|
TheSelectFew
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 30K,
Visits: 0
|
Munrubenmuz wrote:chillbilly wrote:Most of Sydney's and other clubs bans seem to be short ones for people getting over excited and ending up on the wrong side of the fence after their team's scored. Not sure that they should branded with same brush as those who are really causing problems. That kid that got SBW's medal was branded a hero in the media. Do feel sorry for those blokes. The others though.... Deadset though no one gives two shits what you think though. Do yourself a favour.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TheSelectFew
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 30K,
Visits: 0
|
melbourne_terrace wrote:chillbilly wrote:Most of Sydney's and other clubs bans seem to be short ones for people getting over excited and ending up on the wrong side of the fence after their team's scored. Not sure that they should branded with same brush as those who are really causing problems. That kid that got SBW's medal was branded a hero in the media. This is what happens when you have dickheads like DeBohun and Gallop screaming "Zero Tolerance." Bans get handed out for getting wrapped up in the emotion of the game. It's already gone.
|
|
|
|
|
robstazzz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.4K,
Visits: 0
|
Anyone who supports the media in showing pictures of any fans banned in the past especially in a week where there was no football violence has got to be the biggest dickhead in the world. I really hope I don't read any comments here by any dickheads saying these fans deserved it whether guilty or not. Never in the past has something like this happened in any other code. The media and especially 2GB and Daily Telegraph I've hated for over 10 years now because I've learnt to not believe a thing read from these cunts. What I'm most disgusted in is the fact the Police have helped get these pictures out to the media. Seriously they can go fuck themselves what a disgustingly low act on their behalf. ACAB can get chanted loud and clear now and I honestly wouldn't have a problem with it in future. Secret sauces aye. We all know which dogs revealed the pictures it's pretty obvious. This shit should be illegal but the fact they have been banned by the FFA will make it legal by the Daily Telegraph to publish. Many fans have beat their cases in court yet still fans bans from the FFA so the FFA should also be ashamed of themselves for not revoking those bans of people who now have their faces in the paper even though they are innocent in the courts. FFA really need to come out and slag the fuck out of the Daily Telegraph but it's all our fans that need to wake the fuck up more importantly and ditch this shit paper like I have many years ago. I'm not even one of the fans with my face in the paper but I can't explain how fucking pissed off and angered I am. This shit should be illegal and a few people should be losing their jobs over this. Total disgrace and if any so called football fan supports this you should be ashamed of yourself because you too are part of the problem. This isn't something where everyone's opinion should be respected because it's so obvious this is wrong and disgusting.
Edited by robstazzz: 22/11/2015 12:25:46 AM
|
|
|
|
|
biscuitman1871
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.4K,
Visits: 0
|
TheSelectFew wrote:biscuitman1871 wrote:Prosecutor wrote:I'm no lawyer but surely there's a case for defamation, especially when the court case was dropped. The people named are banned, that is substantially true, so there is no case for defamation. Banned not convicted. Article does not say they are convicted. It says they are banned. If the photos are of the actual people who are banned, then that what has been published is substantially true, which provides a defence against any claim of defamation. Only claim for defamation here would be if it says you are banned but you are not, if the reason why you are banned is not substantially true or if it is a photo of a person who is not actually banned. The issue of the process and lack of appeal rights related to the bannings is a completely separate issue
|
|
|
|
|
Prosecutor
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.4K,
Visits: 0
|
biscuitman1871 wrote:TheSelectFew wrote:biscuitman1871 wrote:Prosecutor wrote:I'm no lawyer but surely there's a case for defamation, especially when the court case was dropped. The people named are banned, that is substantially true, so there is no case for defamation. Banned not convicted. Article does not say they are convicted. It says they are banned. If the photos are of the actual people who are banned, then that what has been published is substantially true, which provides a defence against any claim of defamation. Only claim for defamation here would be if it says you are banned but you are not, if the reason why you are banned is not substantially true or if it is a photo of a person who is not actually banned. The issue of the process and lack of appeal rights related to the bannings is a completely separate issue Just had a quick browse and it says the reason they are banned. In a lot of these cases, they are never proven. Hence defamation of character.
|
|
|
|
|
JP
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.5K,
Visits: 0
|
Fucking insane. Especially for the fans who were banned for smalltime crap like jumping a fence to celebrate a goal.
|
|
|
|
|
JP
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.5K,
Visits: 0
|
Prosecutor wrote:biscuitman1871 wrote:TheSelectFew wrote:biscuitman1871 wrote:Prosecutor wrote:I'm no lawyer but surely there's a case for defamation, especially when the court case was dropped. The people named are banned, that is substantially true, so there is no case for defamation. Banned not convicted. Article does not say they are convicted. It says they are banned. If the photos are of the actual people who are banned, then that what has been published is substantially true, which provides a defence against any claim of defamation. Only claim for defamation here would be if it says you are banned but you are not, if the reason why you are banned is not substantially true or if it is a photo of a person who is not actually banned. The issue of the process and lack of appeal rights related to the bannings is a completely separate issue Just had a quick browse and it says the reason they are banned. In a lot of these cases, they are never proven. Hence defamation of character. Still wouldn't be defamation. The "reason" would be the official FFA line - even if the allegations are false, it is still true to describe it as the reason given for their ban.
|
|
|
|
|
Prosecutor
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.4K,
Visits: 0
|
JP wrote:Prosecutor wrote:biscuitman1871 wrote:TheSelectFew wrote:biscuitman1871 wrote:Prosecutor wrote:I'm no lawyer but surely there's a case for defamation, especially when the court case was dropped. The people named are banned, that is substantially true, so there is no case for defamation. Banned not convicted. Article does not say they are convicted. It says they are banned. If the photos are of the actual people who are banned, then that what has been published is substantially true, which provides a defence against any claim of defamation. Only claim for defamation here would be if it says you are banned but you are not, if the reason why you are banned is not substantially true or if it is a photo of a person who is not actually banned. The issue of the process and lack of appeal rights related to the bannings is a completely separate issue Just had a quick browse and it says the reason they are banned. In a lot of these cases, they are never proven. Hence defamation of character. Still wouldn't be defamation. The "reason" would be the official FFA line - even if the allegations are false, it is still true to describe it as the reason given for their ban. You may be right. I'm not too sure on the exact legal definition of the whole thing.
|
|
|
|
|
biscuitman1871
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.4K,
Visits: 0
|
Prosecutor wrote:biscuitman1871 wrote:TheSelectFew wrote:biscuitman1871 wrote:Prosecutor wrote:I'm no lawyer but surely there's a case for defamation, especially when the court case was dropped. The people named are banned, that is substantially true, so there is no case for defamation. Banned not convicted. Article does not say they are convicted. It says they are banned. If the photos are of the actual people who are banned, then that what has been published is substantially true, which provides a defence against any claim of defamation. Only claim for defamation here would be if it says you are banned but you are not, if the reason why you are banned is not substantially true or if it is a photo of a person who is not actually banned. The issue of the process and lack of appeal rights related to the bannings is a completely separate issue Just had a quick browse and it says the reason they are banned. In a lot of these cases, they are never proven. Hence defamation of character. With respect, you don't know what you are talking about. What has been published is substantially true [it does not have to be fair], therefore a claim of defamation could be easily defended. You would not find a lawyer in the country who would take this on - not even one who was relying on "the vibe" ...
|
|
|
|
|
Prosecutor
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.4K,
Visits: 0
|
biscuitman1871 wrote:Prosecutor wrote:biscuitman1871 wrote:TheSelectFew wrote:biscuitman1871 wrote:Prosecutor wrote:I'm no lawyer but surely there's a case for defamation, especially when the court case was dropped. The people named are banned, that is substantially true, so there is no case for defamation. Banned not convicted. Article does not say they are convicted. It says they are banned. If the photos are of the actual people who are banned, then that what has been published is substantially true, which provides a defence against any claim of defamation. Only claim for defamation here would be if it says you are banned but you are not, if the reason why you are banned is not substantially true or if it is a photo of a person who is not actually banned. The issue of the process and lack of appeal rights related to the bannings is a completely separate issue Just had a quick browse and it says the reason they are banned. In a lot of these cases, they are never proven. Hence defamation of character. With respect, you don't know what you are talking about. What has been published is substantially true [it does not have to be fair], therefore a claim of defamation could be easily defended. You would not find a lawyer in the country who would take this on - not even one who was relying on "the vibe" ... You're probably right, and that's the scarier bit. Someone can be banned for any alleged crime at the discretion of the FFA. They don't need to prove anything and that 'crime' will be against your name for the rest of your life. Goodbye job and any hope of a fair future. Scary world we live in. Edited by prosecutor: 22/11/2015 12:46:17 AM
|
|
|
|
|
aufc_ole
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 7K,
Visits: 0
|
Rebecca Wilson not even surprised :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
The Maco
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.1K,
Visits: 0
|
They should use this for a VCE/HSC English exam language analysis piece, would be the easiest thing to dissect in history
|
|
|
|
|
robstazzz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.4K,
Visits: 0
|
Prosecutor wrote:biscuitman1871 wrote:Prosecutor wrote:biscuitman1871 wrote:TheSelectFew wrote:biscuitman1871 wrote:Prosecutor wrote:I'm no lawyer but surely there's a case for defamation, especially when the court case was dropped. The people named are banned, that is substantially true, so there is no case for defamation. Banned not convicted. Article does not say they are convicted. It says they are banned. If the photos are of the actual people who are banned, then that what has been published is substantially true, which provides a defence against any claim of defamation. Only claim for defamation here would be if it says you are banned but you are not, if the reason why you are banned is not substantially true or if it is a photo of a person who is not actually banned. The issue of the process and lack of appeal rights related to the bannings is a completely separate issue Just had a quick browse and it says the reason they are banned. In a lot of these cases, they are never proven. Hence defamation of character. With respect, you don't know what you are talking about. What has been published is substantially true [it does not have to be fair], therefore a claim of defamation could be easily defended. You would not find a lawyer in the country who would take this on - not even one who was relying on "the vibe" ... You're probably right, and that's the scarier bit. Someone can be banned for any alleged crime at the discretion of the FFA. They don't need to prove anything and that 'crime' will be against your name for the rest of your life. Goodbye job and any hope of a fair future. Scary world we live in. Edited by prosecutor: 22/11/2015 12:46:17 AM This is why I'm saying the best way to get back is for everyone to simply cancel subscription of the paper, refuse to buy the paper. There are other options out there why spend your money on these cunts. Every football fan should be making a complaint ( which would mostly go unnoticed by these cunts )and more importantly boycott their paper. If 2GB jump on board to support this idea and talk about football violence on Monday you boycott that station too.
|
|
|
|
|
Wainscoting
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 62,
Visits: 0
|
As a Queenslander, who purports quite a positive view of our own police force, let me join the chorus in proclaiming "fuck the (NSW) police." Absolutely nauseating stuff from a pathetic hack of a journalist and a deranged police commissioner with a hard-on for sparking conflict with perceptibly ethnic undertones.
As a side note, I wonder if the one Roar guy is the retard who lit a flare under our tifo last season. Besides a Sydney FC fan letting one off in the away bay that same season (which the media blamed us in the Den for) that was the last flare I'd seen in some time. We turned that absolute knob-end into security pretty quickly, but it still made convincing the powers-that-be to allow us to bring tifos in that much more difficult. If that's him, I've very little sympathy.
Edited by Wainscoting: 22/11/2015 12:54:14 AM
|
|
|
|
|
robstazzz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.4K,
Visits: 0
|
aufc_ole wrote:Rebecca Wilson not even surprised :lol: She's the biggest slut of all.
|
|
|
|
|
Swarth
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.9K,
Visits: 0
|
Wainscoting wrote:As a Queenslander, who purports quite a positive view of our own police force, let me join the chorus in proclaiming "fuck the (NSW) police." Absolutely nauseating stuff from a pathetic hack of a journalist and a deranged police commissioner with a hard-on for sparking ethnically driven conflict.
As a side note, I wonder if the one Roar guy is the retard who lit a flare under our tifo last season. Besides a Sydney FC fan letting one off in the away bay that same season (which the media blamed us in the Den for) that was the last flare I'd seen in some time. We turned that absolute knob-end into security pretty quickly, but it still made convincing the powers-that-be to allow us to bring tifos in that much more difficult. If that's him, I've very little sympathy. with posts like these you really should post more
|
|
|
|
|
Someguy
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
They expect us to pay to read select articles from their rags? No wonder print media is dying. Couldn't happen to a more deserving media.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
On the plus side balaclava merch sales from WSW should go through the roof.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
lukerobinho
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
Someguy wrote:They expect us to pay to read select articles from their rags? No wonder print media is dying. Couldn't happen to a more deserving media. The fact you even clicked it means they've sucked people like you in. gullible
|
|
|
|
|
Gazzza
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.1K,
Visits: 0
|
lukerobinho wrote:Someguy wrote:They expect us to pay to read select articles from their rags? No wonder print media is dying. Couldn't happen to a more deserving media. The fact you even clicked it means they've sucked people like you in. gullible lukerobinho wrote:Why are we supposed to believe this dickhead
|
|
|
|
|
TheSelectFew
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 30K,
Visits: 0
|
robstazzz wrote:aufc_ole wrote:Rebecca Wilson not even surprised :lol: She's the biggest slut of all. Would kill herself and the world would hold a party.
|
|
|
|
|
Burztur
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.1K,
Visits: 0
|
Feel sorry for the people who have their details published... but maybe this could force the FFA to review their process and act reasonably.
|
|
|
|
|
sydneycroatia58
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 40K,
Visits: 0
|
Burztur wrote:Feel sorry for the people who have their details published... but maybe this could force the FFA to review their process and act reasonably. Yeah good luck with that.
|
|
|
|
|
Burztur
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.1K,
Visits: 0
|
sydneycroatia58 wrote:Burztur wrote:Feel sorry for the people who have their details published... but maybe this could force the FFA to review their process and act reasonably. Yeah good luck with that. True. But you have to hope someone in the FFA realises this is a fucked up situation.
|
|
|
|
trident
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
Prosecutor wrote:biscuitman1871 wrote:Prosecutor wrote:biscuitman1871 wrote:TheSelectFew wrote:biscuitman1871 wrote:Prosecutor wrote:I'm no lawyer but surely there's a case for defamation, especially when the court case was dropped. The people named are banned, that is substantially true, so there is no case for defamation. Banned not convicted. Article does not say they are convicted. It says they are banned. If the photos are of the actual people who are banned, then that what has been published is substantially true, which provides a defence against any claim of defamation. Only claim for defamation here would be if it says you are banned but you are not, if the reason why you are banned is not substantially true or if it is a photo of a person who is not actually banned. The issue of the process and lack of appeal rights related to the bannings is a completely separate issue Just had a quick browse and it says the reason they are banned. In a lot of these cases, they are never proven. Hence defamation of character. With respect, you don't know what you are talking about. What has been published is substantially true [it does not have to be fair], therefore a claim of defamation could be easily defended. You would not find a lawyer in the country who would take this on - not even one who was relying on "the vibe" ... You're probably right, and that's the scarier bit. Someone can be banned for any alleged crime at the discretion of the FFA. They don't need to prove anything and that 'crime' will be against your name for the rest of your life. Goodbye job and any hope of a fair future. Scary world we live in. Edited by prosecutor: 22/11/2015 12:46:17 AM Being evicted is not a criminal record. Its the right of an establishment to refuse entry.
|
|
|
|
|
lebo_roo
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.1K,
Visits: 0
|
Rebecca Wilson and Dave Gallop are best mates from his NRL days. Her brother Jim is a Wanderers fan. Must of been a day off for Isis day so let's rip in to football fans. Who the fuck would have faith in mainstream media.
|
|
|
|
|
thejollyvic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.1K,
Visits: 0
|
wow just when you think they couldn't sink any lower. The innocent blokes in the article will now have there image ruined. Future employment opportunities etc. Rebecca wilson deserves a double foot lunge to the face. Wonder how she would feel if someone brought up her drink driving charge. AFL players linked with drugs, rape, drinking driving etc. WAIT someone got to emotionally invested during the most emotional sport in the world and jumped on the pitch to celebrate in a moment of sheer euphoria?
YOU ARE OFFICIALLY WORSE THAN ISIS.
Seriously living in Melbourne and dealing with the bias here is bad enough but on a national scale this is just sad. I sort of take it as compliment though. They are scared, we are coming, we will grow bigger and bigger until the day they can no longer ignore us. Essendon can say goodbye to my money. Didn't buy a membership this season and from this day i vow to never buy one again.
|
|
|
|
|
Carlito
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 28K,
Visits: 0
|
Iirc the hun published an list of bikies and they sued because tey lost their jobs.
|
|
|
|
trident
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
thejollyvic wrote:wow just when you think they couldn't sink any lower. The innocent blokes in the article will now have there image ruined. Future employment opportunities etc. Rebecca wilson deserves a double foot lunge to the face. Wonder how she would feel if someone brought up her drink driving charge. AFL players linked with drugs, rape, drinking driving etc. WAIT someone got to emotionally invested during the most emotional sport in the world and jumped on the pitch to celebrate in a moment of sheer euphoria?
YOU ARE OFFICIALLY WORSE THAN ISIS.
Seriously living in Melbourne and dealing with the bias here is bad enough but on a national scale this is just sad. I sort of take it as compliment though. They are scared, we are coming, we will grow bigger and bigger until the day they can no longer ignore us. Essendon can say goodbye to my money. Didn't buy a membership this season and from this day i vow to never buy one again.
until they start winning again :)
|
|
|
|
|
thejollyvic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.1K,
Visits: 0
|
trident wrote:thejollyvic wrote:wow just when you think they couldn't sink any lower. The innocent blokes in the article will now have there image ruined. Future employment opportunities etc. Rebecca wilson deserves a double foot lunge to the face. Wonder how she would feel if someone brought up her drink driving charge. AFL players linked with drugs, rape, drinking driving etc. WAIT someone got to emotionally invested during the most emotional sport in the world and jumped on the pitch to celebrate in a moment of sheer euphoria?
YOU ARE OFFICIALLY WORSE THAN ISIS.
Seriously living in Melbourne and dealing with the bias here is bad enough but on a national scale this is just sad. I sort of take it as compliment though. They are scared, we are coming, we will grow bigger and bigger until the day they can no longer ignore us. Essendon can say goodbye to my money. Didn't buy a membership this season and from this day i vow to never buy one again.
until they start winning again :) i had not missed a home game since 2006 up until last year with the whole saga and just the general arrogance of the AFL if they win a flag i still wont go im so done with this crap
|
|
|
|