What an absolute šŸ›Ž end

Aet290204 said:
It could, and I heavily stress the word could, be a reference to the season when Liverpool only lost one game, got 97 points but City still won the title and as such ā€œnot enoughā€ points to win the title.

Probably isnā€™t though.
Click to expand...
Except we all know it isn't. Why would a Man Utd fan be interested in a season in which City won the title?
 
Easterside_Red said:
Except we all know it isn't. Why would a Man Utd fan be interested in a season in which City won the title?
Click to expand...
Iā€™ve no idea. Iā€™m not of the mentality to hate anyone because they support another football club let alone turn up for a cup final wearing a moronic shirt.

But the only proper Man Utd fan I know (ie from the NW and goes to games) hates the Glazers Liverpool and Man City in that order.
 
AET has got a bit of a point though.
From a legal point of view wouldn't they have to prove in court it was a reference to Hillsborough? If he had an alternative, obviously bullsh1t, explanation (which aet has provided for him šŸ˜‰) they would have to prove it was bullsh1t, not the other way around.
The guy is obviously a complete d*ck but as Newy suggested, it is not obvious what the charge will be.
I suspect he might have been taken away for his own protection as much as anything else.
 
Aet290204 said:
Gosh what an over reaction.
Iā€™m not defending him.
Just saying itā€™s open to interpretation.
Absolutely not deleting any comments

What on earth do you think the ā€œprobably isnā€™t thoughā€ bit at then end of the post meant ???

sheesh.
Click to expand...
Ok fair enough. I don't think it's an overreaction, the disgrace I was referring to was in reference to the top the guy is wearing not your post.

Not that you are, however if anybody is trying to defend it with the points situation that happened in a title race several seasons ago, that would be very naive.
 
Rofesleg said:
AET has got a bit of a point though.
From a legal point of view wouldn't they have to prove in court it was a reference to Hillsborough? If he had an alternative, obviously bullsh1t, explanation (which aet has provided for him šŸ˜‰) they would have to prove it was bullsh1t, not the other way around.
The guy is obviously a complete d*ck but as Newy suggested, it is not obvious what the charge will be.
I suspect he might have been taken away for his own protection as much as anything else.
Click to expand...
Plus ā€” and for everyoneā€™s benefit once again I am not defending him - the phrase I normally associate with Hillsborough is ā€œjustice for the 96ā€. Although I know there were 97 victims.

To be honest they all are just massivešŸ”” ends all round. Will never understand the hatred myself.
 
Kowalski said:
Ok fair enough. I don't think it's an overreaction, the disgrace I was referring to was in reference to the top the guy is wearing not your post.

Not that you are, however if anybody is trying to defend it with the points situation that happened in a title race several seasons ago, that would be very naive.
Click to expand...
I mean.. it was an over reaction by you.

For anyone to read your post and think it was in reference to the top and not the post.. well.. that would be very naĆÆve.
 
Last edited:
Section 5 Public Order Act 1986ā€¦

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if heā€”
(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening [F1or abusive],
(extremely offensive and insulting.. but to who and where and why etc)

(3)It is a defence for the accused to proveā€”
(c)that his conduct was reasonable.

(97 points not enough, 97/98 season not enough.. etc etc)
Triable only summarily
Maximum: 6 monthsā€™ custody
Offence range: Discharge ā€“ 26 weeksā€™ custody

probably best just to confiscate the top and avoid a massive waste of time any money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top