Jump to content

Sunderland


Nobody

Recommended Posts

Manone apparently getting the players to reimburse the fans,thoughts? I want my last two trips reimbursed 8-0 aggregate should been 16 -0

 

Losing a match heavily shouldn't mean they get refunded ffs. It's football, it happens. You buy your ticket and you don't know what you're going to see.

 

Would they be prepared to put another £25 each in a box whilst leaving the ground after seeing a big win? Thought not.

 

It's a good gesture,I think. When I pay, I don't expect a win but I expect an effort.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don’t think these lads should be called 'fans'. I'm sure the majority of people in Sunderland wouldn’t want to be associated with the arseholes.

Yeah, the article even highlights other Sunderland fans having a go at them.
Link to post
Share on other sites

what could they possibly be thinking of charging him with there, i saw all of the shite he put on twitter and while it's shitty stuff i wonder what the police can say about it officially?  or has there been a specific charge created for being a fucking clown on social media?

Link to post
Share on other sites

what could they possibly be thinking of charging him with there, i saw all of the shite he put on twitter and while it's shitty stuff i wonder what the police can say about it officially?  or has there been a specific charge created for being a fucking clown on social media?

 

Sending malicious communications.

 

Communications Act, 1988

 

The Malicious Communications Act 1988 section 1, see Stones 8.20830, deals with the sending to another of any article which is indecent or grossly offensive, or which conveys a threat, or which is false, provided there is an intent to cause distress or anxiety to the recipient. The offence covers letters, writing of all descriptions, electronic communications, photographs and other images in a material form, tape recordings, films and video recordings. Poison-pen letters are usually covered.

 

Particularly serious examples may justify a more serious charge, e.g. threats to kill.

 

The offence is one of sending, delivering or transmitting, so there is no requirement for the article to reach the intended recipient.

 

The terms of section 1 were considered in Connolly v DPP [2007] 2 All ER 1012, and "indecent or grossly offensive" were said to be ordinary English words. The fact that there was a political or educational motive behind the accused sending graphic photographs of aborted foetuses did not help her, and her argument that her behaviour was protected by Articles 9 and 10 ECHR (freedom of religion and speech) did not succeed, because the restrictions on those rights were justified under Articles 9(2) and 10(2).

 

A person guilty of an offence under section 127 CA 2003 shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine or to both.

 

Better start deleting Taylors posts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Aye, the actions of a lot of Sunderland fans raising money for John Alder and Liam Sweeney shouldn't be tarnished by these two fuckwits.

 

This. Hope no one forgets their amazing reaction on a whole to the tragedy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah well, my early season optimism is fading away. Fucking hopeless in every department again today. Another very long season beckons.  :'(

 

Watching the second half early it barely seemed like you were interested in getting back in to it, very odd. Can only assume the players can't snap out of Poyet's negative mindset.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...