I mean, we've both started the season by playing 8 matches of football in the UK against other premier league football clubs based in the UK. Clearly we've started pretty much the same, mate.
-
The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
I mean, we've both started the season by playing 8 matches of football in the UK against other premier league football clubs based in the UK. Clearly we've started pretty much the same, mate.
This thread is winding them up over on sKUMB you naughty people.
I think you should spend some time on the naughty step. Or worse, in the Stratford Abomination (aka London Stadium).
I think you should spend some time on the naughty step. Or worse, in the Stratford Abomination (aka London Stadium).
make me
Be fair, we both have 2 out of 8. In their case wins...
Fucking good, fuck'em. I hate the cunts.
Its hilarious they take the piss out of us for "putting the pressure on" but they revere the "Boys of 86", having regular reunions/books e.t.c. when they came fucking third 
Absolute embarrassment of a club, can't wait till that tinpot stadium finishes destroying them
Absolute embarrassment of a club, can't wait till that tinpot stadium finishes destroying them
Pardon me, but as distasteful as this DFLA sounds (why are men in their sixties calling themselves lads?) no one should lose their jobs for privately expressing political views.
Narrowing the scope of legitimate speech to far from legally allowed speech is both unjust and counterproductive
As difficult as it might sound he may have been guilty of bringing the club into disrepute. I am sure he'd have a solid defence in that this is West ham.
For one it doesn’t sound like he did it very privately if he’s going public on social media. Secondly the club might see it as a conflict of interest - they want/need to be seen as opposing rascism and promoting equality and tolerance, and one of their coaches is publicly supporting a group promoting rascist ideas. I get what you’re saying but it’s not exactly sensible.
privately i.e. under the capacity of a private citizen and not as representing the club.
This is not a conflict of interest as they aren't conflicting here, the club could take measures to oppose racism (lol as its the essex nazis but anyway) and an individual within the club could hold racist views. I also think that legally as the FLA aren't considered a racist group by the state and he's not a registered member, then sacking him would cost them a lot of money.
Are they? I thought their message was 'against all extremism'?
Lads, bAnTz, lads, manor, lads, firm, bAnTz, Clyde Best was our darky, bAnTz, amusing concentration camp song, bAnTz, lads, salt of the earth the Krays, lads, just banter innit *sniff*
The home of shitty banter
If I was found to make racist tweets or facebook outside of work its likely that I would be fired, this would be even more likely if I was in the entertainment (sorry but in this context it is) industry which needs to keep a particular image.
I think this is the norm in the UK, if his twitter identifiers himself as a coach of WH its even more clear cut. Whether the "Lads" are a racist group is a get out but it does it is a group West Ham would not want to openly be associated with.
It may be different elsewhere but this would be normal in the UK IMO.
I’m sure that’s what they would like to claim, but let’s be honest, nationalist groups like this are rarely far from rascism. Judgemental of me perhaps but even if they genuinely don’t intend to be an anti-Muslim group, I would be willing to bet that many of them are leaning that way.
There's a difference between you making a racist remark and you liking a post by an organization that may be considered racist. There's a degree of proportionality that a court will apply, supporting C18 is not similar to supporting Britain First which is not similar to supporting the EDL.
If you'll be sacked for supporting the lads in social media I'll take them to a tribunal
Ok I was specifically talking about the point you made that :
"privately i.e. under the capacity of a private citizen and not as representing the club.
This is not a conflict of interest as they aren't conflicting here, the club could take measures to oppose racism (lol as its the essex nazis but anyway) and an individual within the club could hold racist views"
so assuming that West Ham do not want to be associated with C18 they may be able to sack him.
https://blogs.orrick.com/employment...-tweets-may-be-a-fair-dismissal-under-uk-law/
The EAT’s judgment in this case offers a very useful insight into how the employment courts in the UK will consider the relevant issues when it comes to decisions taken by employers in response to employee misconduct on social media sites. The decision has the potential to enable UK employers to take more robust action on social media infringements in the future as follows:
- Where a number of Game stores followed Mr Laws, his “private” Twitter account was not really private;
- Given the way Twitter operated (as opposed to Facebook, for example), there was no real distinction between work and personal use of the site – Mr Laws could have, but did not, create separate accounts for private and professional use;
- Mr Laws did not utilise the restriction settings on his Twitter account, so his tweets were publically available, not least of all to any Game store following him;
- Mr Laws knew that he was followed by Game stores when he tweeted and he did not address this – in fact he may have actively encouraged stores to follow him;
- An employee’s freedom of expression has to be balanced against the employer’s need to manage reputational risk in its employees’ tweets (and other social media communications);
- It was not necessary for Game to show that the tweets had caused offense, only that they were entitled to consider that they may cause offense;
- The offensive tweets did not need to be about the employer to justify the decision, and it was also not necessary for the Twitter account to identify the employer in question to justify the decision – what was important was that the tweets were offensive, and stores, employees and customers might have read them.