Why? Just why would you?

[Joop]

Keep this football related please, and away from politics, or I will have to moderate it further.
I wonder whether some posts would be different if the disaster had been us v Spurs at Hillsborough. Our families and friends, fellow Wolves fans, portrayed on a shirt in this way.

But isn’t that kind of proving their point? Of course we’d be fuming if the above had happened but would subjective offence make it any more illegal?

 

[Mutchy]

But isn’t that kind of proving their point? Of course we’d be fuming if the above had happened but would subjective offence make it any more illegal?

More a case of putting ourselves in the position of Liverpool fans seeing that, and realising or appreciating the impact it could have. The impact it set out to have.

 

[Jefe]

To throw in my thoughts on this: the shirt is obviously extremely tasteless and the person wearing is probably a complete cretin (though Oh Robbie Robbie makes a decent point that some people are less likely to consider mental illness when adjudging someone we personally believe to be a scumbag). However, is police action really necessary? Will his arrest and fine / or imprisonment make him see the error of his ways? I doubt it.

 

[Oh Robbie Robie]

Appears that having been arrested on suspicion of committing a public order offence that he has now been charged with "displaying threatening or abusive writing likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress."

Let's see how far this goes.

 

[Oh Robbie Robie]

Are you joking with this comment? I sincerely hope you are.

No way you think the misspelling of a swear word is as bad as mocking the death of 97 people that went to a footy match and never came home.

It's not the misspelling of a swear word though is it? It is a clear attempt to bring attention to a brand that otherwise no-one would careless about. It's crass and offensive. A further display of how the public has simply accepted the attack on previous moral standards.

Anyway, I refer the Honorable Gentleman to the response I gave in post 190.

 

[reanswolf]

Can’t say as I’ve ever heard us sing it. Not saying it didn’t happen, just not heard it.

You have to go way back to 1978 when it was sang across the fence by a lot of Wolves fans.

 

[Big Saft Kid]

It strikes me that the wording was probably deliberately ambiguous. Liverpool's 97 points in 2018-19 was the highest ever achieved by a team in the PL without that team winning it. Also it was the first time a team has won 30+ games in the PL (or the old Division 1, come to that) without lifting the trophy. So '97' (points) was 'not enough'. That could be his defence. If it is, I don't see how it can be disproved. I have no doubt at all that he was 'really' referring to was Hillsborough, but I can't prove it, and neither could a court if he denies that that is what he meant.

 

[Henry Palfrey]

Similar from a few years ago

People are getting spectacular 'revenge' on man who 'wore T-shirt carrying Hillsborough slur'

A man was asked to leave a pub in Worcester by the landlord over the message on the T-shirt

www.independent.co.uk

From what I can tell, the only 'punishment' the court dished out was that the t-shirt had to be destroyed.

 

[Henry Palfrey]

Similar from a few years ago

People are getting spectacular 'revenge' on man who 'wore T-shirt carrying Hillsborough slur'

A man was asked to leave a pub in Worcester by the landlord over the message on the T-shirt

www.independent.co.uk

From what I can tell, the only 'punishment' the court dished out was that the t-shirt had to be destroyed.

He was charged with a Section 5 Public Order offence, relating to the display of threatening and abusive signs and writing, likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress.

Pretty much made his life hell though for a while.

 

[JonahWolf]

Jesus wept. Seriously? How is it?

I considered that my ‘ignore list’ tipping point.

 

[Big Saft Kid]

He was charged with a Section 5 Public Order offence, relating to the display of threatening and abusive signs and writing, likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress.

Pretty much made his life he'll though for a while.

That's the same offence the current offender has been charged with.

 

[woop woop barmy army]

He should spend a week in a Liverpool prison and then made the meet the families are Hillsborough and explain his actions. Or maybe the other way round.

 

[glorybox]

Do you go to matches , or is it you sit in a box, I’m 56 and have herd it many times

Had a season ticket in the south bank since it was built as it is now. Stood on it for about 5 years before that on and off.

 

[OLDGOLD]

The problem with the modern world is that people are quick to find offence in anything, so when something that is seen as poor taste by a lot of people occurs, society doesn't know how to handle it as too much weight has been lent to things of a far more trivial nature.

 

[TooMutchBull]

Just as offensive in my book.

Is your book a colouring book? Try and keep between the black lines and not hold the crayons in your fist.
Absolute non equivalence

 

[Streathamwolf]

As much as we all agree the man is a fool, I thought Britain was a place where you had freedom to speak and freedom of expression? 100% agree that you have to educate but some people aren't open to be educated. Arresting them just hardens their thought process and encourages them to continue. People like this are best ignored and all that has happened now is that he has achieved the notoriety he was seeking. Wouldn't surprise me to see even more examples of this tasteless crap.

If you were correct about freedom of expression, which you are not, homophobic, racist and other discriminatory expressions would also be permissible. Freedom of expression is predicated on whether it will cause harm to others, encourage hatred or lead to violence. This could clearly do all 3. As Mutchy said earlier, ignoring morons like this gives tacit permission.

"All that is required for evil to flourish is for good people to do nothing."

 

[Streathamwolf]

I genuinely despair at anyone thinking the french connection logo is on a par with what that idiot wore yesterday. Mind boggling.

Totally. I think he is proving that"education" won't work with some people.

 

[Streathamwolf]

Appears that having been arrested on suspicion of committing a public order offence that he has now been charged with "displaying threatening or abusive writing likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress."

Let's see how far this goes.

Seems factually accurate.

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

If you were correct about freedom of expression, which you are not, homophobic, racist and other discriminatory expressions would also be permissible. Freedom of expression is predicated on whether it will cause harm to others, encourage hatred or lead to violence. This could clearly do all 3. As Mutchy said earlier, ignoring morons like this gives tacit permission.

"All that is required for evil to flourish is for good people to do nothing."

I agree, there are lots of laws predicated on the judgement of a 'reasonable person'. Any reasonable person thinks this guy needs dealing with to some degree at least. Be good to know the details of whether he was asked to remove it etc, or just arrested straight away. This fool has probably bought far more trouble on his head than any court will do. If he ends up with a sentence that makes it clear to others that it is not acceptable then fair enough. I do think there's a fair concern over the restriction of legitimate protest using some of the new laws in particular, but this is no sort of 'test case' for that.

 

[Streathamwolf]

I agree, there are lots of laws predicated on the judgement of a 'reasonable person'. Any reasonable person thinks this guy needs dealing with to some degree at least. Be good to know the details of whether he was asked to remove it etc, or just arrested straight away. This fool has probably bought far more trouble on his head than any court will do. If he ends up with a sentence that makes it clear to others that it is not acceptable then fair enough. I do think there's a fair concern over the restriction of legitimate protest using some of the new laws in particular, but this is no sort of 'test case' for that.

Totally agree. Restrictions on legitimate protest are ramping up but this is hate "speech" . Someone will come along in a minute and compare it with crass advertising. it's not protest, it's not marketing, it's not bad language

IT IS VILE

 

[Ned]

I'm sure people have already posted but I really don't know what goes through some people's minds with things like this. I can't decide what's the worst thinking behind it; that the guy hates Liverpool and scousers so much that he felt the need to get the shirt out of blind hatred, or, that he thought it was funny.

Mind genuinely boggles with stuff like this.

 

[Oh Robbie Robie]

If you were correct about freedom of expression, which you are not, homophobic, racist and other discriminatory expressions would also be permissible. Freedom of expression is predicated on whether it will cause harm to others, encourage hatred or lead to violence. This could clearly do all 3. As Mutchy said earlier, ignoring morons like this gives tacit permission.

"All that is required for evil to flourish is for good people to do nothing."

I believe the language is that the right to freedom of expression is fundamental,but not absolute. This means it can be limited in exceptional circumstances. Depends how you define exceptional and how you define a shirt that carries a message or what that message says.

As pointed out, the 97 could mean the number of points that Liverpool obtained not being enough to win the title. The fact most people jump to the conclusion that it is about Hillsborough is revealing.

None of us categorically know as to what the shirt is referring. None of us know if he was asked to remove the shirt or what the intent of the person wearing it really was. We know nothing about his character or the true facts yet so many have already judged him and found him guilty. That includes me.

On face value, it is easy to understand why. However, that is why we have a legal system and we should follow the case and see where it goes.

 

[Mutchy]

The 97 points stuff... if it had been Man U who won the title there might have been an argument for it, but it was Man City. And the shirt was won by a Man U fan to a Cup Final against those local rivals. Nah.

 

[Mile End Wanderer]

Leeds sing about munich to man utd which is disgusting

Same goes for Millwall fans who taunt Leeds with Turkey & Galatasaray chants

 

[topcat99]

It strikes me that the wording was probably deliberately ambiguous. Liverpool's 97 points in 2018-19 was the highest ever achieved by a team in the PL without that team winning it. Also it was the first time a team has won 30+ games in the PL (or the old Division 1, come to that) without lifting the trophy. So '97' (points) was 'not enough'. That could be his defence. If it is, I don't see how it can be disproved. I have no doubt at all that he was 'really' referring to was Hillsborough, but I can't prove it, and neither could a court if he denies that that is what he meant.

I suppose that the prosecution could reasonably point out that his argument is implausible at best, as the team who benefited from 97 “not being enough “ (points), was not his team, but Manchester City.
The very team that United were playing on that day.

 

[Zico]

I suppose that the prosecution could reasonably point out that his argument is implausible at best, as the team who benefited from 97 “not being enough “ (points), was not his team, but Manchester City.
The very team that United were playing on that day.

Yep. "Proof" is "beyond all reasonable doubt", and there isn't really any reasonable doubt is there.

 

[Jefe]

I suppose that the prosecution could reasonably point out that his argument is implausible at best, as the team who benefited from 97 “not being enough “ (points), was not his team, but Manchester City. The very team that United were playing on that day.

This could be countered by the view among United fans that, while they don't like City, they utterly despise Liverpool and will take any and every chance to rub their noses in it. I know a few United fans and this is the vibe I have from them. If Walsall inexplicably became a better side than us, our dislike of them would certainly intensify but we'd never hate them in quite the same the way that we hate the Baggies.

So, unless our legal standard changes to an authoritarian nightmare where defendants must prove a negative (i.e prove that they didn't mean to convey a certain message), then I imagine the 97 points argument might not only be a credible defence, it might be enough to clear him. I personally don't believe it, but guilt has to be established beyond reasonable doubt; this shirt could be read in more than one way, which automatically creates doubt.

 

[topcat99]

This could be countered by the view among United fans that while they don't like City, they utterly despise Liverpool and will take any and every chance to rub their noses in it. I know a few United fans and this is very much the idea I have from them. If Walsall for some inexpicable reason became a better side than us, our dislike of them would intensify but we'd never hate them in quite the same the way that we hate the Boggies.

So, Unless we enter a full police state where defendants must prove a negative (i.e prove that they didn't mean a certain thing), then I imagine the 97 points argument could not only be a credible defence, it could be a deal clincher. I personally don't believe it, but guilt has to be established beyond reasonable doubt.

Yep. The onus is on the prosecution. This bloke doesn’t have to prove anything.

Edit: Having lived in Cheshire some years ago, the first part of your argument also holds, as the Manchester/Liverpool animosity is much deeper than just football.

 

[Big Saft Kid]

I suppose that the prosecution could reasonably point out that his argument is implausible at best, as the team who benefited from 97 “not being enough “ (points), was not his team, but Manchester City.
The very team that United were playing on that day.

But 'implausible' wouldn't be good enough in a court of law. It needs to be 'beyond all reasonable doubt' in a criminal trial. The accused would have the get-out-of-jail card known as 'plausible deniability' which, interestingly enough, the present government uses routinely to dismiss things which are probably true but which there is room for them to deny. I gave you much of 'partygate'.

 

[Big Saft Kid]

It's interesting to note how much of a consensus there is on this forum about about the utter beyond-the-pail-ness (can't think of a better word) of racism and other hate-speech such as this bloke is probably guilty of. Yet it's not that many years ago that the Stretford End spent a whole game chanting the most obnoxious racial abuse at a black Watford striker by the name of Luther Blissett, who promptly scored an absolute blinder straight down their throats while they were in mid-chant. The best possible answer!

 

[WolfLing]

But 'implausible' wouldn't be good enough in a court of law. It needs to be 'beyond all reasonable doubt' in a criminal trial. The accused would have the get-out-of-jail card known as 'plausible deniability' which, interestingly enough, the present government uses routinely to dismiss things which are probably true but which there is room for them to deny. I gave you much of 'partygate'.

I've no doubt once his phone is seized that there would be a suitable number of WhatsApp messages between him and his mates that would make it clear beyond all reasonable doubt of what his intentions were.

Sadly, the same will never be done for politicians!!

 

[Dorbelflunk]

Yet it's not that many years ago that the Stretford End spent a whole game chanting the most obnoxious racial abuse at a black Watford striker by the name of Luther Blissett, who promptly scored an absolute blinder straight down their throats while they were in mid-chant. The best possible answer!

I don't follow your logic there. If someone has a poor game whilst suffering from vile chants, does that mean the low lives have won? Victims of abuse don't have to 'answer' to anyone. They aren't the ones who need to change.

 

[HICKO]

It's interesting to note how much of a consensus there is on this forum about about the utter beyond-the-pail-ness (can't think of a better word) of racism and other hate-speech such as this bloke is probably guilty of. Yet it's not that many years ago that the Stretford End spent a whole game chanting the most obnoxious racial abuse at a black Watford striker by the name of Luther Blissett, who promptly scored an absolute blinder straight down their throats while they were in mid-chant. The best possible answer!

Beyond the pale-ness might be better.
Unless you want to talk about buckets ;-)

 

[Oh Robbie Robie]

It's interesting to note how much of a consensus there is on this forum about about the utter beyond-the-pail-ness (can't think of a better word) of racism and other hate-speech such as this bloke is probably guilty of. Yet it's not that many years ago that the Stretford End spent a whole game chanting the most obnoxious racial abuse at a black Watford striker by the name of Luther Blissett, who promptly scored an absolute blinder straight down their throats while they were in mid-chant. The best possible answer!

Yup...it wasn't that long ago as a kid I was sat in the Molineux Street Stand with my Grandad and Dad, and listened to those around me making monkey noises at any black player who dared step foot on our hallowed pitch. It's taken 50 years for attitudes to change towards other human beings. A lot of people yearn for yesteryear and I'm glad that when I took my grand-kids, they weren't subjected to this nonsense.

 

[Urko]

Before the age of social media, no one would have been triggered by this. Twitter isn’t the real world, most people are more concerned about how they’re going to pay next months rent/mortgage.

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

Some things get better, others worse. I'd like to think that the police wouldn't get away with blaming innocent fans for the deaths of their own, or fabricating evidence, or have the Prime Minister and the leading daily 'newspaper' covering for them (hopefully).

 

[Henry Palfrey]

Yep. The onus is on the prosecution. This bloke doesn’t have to prove anything.

Edit: Having lived in Cheshire some years ago, the first part of your argument also holds, as the Manchester/Liverpool animosity is much deeper than just football.

But he's from Warwick

 

[Bill S Preston Esq.]

You are clearly a dick (begins with a d)

(Who knew dick isn’t censored?)

It's a name like fanny.

 

[Bill S Preston Esq.]

Just as offensive in my book.

WTF? That's a very warped sense of..um... everything. It's just weird.

You can tell me I have no right to tell you how to think, and you'd be right, I don't.

I'd be right on something too though...

Most of us think you're odd, what you're arguing is not normal.

 

[Bill S Preston Esq.]

Nope. I don't like the French. Sorry if some find that offensive. And I don't like what they think is clever marketing. We all know the first word you think of when you see their tat. Try explaining it to your kids.

It's just a word. Are you offended by asterisks too?