What is it with Wednesday fans?

[ragingpup]

To some extent I agree with Derby on this one. Where is the line drawn with this and who is in charge in drawing the line? Some idiot posts an awful text and within 2 days he has lost his job,banned from the Golf Club,banned no doubt from Hillsborough and arrested by the Police. I'm not too sure whether these institutions are as 'disgusted' as they say they are rather than it becomes a virtue signalling, image covering line of dominos that every has to join in on. If your house is burgled and ransacked the Police would do well to get out to you within a fortnight,the sympathy shown to you by society would be barely noticeable and if,by some miracle,the culprit was caught,that person would be banned from nowhere,his wife and kids would bare no abuse and the media wouldn't give a damn. Who is more evil? The idiot at Hillsborough who types words or the person who violates your personal space,steals your belongings and destroys your possessions?

I think that derby, yak and yourself raise some good questions on this and i'm not convinced the police involvement was necessary in this case. There is no way of defining a 'line', let alone 'who's in charge'. I think it quite strong to think of genuine public anger at these words to be 'virtue signalling' but I get where you're coming from. Perhaps, if we are as a society to try and 'discourage' people from writing extremely offensive and repugnant things into the public domain (they still have free speech to express to other consenting adults in their own social groups if they choose to do so) and we don't want to over legislate, then perhaps a significant and unified social response and negative outcomes for the poster are a way forward to stop people doing it?

[Yak]

I think that derby, yak and yourself raise some good questions on this and i'm not convinced the police involvement was necessary in this case. There is no way of defining a 'line', let alone 'who's in charge'. I think it quite strong to think of genuine public anger at these words to be 'virtue signalling' but I get where you're coming from. Perhaps, if we are as a society to try and 'discourage' people from writing extremely offensive and repugnant things into the public domain (they still have free speech to express to other consenting adults in their own social groups if they choose to do so) and we don't want to over legislate, then perhaps a significant and unified social response and negative outcomes for the poster are a way forward to stop people doing it?

Very well put raging.
It’s a minefield and you would hope people would keep opinions like this to themselves.
I’m all for accountability I’m just not sure I’m ok with how this grew into a public witch hunt.
Hopefully this will be an example to any other idiots who write stuff on social media.

[CAMiller]

I think that derby, yak and yourself raise some good questions on this and i'm not convinced the police involvement was necessary in this case. There is no way of defining a 'line', let alone 'who's in charge'. I think it quite strong to think of genuine public anger at these words to be 'virtue signalling' but I get where you're coming from. Perhaps, if we are as a society to try and 'discourage' people from writing extremely offensive and repugnant things into the public domain (they still have free speech to express to other consenting adults in their own social groups if they choose to do so) and we don't want to over legislate, then perhaps a significant and unified social response and negative outcomes for the poster are a way forward to stop people doing it?

It is a very fine line. For instance, just imagine if he'd said:-

"Well that's 98 deaths that I'm aware of in the Leppings Lane end. What are the club going to do when it gets to 100? Throw a party! Isn't it time we tore it down?"

He'd have been viewed in a much different light on SM.

[UlleyMiller]

I think there's a few things getting blurred around what's acceptable, pushing/crossing boundaries, etc on social media in general. Some comedians argue that they need to be able to push boundaries to ply their trade and I suspect this utter f***ing idiot was trying to be funny, so maybe his case should be viewed more along those lines than along the lines of people using social media to spread hate, intimidate others, and generally push the boundaries of what isn't just acceptable in terms of poor taste, but ethics and morality (not to mention the law).

If you want to get laughs from something like this and use a global platform to do so, you should rightly expect something of a backlash. I don't think after the comment there's anything wrong with the club opting to ban him and distance themselves from him that way, his employer releasing him (assuming they have legal reason to do so, otherwise a suspension and fuller review needed to happen - although I suspect Wates will have covered the bases), nor from people around him severing online ties. That all seems logical. Beyond that, I think people should consider that it was ultimately a piss-poor attempt at humour and not inciting hate, so pushing the guy to a point where his normal life is effectively ended feels like the response is no longer justifiable.

I may be wrong, but I don't think this guy was out to directly offend anyone (unlike the tosser from up the road, and his brother, flashing up images of the poor young kid to Sunderland fans).

[Jimmy Badfellow]

I think that derby, yak and yourself raise some good questions on this and i'm not convinced the police involvement was necessary in this case. There is no way of defining a 'line', let alone 'who's in charge'. I think it quite strong to think of genuine public anger at these words to be 'virtue signalling' but I get where you're coming from. Perhaps, if we are as a society to try and 'discourage' people from writing extremely offensive and repugnant things into the public domain (they still have free speech to express to other consenting adults in their own social groups if they choose to do so) and we don't want to over legislate, then perhaps a significant and unified social response and negative outcomes for the poster are a way forward to stop people doing it?

Fair points Ragin....My aim at 'virtue signalling' was aimed at 'institutions' rather than the public.By that I mean they have to act by sacking,banning or arresting because of how it looks on them if they don't,rather than the perceived notion that they 'disgusted' by the culprit's typing. Everyone seems to get into a bit of a pickle! Society has tried to discourage this use of social media offensiveness but is will always happen. There are plenty of *rseholes out there and that is the bottom line.

[sawmiller]

I think there's a few things getting blurred around what's acceptable, pushing/crossing boundaries, etc on social media in general. Some comedians argue that they need to be able to push boundaries to ply their trade and I suspect this utter f***ing idiot was trying to be funny, so maybe his case should be viewed more along those lines than along the lines of people using social media to spread hate, intimidate others, and generally push the boundaries of what isn't just acceptable in terms of poor taste, but ethics and morality (not to mention the law).

If you want to get laughs from something like this and use a global platform to do so, you should rightly expect something of a backlash. I don't think after the comment there's anything wrong with the club opting to ban him and distance themselves from him that way, his employer releasing him (assuming they have legal reason to do so, otherwise a suspension and fuller review needed to happen - although I suspect Wates will have covered the bases), nor from people around him severing online ties. That all seems logical. Beyond that, I think people should consider that it was ultimately a piss-poor attempt at humour and not inciting hate, so pushing the guy to a point where his normal life is effectively ended feels like the response is no longer justifiable.

I may be wrong, but I don't think this guy was out to directly offend anyone (unlike the tosser from up the road, and his brother, flashing up images of the poor young kid to Sunderland fans).

Bad publicity that you bring to the doorstep of your employer is also bad news for the employee -any adult who pauses to think before acting should know that. Once you post on social media, you no longer have control over the content or ownership of it for that matter and certainly zero control over what happens from that point on - it really is that simple. There are enough examples now of how it can go belly up so people can’t really say that they didn’t realise

Feel for his family, but that’s part of what people need to consider. It’s not just about yourself but those who depend on you and those close to you.

[KerrAvon]

To some extent I agree with Derby on this one. Where is the line drawn with this and who is in charge in drawing the line? Some idiot posts an awful text and within 2 days he has lost his job,banned 'm from the Golf Club,banned no doubt from Hillsborough and arrested by the Police. I'm not too sure whether these institutions are as 'disgusted' as they say they are rather than it becomes a virtue signalling, image covering line of dominos that every has to join in on. If your house is burgled and ransacked the Police would do well to get out to you within a fortnight,the sympathy shown to you by society would be barely noticeable and if,by some miracle,the culprit was caught,that person would be banned from nowhere,his wife and kids would bare no abuse and the media wouldn't give a damn. Who is more evil? The idiot at Hillsborough who types words or the person who violates your personal space,steals your belongings and destroys your possessions?

Well in this case it was the bloke's employer who drew the line. That's their prerogative- they employ the bloke - paying him every month or week - and he's behaved in a fashion that they presumably consider to be inconsistent with their values and damaging to their reputation. If the bloke considers the line to have been drawn in the place, he can go to an Employment Tribunal.

The same applies to the involvement of the police (if they are); the case will be assessed by the CPS and then by a court if he's prosecuted and they will decide where the line should be drawn.

Raging is right. If you're going to make public comnents over the Internet then you bear responsibility for them and have to live with any consequences that flow from them.

[KerrAvon]

I think there's a few things getting blurred around what's acceptable, pushing/crossing boundaries, etc on social media in general. Some comedians argue that they need to be able to push boundaries to ply their trade and I suspect this utter f***ing idiot was trying to be funny, so maybe his case should be viewed more along those lines than along the lines of people using social media to spread hate, intimidate others, and generally push the boundaries of what isn't just acceptable in terms of poor taste, but ethics and morality (not to mention the law).

If you want to get laughs from something like this and use a global platform to do so, you should rightly expect something of a backlash. I don't think after the comment there's anything wrong with the club opting to ban him and distance themselves from him that way, his employer releasing him (assuming they have legal reason to do so, otherwise a suspension and fuller review needed to happen - although I suspect Wates will have covered the bases), nor from people around him severing online ties. That all seems logical. Beyond that, I think people should consider that it was ultimately a piss-poor attempt at humour and not inciting hate, so pushing the guy to a point where his normal life is effectively ended feels like the response is no longer justifiable.

I may be wrong, but I don't think this guy was out to directly offend anyone (unlike the tosser from up the road, and his brother, flashing up images of the poor young kid to Sunderland fans).

I'm a 'tend to agree' on this. It's possible that the bloke was trying to be funny. Hopefully (for them), his employer will have explored that and before sacking him.

[UlleyMiller]

Bad publicity that you bring to the doorstep of your employer is also bad news for the employee -any adult who pauses to think before acting should know that. Once you post on social media, you no longer have control over the content or ownership of it for that matter and certainly zero control over what happens from that point on - it really is that simple. There are enough examples now of how it can go belly up so people can’t really say that they didn’t realise

Feel for his family, but that’s part of what people need to consider. It’s not just about yourself but those who depend on you and those close to you.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not in any way trying to defend the guy. He did a very stupid thing and, as I said, it being on a global platform is important to those impacted (employer and club having quick and decisive avenues to handle it). I don't like guessing at these things but with no apparent noise that he's some kind of online sick joke type, it's probable that he's just forgotten himself and thrown the sort of thing you might hear in a quieter setting right into the one place you shouldn't.

Apply the old tap room logic and he's not facing a ruined life but likely a shortened night and the odd attitude adjustment from one or two around him (at most). These cases act as reminders just how different the internet is to the tap room.

Wouldn't defend anyone doing this, but wouldn't want his story to end because of the impact it caused him, and that is a risk.

[Steve Miller]

Well he's charged and off to court now and I for one think it's the right decision. I've penned some stupid things in my time - many on here - but that crossed all the red lines for me.