"Yid" chanting...

  • The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss the latest matches, our players and any transfer news surrounding Spurs. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts. You're here now, you might as well...

    Get involved!

Yid chants, offensive?

  • Yes

    Votes: 27 7.8%
  • No

    Votes: 317 92.2%

  • Total voters
    344
Save that, as I said in my post, it quite possibly is.

The decision of the police not to arrest and investigate doesn't mean something ceases to be an offence under the law. This is what I have tried to explain on here many times. People just don't seem to grasp it. The police do not get to decide what is and is not an offence. That is primarily Parliament and thereafter the courts. The police only can decide what to direct their resources to and can only take advice from lawyers and/or the CPS on the strength of cases for prosecution.
Ok, you're clearly more qualified on the subject so I am in no place to disagree.
The issue is with the poor Sods who were shamed in the Media.
What they were shamed for last year would go unpunishable this year.
So in my eyes they were shamed unnecessarily, thus making them entitled to compo?
 
Comment

Register to remove

Millbanks

Spurs - Champions Cup of Europe Winners 2011
Ok, you're clearly more qualified on the subject so I am in no place to disagree.
The issue is with the poor Sods who were shamed in the Media.
What they were shamed for last year would go unpunishable this year.
So in my eyes they were shamed unnecessarily, thus making them entitled to compo?
That modern day attitude drives me nuts. "I was wronged - money will make it all better!"

They were warned prior to games, as we all were, not to chant it. Sure, thousands defied them, but a few individuals got plucked and tried. We all knew it was going to happen, regardless of our defiance.

At what point are they "entitled to compo"?
 
Comment

Smoked Salmon

Finest human being of all time
Ok, you're clearly more qualified on the subject so I am in no place to disagree.
The issue is with the poor Sods who were shamed in the Media.
What they were shamed for last year would go unpunishable this year.
So in my eyes they were shamed unnecessarily, thus making them entitled to compo?
Oh believe me, there is not an area of practice for me. I am far from an authority on it. But the fact is that there has been no change in the law, so the framework remains.

As for compensation you could make that argument for anyone charged and publicly named, but not prosecuted at the end of the day. Since the money would be the taxpayer's how much more would we have to pay in tax to pay all these compensation claims? We already pay out compensation for the victims of crime and also the legal costs of people who got to trial but are acquitted. That said, you can still make a claim against the police if you can show that you have been wrongfully arrested. But I don't think in this instance they can show that. Primarily because the people in question were still using the word and there has been no declaration from Parliament or the courts to the effect that it has ceased to be an offence.
 
Comment
That modern day attitude drives me nuts. "I was wronged - money will make it all better!"

They were warned prior to games, as we all were, not to chant it. Sure, thousands defied them, but a few individuals got plucked and tried. We all knew it was going to happen, regardless of our defiance.

At what point are they "entitled to compo"?
The compensation mentality is a fact of life i'm afraid..

If a Tesco Lorry backed over your foot and broke it, you would be entitled to compensation end of, i'm sure you wouldn't turn it down, i know I wouldn't.

Right or wrong it's here to stay..
And lets not forget it's the Lawyers who hound you to make a claim.
 
Comment
The Yid Army debate is boring and unnecessary.

I suggest that it's time we got back to our football-related collective identity - We are Tottenham, super Tottenham, from the Lane" is pretty much spot-on.
 
Comment

Register to remove

The compensation mentality is a fact of life i'm afraid..

If a Tesco Lorry backed over your foot and broke it, you would be entitled to compensation end of, i'm sure you wouldn't turn it down, i know I wouldn't.

Right or wrong it's here to stay..
And lets not forget it's the Lawyers who hound you to make a claim.
Not necessarily. Tesco may arrange something ex-gratia for you but unless the driver had committed a criminal offence (in terms of driving without due care, or dangerous driving), you'd be "entitled" to diddly squat.
 
Comment

Smoked Salmon

Finest human being of all time
Not necessarily. Tesco may arrange something ex-gratia for you but unless the driver had committed a criminal offence (in terms of driving without due care, or dangerous driving), you'd be "entitled" to diddly squat.
Not true. It's a tortious injury. As a company that serves the public Tesco has a duty of care to the public at large. If such an injury was the fault of the driver there would most definitely be a civil claim.
 
Comment
The compensation mentality is a fact of life i'm afraid..

If a Tesco Lorry backed over your foot and broke it, you would be entitled to compensation end of, i'm sure you wouldn't turn it down, i know I wouldn't.

Right or wrong it's here to stay..
And lets not forget it's the Lawyers who hound you to make a claim.
Bit specific... what about an OCADO truck??
 
Comment
Not true. It's a tortious injury. As a company that serves the public Tesco has a duty of care to the public at large. If such an injury was the fault of the driver there would most definitely be a civil claim.
Not my understanding of civil law or duty of care. Doubt you'd have much success without proving a deliberate will or lack of due care.

Hey ho
 
Comment

Millbanks

Spurs - Champions Cup of Europe Winners 2011
The compensation mentality is a fact of life i'm afraid..

If a Tesco Lorry backed over your foot and broke it, you would be entitled to compensation end of, i'm sure you wouldn't turn it down, i know I wouldn't.

Right or wrong it's here to stay..
And lets not forget it's the Lawyers who hound you to make a claim.
The difference being, I wouldn't have been told by someone "leave your foot there and it'll get run over by a Tesco lorry".

People were publicly warned, told they would be arrested. To seek compensation for then being arrested is madness.

If I run behind a lorry and deliberately get my foot run over and try to seek compensation at the expense of my foot, I'd hope witness reports would conclude that I am in fact a twat trying to play the system.
 
Comment
The difference being, I wouldn't have been told by someone "leave your foot there and it'll get run over by a Tesco lorry".

People were publicly warned, told they would be arrested. To seek compensation for then being arrested is madness.

If I run behind a lorry and deliberately get my foot run over and try to seek compensation at the expense of my foot, I'd hope witness reports would conclude that I am in fact a twat trying to play the system.
The police responding to a sensationalist twat's decision to make a public fuss about yid chants, by deciding to arrest a couple out of thousands, for something the police have always been happy for us to do, week in week out, and have been happy to happen since, is not the same as a lorry driver driving his lorry.

The police say "ok this week you'll be arrested for it, even though all other times it's been ok and if you do it next week it'll be fine". That's bullshit, just another example of the vacuous gesture policies that scar our politics. Anyone arrested has a right to pursue their grievance against the spuriousness of the arrest.

The fact the police said "we will arrest you this particular week" doesn't mean it's justified or ok. They aren't our parents, and we're not three years old.
 
Comment

Tomo

Supporter
The police responding to a sensationalist twat's decision to make a public fuss about yid chants, by deciding to arrest a couple out of thousands, for something the police have always been happy for us to do, week in week out, and have been happy to happen since, is not the same as a lorry driver driving his lorry.

The police say "ok this week you'll be arrested for it, even though all other times it's been ok and if you do it next week it'll be fine". That's bullshit, just another example of the vacuous gesture policies that scar our politics. Anyone arrested has a right to pursue their grievance against the spuriousness of the arrest.

The fact the police said "we will arrest you this particular week" doesn't mean it's justified or ok. They aren't our parents, and we're not three years old.
It's why I believe we need a constitution with a free speech law at its heart. In our country what you can say and what you can't is not a right but just whatever the current government/police decide at any moment. Such an important perhaps our most important law should not be as vague as it is now. Don't really believe it is the job of government or police to ever regulate speech unless it directly incites violence.
 
Comment

Register to remove

Top Bottom