Letters From Club - Agreed Behavioural Contracts ????
Comments
-
And the idea that the matter was settled "amicably" is clearly fanciful.
The club backed off. Probably because someone with more than a single brain cell worked out that they were on a hiding to nothing.
The fan "apologised" because he wanted his ST.
He clearly feels picked on, bullied, pressurised, blackmailed - call it what you will.
But it's far from amicable, quite clearly.19 -
WSS said:
“I expected to walk in there, they’d have the contract laid out and that would be it,” he said. “I said I didn’t want the meeting to be mentioned, but they’ve [made it public] now regardless. I was going to take the contract away and take legal advice, but instead they gave me a telling off.
“I apologised for whatever was said, but at the end of the day they shouldn’t be sending these sort of letters. I am sorry, but I haven’t signed any conditions. I said I wanted to record the conversation so it was clear what had been said, but they said no.
“I don’t care what they do now. I’ve had enough of the club and how they’ve tried to treat me, and every other supporters. Let them do what they’ve got to do. I can still travel to away games. They can’t ban me from away games – I haven’t committed a criminal offence.”
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/aug/12/charlton-athletic-letter-forcing-fans-social-media
As I've said previously they can ban you from going away games too by giving the said person a civil ban.
0 -
Is there a way to listen to the TalkSport interview?0
-
Is that more or less amicable than getting the police involved?Davo55 said:And the idea that the matter was settled "amicably" is clearly fanciful.
The club backed off. Probably because someone with more than a single bran cell worked out that they were on a hiding to nothing.
The fan "apologised" because he wanted his ST.
He clearly feels picked on, bullied, pressurised, blackmailed - call it what you will.
But it's far from amicable, quite clearly.
0 -
I didn't even register that you had commented mate.colthe3rd said:
Is that more or less amicable than getting the police involved?Davo55 said:And the idea that the matter was settled "amicably" is clearly fanciful.
The club backed off. Probably because someone with more than a single bran cell worked out that they were on a hiding to nothing.
The fan "apologised" because he wanted his ST.
He clearly feels picked on, bullied, pressurised, blackmailed - call it what you will.
But it's far from amicable, quite clearly.
Look I get this is an emotive topic but don't twist my words round.
I'm referring to the club statement.0 -
I wonder if Mel Baroni is reading this and quietly chuckling to herself..........15
-
What is a " mutual appointment " I wonder ? A "mutually convenient appointment "would have made more sense as would " an appointment".3
-
Apologies Davo.Davo55 said:
I didn't even register that you had commented mate.colthe3rd said:
Is that more or less amicable than getting the police involved?Davo55 said:And the idea that the matter was settled "amicably" is clearly fanciful.
The club backed off. Probably because someone with more than a single bran cell worked out that they were on a hiding to nothing.
The fan "apologised" because he wanted his ST.
He clearly feels picked on, bullied, pressurised, blackmailed - call it what you will.
But it's far from amicable, quite clearly.
Look I get this is an emotive topic but don't twist my words round.
I'm referring to the club statement.0 -
Quite. But football clubs aren't given the power to limit freedom of speech or punish people when they cross that line, that's what's so unbelievable about this.colthe3rd said:
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.2 -
Awooga to thatcolthe3rd 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 - Sponsored links:
-
Well no but this is hardly a punishment. And as was mentioned in the statement this is run in conjunction with the MPS in order to avoid criminal proceedings. I think that is defeinitely in everyone's interest that it doesn't progress to that stage.se9addick said:
Quite. But football clubs aren't given the power to limit freedom of speech or punish people when they cross that line, that's what's so unbelievable about this.colthe3rd said:
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.
Unless you are saying that the club should have passed the details on to the police for them to then intervene? I can only imagine the sort of bed wetting that would have caused on here and social media had that happened.1 -
Worse than this?0
-
It's not about what was said it's about the letter ban the fella if he stepped over the line it's been done for donkeys
It's the come and see me aspect, I would bet my house there are people with tickets that they have identified on cctv that they wouldn't call In to that meeting due to the reaction they would get if they did
Bully behaviour like the grab squad stewards and those who took out dave white last season
Wankas running the club10 -
No worries mate.colthe3rd said:
Apologies Davo.Davo55 said:
I didn't even register that you had commented mate.colthe3rd said:
Is that more or less amicable than getting the police involved?Davo55 said:And the idea that the matter was settled "amicably" is clearly fanciful.
The club backed off. Probably because someone with more than a single bran cell worked out that they were on a hiding to nothing.
The fan "apologised" because he wanted his ST.
He clearly feels picked on, bullied, pressurised, blackmailed - call it what you will.
But it's far from amicable, quite clearly.
Look I get this is an emotive topic but don't twist my words round.
I'm referring to the club statement.0 -
:suspicious:Johnhumphrey said:
Awooga to thatcolthe3rd 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 one to stick the knife in or kick someone when they are down but you might like to watch BBC London tonight at 6.30.3
-
Logs on to sky and presses record!3
-
Just done the same programmed to record1
- Sponsored links:
-
A misunderstanding amicably resolved on the internet?Davo55 said:
No worries mate.colthe3rd said:
Apologies Davo.Davo55 said:
I didn't even register that you had commented mate.colthe3rd said:
Is that more or less amicable than getting the police involved?Davo55 said:And the idea that the matter was settled "amicably" is clearly fanciful.
The club backed off. Probably because someone with more than a single bran cell worked out that they were on a hiding to nothing.
The fan "apologised" because he wanted his ST.
He clearly feels picked on, bullied, pressurised, blackmailed - call it what you will.
But it's far from amicable, quite clearly.
Look I get this is an emotive topic but don't twist my words round.
I'm referring to the club statement.
You people must be new here...5 -
Can someone please do a crap video on their phone while it's on and upload it for those unable to watch it and don't have sky? Cheers! :t6
-
Cliff didn't spell behaviour correctly. Has he got an American spell checker on?0
-
Hardly a punishment? He got a season ticket!colthe3rd said:
Well no but this is hardly a punishment. And as was mentioned in the statement this is run in conjunction with the MPS in order to avoid criminal proceedings. I think that is defeinitely in everyone's interest that it doesn't progress to that stage.se9addick said:
Quite. But football clubs aren't given the power to limit freedom of speech or punish people when they cross that line, that's what's so unbelievable about this.colthe3rd said:
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.
Unless you are saying that the club should have passed the details on to the police for them to then intervene? I can only imagine the sort of bed wetting that would have caused on here and social media had that happened.7 -
Sorry , it's Anything But Chardonnaysirjohnhumphrey said:ABC?
Another Bloody Calamity.3 -
Not allowing a Charlton supporter to buy a season ticket, that's like winning first prize.1
