu_of_Kunming said:
Why would anyone need to brush up on their definition of free speech? Have you read Art. 10 of The Human Rights Act?colthe3rd said:
Why what? Elaborate please Stu.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Why?colthe3rd said:I know I'll be in the minority here but I don't think the club have done that much wrong here.
And for those banging on about free speech, you may want to brush up on that definition before you throw it about in regards to this instance.
"including threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior intending or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress or cause a breach of the peace"
If he has been using foul and abusive language towards people at the club (both online and at the ground) then I have little sympathy. Yes, the club could have handled this better but if you are going to be abusive 1. that's no way to try and protest and 2. you have to suffer any sort of repercussions that come along with it.
So in other words they don't know for sure but are going on what he has told them.
Like I said I know my view won't be popular here and I don't want to get into petty online arguments with others. There's lots of reasons to criticise the club and ownership but in my opinion this one isn't that bad.
No, you are twisting my comments. All I was referring to was those in here crying about freedom of speech. Well yes we do have freedom of speech in this country but there is a limit to that freedom.se9addick said:
Wait - are we allowing football clubs to decide what constitutes "harassment, alarm or distress or cause a breach of the peace" and dishing out justice now ? Silly me, I thought that was a matter for the Police and courts.colthe3rd said:
I am aware of it but I'm also aware of this caveat that we have incorporated as a part of itStu_of_Kunming said:
Why would anyone need to brush up on their definition of free speech? Have you read Art. 10 of The Human Rights Act?colthe3rd said:
Why what? Elaborate please Stu.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Why?colthe3rd said:I know I'll be in the minority here but I don't think the club have done that much wrong here.
And for those banging on about free speech, you may want to brush up on that definition before you throw it about in regards to this instance.
"including threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior intending or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress or cause a breach of the peace"
If he has been using foul and abusive language towards people at the club (both online and at the ground) then I have little sympathy. Yes, the club could have handled this better but if you are going to be abusive 1. that's no way to try and protest and 2. you have to suffer any sort of repercussions that come along with it.0 -
Not going to be a pretty sight...nth london addick said:
Go on you know you want toLuckyReds said:. not bothering.
I can't wait to return to the valley in a month or so I am going to revoke my self imposed ban, and make it my sole goal to find Tony cahone on match day and see how big his cahones let's pick them off one by one,
Tony up close that is..
3 -
@swisdom I think people might respect your opinion more if it wasn't so totally one sided. You say that you understand parts of why people are unhappy, but then you defend the regime on every occassion when people attack them. When things like this happen, and in my opinion this one is one of the worst of the lot, especially considering people on here know you are in business with the owners, it would probably be prudent to just say nothing at all.13
-
Where's the fun in that?nth london addick said:
Go on you know you want toLuckyReds said:. not bothering.
I can't wait to return to the valley in a month or so I am going to revoke my self imposed ban, and make it my sole goal to find Tony cahone on match day and see how big his cahones let's pick them off one by one,
Unless I'm very much mistaken, he's unlikely to have more than two, and once you've found and picked off one, repeating the trick with the other will hardly present much of a challenge...3 -
I only wish the lad had turned round and told them to stick the ST up their arse.2
-
Because when we have muzzas peanuts as well
We can force feed the despicable one like human centipede1 -
The letter was sent before the Bury match and needs to be considered in that context.
If the club subsequently stored up video from the Bury match as extra ammunition to be used when needed, then leaving aside the rights or wrongs of the video, the club statement today came after the club had conflated a number of events to shape the agenda.
The club have conflated the original letter, alleged events at Bury, and their version of the meeting, to disingenuously shape their statement, which then paints the fan in question in a bad light, what with talk of apologies and such like.
The club have singled out one individual and the Club have acted as accuser, prosecutor, Judge and jury in their own case. They have then passed sentence.
It is the letter in itself that we should return to, and not let any subsequent obfuscation distract from what is says and the implications.
leaving aside the near illiteracy of the writer the letter implies that in order to be allowed to buy a season ticket (take note BUY) you are restricted from what you say on social media.
Listen to the talksport stuff and hear what is said about 'parapets' if you need any extra info about restricting freedom of expression.
The letter alone, bald and stark and real, is what is defining our club at the moment.13 -
Song for the protest tomorrow to the tune of sing when you're winning:
'We're only here for our contracts.'
1 -
If only Mandy-Rice Davies was still here, she could've claimed the Club had been misinterpretated.3
