Bohs fan fails to get 'hooligan associates' ban lifted

[jebus]

Seriously, how are you not catching on to what we're saying? We're saying that Hooligans are in no way the main reason why families don't attend LoI, they may be 5% of the reason, but they in no way warrant clubs having crisis talks about them. Might I add that the LoI is relatively hooligan free while we're at it, and also that fathers seem to have no issue with bringing their kids to Glasgow, Manchester, Liverpool, London, or places that actual have quite a lot of hooligan history. You're blowing this completely out of proportion in a way that is reminiscent of George W.'s pre-war fear mongoring, it's really that bad A Face.

Plus we're talking about the 'human rights' of a Bohs supporter who has never participated in hooligan activity, not someone who is an active member of the BSC, so don't try and blur those lines and pretend we are advocating some form of Hooligan Relief program

[Da Real Rover]

Well done to Bohs for giving him the red card. And I'm fairly sure James Connolly and any other apostle of socialism who has been invoked in defence of this individual's rights are turning in their graves at the way their ideals have been twisted in the name of straight forward thuggery.

Class.
This thread is like a steady progression to the eventual realisation that this Bohs fan is a member of the BSC and had partaken in the odd act act of genocide, not to mention him scareing the kiddys away.
This man is innocent, dont forget that, so please dont drag James Connolly into it. He has committed as much thuggery as yourself.

And as for A faces comment on build decent regular loyal fanbase.
What would you define as decent?
I'd say the farest way of letting people into our grounds is to get their level of education, employment, where they live, criminal record, Assosciates of course, at the gate. When this is done the steward will compile his file and sanction entry into the ground. That way we can have a more decent type of fan. Try and keep the great unwashed out. Mein Fuhrer.

[A face]

We're saying that Hooligans are in no way the main reason why families don't attend LoI, they may be 5% of the reason, but they in no way warrant clubs having crisis talks about them.

I think its far more than 5%. And i'm saying its the image of the league clubs as being a fun family-orientated attraction in the local community of the club (and i'm not saying a totally clean clinical game. I'm saying so anyone and everyone can come along) so a wide section of the public will attend.


Class.
This thread is like a steady progression to the eventual realisation that this Bohs fan is a member of the BSC and had partaken in the odd act act of genocide, not to mention him scareing the kiddys away.

Genocide, calm down there fella. I agree with scaring the kiddys away ;)


And as for A faces comment on build decent regular loyal fanbase. What would you define as decent?

For an eircom League club .... 20,000


I'd say the farest way of letting people into our grounds is to get their level of education, employment, where they live, criminal record, Assosciates of course, at the gate. When this is done the steward will compile his file and sanction entry into the ground. That way we can have a more decent type of fan. Try and keep the great unwashed out. Mein Fuhrer.

What in gods name are you trying to say? Can you rephrase that?

[jebus]

There is no way any parent would bring kids to a game if they thought there was even the slightest chance something could happen.

Just to go back over a few of your points on this page alone. Why are there kids at Celtic v Rangers, Spurs v Arsenal, Chelsea v West Ham, Hibs v Hearts, Liverpool v Man Utd, Wednesday v Sheff Utd, and many, many more games across the sea so? For that matter why do any of us leave our house during the day, what with the threat of physical violence in society today?


The Linfield fan a few weeks ago at the Pats game. 3000+ at the game and nothing happened except for that incident, which was completely blown out of proportion. Are you seriously suggesting that people wouldn't think twice about attending a game, even based solely on that incident?

Yes, people have got bigger worries in life and aren't as easily scared off as you seem to be


I think its far more than 5%

I think you're wrong, but as there is no way of either of us proving what percentage of the human psyche lives in fear of hooligans we may as well move on


If people know there is a hooligan presence (they dont even have to be doing anything, its simply potential for something to happen) in any ground on a regular basis they will not attend games. Its a bit lame to say 'they wouldn't come anyway', 'they are only interested in Sky Sports', 'they are just not interested in going to LOI games' .... that fact is that most clubs would cut of their right arms to double the average attendance for a few years.

They can cut their arms off all they want, still won't change the fact that the majority of football supporters in this country don't come to LoI games because they think the standard is rubbish and they'd rather watch Man Utd


There is a bigger picture to all of this. The league needs to move on, attract more crowds and build decent regular loyal fanbase. Hoolies dont and will never out number the potential for that to happeN.

FREEDOM!!



For an eircom League club .... 20,000

Yes but by the stage eL clubs have a hardcore of 20,000 loyal supporters we'll all either be living on mars playing powerball (a hybrid of football and foxy boxing), be robots, or be living under the sea living in fear of hooligan dolphins coming around to slap the seaweed taste out of our children's mouths during waterball games

[BohsPartisan]

Incorrect most of the BSC are early to mid thirties

and AFAIK largely inactive on the hoolie front. Most of the Bohs hooligan incidents in the last couple of years have been courtesy of the BSS.

[A face]

Nonsensical rubbish

Ok, you have a point. You win, how wrong i was.

[BohsPartisan]

Ok, you have a point. You win, how wrong i was.

Very...

[Da Real Rover]

If they appear scummy, they people avoid them on a day to day basis, they have probably failed to get jobs because they cant hide the fact they are skangers.


:confused:
For some reason I must have misinterpreted your previous post?

[Macy]

I cant believe that people dont think families/general public would decide not to go to a game if they thought there were hooligans/unsavoury types at games already?
So ban the hooligans, not their mates and steward and police the games properly.

[Block G Raptor]

So ban the hooligans, not their mates and steward and police the games properly.

Sense at last!!
I regularly bring my step kids and nephew to Dalymount and am looking forward to bringing my son as soon as he's 3 or 4. the only game I won't bring them to is Rovers "Just in Case" and even at that there is seldom trouble. The only real Hoolie activity I've witnessed in recent years was when Rovers were renting Dalier and a group of about 7 or 8 kids attacked the no10 bus that I and several other bohs fans were on returning from Belfield after drawing 0-0 with UCD about 3 years ago. and the infamous time that rovers got in the exit gate beside the Jodi and that was all over in seconds

[MyTown]

[QUOTE=Da Real Rover;941404]
Class.This man is innocent, dont forget that, so please dont drag James Connolly into it. [QUOTE]

Wasn't it yourself who brought JC into it originally?

Ah yes DRR, I keep forgetting you're posting from the last bastion of true socialism in Europe where the road leading into town from Galway is called the Ray McSharry road :eek: and where the locals get to choose between Declan Bree, Sean McManus and Jimmy Devins. Out of that lot, I'd definitely be giving the innocent Bohs supporter my No. 1 if he was on the ticket.

[QUOTE=Da Real Rover;941404]He has committed as much thuggery as yourself.[QUOTE]

:rolleyes:That's what I love about you guys - you're so on top of the facts all the time.

[Macy]

:rolleyes:That's what I love about you guys - you're so on top of the facts all the time.
If you have proof this guy did something wrong, perhaps you should provide it to Bohs and then he can be banned for that, not who he "associates" with.

[Schumi]

I think its far more than 5%. And i'm saying its the image of the league clubs as being a fun family-orientated attraction in the local community of the club (and i'm not saying a totally clean clinical game. I'm saying so anyone and everyone can come along) so a wide section of the public will attend. Arguing over percentages is nonsensical. All I can say is that anyone I've mentioned going to football matches to has not gone because they can't be arsed, have 'better things to do' on Fridays, think the standard is rubbish, think the grounds are rubbish, would rather watch football on TV, .... Never has potential violence been mentioned, ever.

[pól-dcfc]

There is some total ****** being talked on this thread.

Hoolaganism may contriubute to people not wanting to go to games. It is not the only reason by any stretch, or even a major root cause. Otherwise the Brandy would be filled every week because we don't have a problem.

Greenforever, and Aface, you have completely twisted what other people are saying on several occassions. Everyone accepts that hooliganism can cause a problem.


I cant believe that people dont think families/general public would decide not to go to a game if they thought there were hooligans/unsavoury types at games already?
No one has said anything remotely like that. But the scale of the problem is not such that a significant number of people would be turned away, surely?

Bohs can ban your man if they want, but he has his right to an appeal, which he is getting. The pub analogy is a good one here. If you're wearing the wrong shoes then Bohs or any other club which owns their stadium should have the right to tell you to **** off. I can do it at my house, the bouncers can do it at the bars, Bohs can do it at Dalymount. It's what private property is all about. You hold the the power to refuse others admittance/enjoyment of your property.

There is no real discussion here.

[pól-dcfc]

Arguing over percentages is nonsensical. All I can say is that anyone I've mentioned going to football matches to has not gone because they can't be arsed, have 'better things to do' on Fridays, think the standard is rubbish, think the grounds are rubbish, would rather watch football on TV, .... Never has potential violence been mentioned, ever.

Exactly. People just support their English teams or Scots teams. I've never encountered a single person who has told me that his reason for not going to a LoI match was hooliganism or violence.

[celticV3]

It's a simple as this, imagine turning up at the gate about to pay your entry into the ground when you are told that you are not allowed in because you know someone or because of the group of friends you have? if this man is guilty of anything the proof will be there and we can all stand fully behind bohs decision, but there should not be any guilt be association and for a man who's been supporting his club for longer than most of the posters here have been supporting theirs, it is sad to see him being treated so badly by the club he loves

[pól-dcfc]

It's a simple as this, imagine turning up at the gate about to pay your entry into the ground when you are told that you are not allowed in because you know someone or because of the group of friends you have? if this man is guilty of anything the proof will be there and we can all stand fully behind bohs decision, but there should not be any guilt be association and for a man who's been supporting his club for longer than most of the posters here have been supporting theirs, it is sad to see him being treated so badly by the club he loves


It doesn't matter. In Irish law he has no 'right' to expect to be admitted to private property.

[geysir]

I assume that Bohs have acted properly and with due care and attention to their "laws", that after an investigation, they found this person deserved the sanction.

Unless I hear other evidence, I assume that Bohs have acted appropriately.
Bohs are answerable to the club members. If the club members have any questions about this case then they can take it up with the Board.

[Block G Raptor]

It turns out the guy in question is a former bar man in Dalymount and judging by the comments on thebohs.com (http://www.thebohs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7172)is an upstanding supporter who's never caused trouble

This is incredibly worrying as I've heard of a few other dubious bannings (not least young Conor, a lad who's a few cans short of a sixpack and about as dangerous as a rubber knife) whilst at least 2 of the Derry 4 have been seen at games recently

[passerrby]

I cant believe the tripe on this thread why cant we all assume (in light of the fact that we dont know anything about this case )that bohs took this dicision for good reasons and not just because a guy happened to be on the same flight as a bunch of idiots.let this man have his day in court and let jebus get on with cutting of his brains p.s dont make a balls of it.

[osarusan]

As far as I'm aware, He was banned by Bohs for "associating" with troublemakers. Is that correct? And according to BohsPartisan, Bohs have been careful not to say or imply that he himself is a troublemaker. Is this also correct? (I'm only going on what I've read on this thread)

A number of people have mentioned that Bohs, as a private business/club/enterprise etc. have the right to refuse entry to people the don't want on the premises. I would imagine though that any such rule could not contravene the law of the country. Does anybody know if Irish law would supercede Bohs policy?

[Schumi]

A number of people have mentioned that Bohs, as a private business/club/enterprise etc. have the right to refuse entry to people the don't want on the premises. I would imagine though that any such rule could not contravene the law of the country. Does anybody know if Irish law would supercede Bohs policy?As far as I understand, unless they're discriminating on the grounds of gender, age, race, disability, being a traveller or a couple of other grounds that I can't think of offhand, they're OK. I may well be wrong though.

[dcfcsteve]

As far as I'm aware, He was banned by Bohs for "associating" with troublemakers. Is that correct? And according to BohsPartisan, Bohs have been careful not to say or imply that he himself is a troublemaker. Is this also correct? (I'm only going on what I've read on this thread)

A number of people have mentioned that Bohs, as a private business/club/enterprise etc. have the right to refuse entry to people the don't want on the premises. I would imagine though that any such rule could not contravene the law of the country. Does anybody know if Irish law would supercede Bohs policy?

Of course Irish law super-cedes any rules in Dalymount..... :o

Excluding someone on grounds that fall foul of existing equality legislation would be deemed illegal. Any other grounds wouldn't. How else do you think it's legal to exclude people from bars or night-clubs for wearing football shirts, jeans, the wrong shoes etc, or simply because you don't like the look of them.... ?

[osarusan]

Of course Irish law super-cedes any rules in Dalymount..... :o

Excluding someone on grounds that fall foul of existing equality legislation would be deemed illegal. Any other grounds wouldn't. How else do you think it's legal to exclude people from bars or night-clubs for wearing football shirts, jeans, the wrong shoes etc, or simply because you don't like the look of them.... ?

I didn't phrase my question well I suppose.

I didn't mean "Does Irish law supercede Bohs policy?". Of course national law supercedes any private policy.

I meant "Is there a specific law in this case which supercedes Bohs policy?"

And according to you and Schumi, Bohs could well be in the clear, as this wouldn't fall under the usual discrimination laws.

I still think the whole thing is pretty unfair though.

[bohs til i die]

Do you really think the directors of Bohs would go to that much trouble if he was really that innocent?




Actually yes I would

[bohs til i die]

It turns out the guy in question is a former bar man in Dalymount and judging by the comments on thebohs.com (http://www.thebohs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7172)is an upstanding supporter who's never caused trouble

This is incredibly worrying as I've heard of a few other dubious bannings (not least young Conor, a lad who's a few cans short of a sixpack and about as dangerous as a rubber knife) whilst at least 2 of the Derry 4 have been seen at games recently


We have banned a guy who we used to employ to serve the very people he is banned for associating with.

Only at Bohs.

[bigmac]

Isn't Bohs a members club though? If all the members feel terrible about this, then surely it could be brought up at a meeting....

[LukeO]

We have banned a guy who we used to employ to serve the very people he is banned for associating with.

Only at Bohs.

And this is the same club that banned a member of 30+ years for having an argument with a steward who was throwing his weight around.

Pay back for years of vocal but reasoned criticism at AGMs perhaps? Democracy, Bohs style.......

[jebus]

let jebus get on with cutting of his brains p.s dont make a balls of it.

:rolleyes:

Anyway Bohs have the right to kick anyone out, but they're *******s if they do. My family run a pub and we could bar anyone we want and make it stick, say we didn't want Africans in the bar, we could make up some excuse about the way they dress and get away with it, doesn't mean we'd be right to do so does it?

[superfrank]

I cant believe the tripe on this thread why cant we all assume (in light of the fact that we dont know anything about this case )that bohs took this dicision for good reasons and not just because a guy happened to be on the same flight as a bunch of idiots.
Because if you read the very first post you'll see that Bohs said in court that they are not accusing him of anything criminal or illegal, just for associating with these lads.

Alistair Rutherdale, counsel for Bohemian FC, told the court the club had never made,nor were they making, any allegations of criminality or hooliganism against Kelehan -- but it was its security policy to ban anyone who associated with known members or groups responsible for hooliganism.

[passerrby]

Because if you read the very first post you'll see that Bohs said in court that they are not accusing him of anything criminal or illegal, just for associating with these lads.

maybe because if they accused him they would then have to prove it and that is not always easy .

[superfrank]

maybe because if they accused him they would then have to prove it and that is not always easy .
What?

Of course they'd have to prove it. If they have no proof that he's done anything else, then he can't accuse him of anything else.

Bohs have said they banned him because

it was its security policy to ban anyone who associated with known members or groups responsible for hooliganism
They're accusing him of associating with hooligans because that's what he did and they must have evidence of it.

They are not accusing him of anything else because they don't have any evidence to suggest he has done anything else. And yet you seem to be certain that

bohs took this dicision for good reasons and not just because a guy happened to be on the same flight as a bunch of idiots
How are you so certain? Where's your evidence? Bohs have none but you must if you're making accusations like that.

[bigmac]

Evidence that would stand up in court is fairly difficult to come by. You would need serious video evidence to prove that someone was involved in something criminal or illegal. It may be that they are banning him for something they believe he did, but are using the association with hooligans policy as their legal defence.

[pateen]

This Decision Would Be Laughed Out Of Court!

[dcfcsteve]

My family run a pub and we could bar anyone we want and make it stick, say we didn't want Africans in the bar, we could make up some excuse about the way they dress and get away with it, doesn't mean we'd be right to do so does it?

There's seems to be a lack of understanding of equality law throughout this thread.

If you tried to ban an entire ethnic or racial group (e.g. Africans) on grounds of the way they dress, for example, then you would fall foul of the law.

You would get away with refusing the odd person individually, but if it became a noticeable trend - and more importantly, if you linked refusal directly to ethnic clothing - then you should and hopefully would be challenged. And you would lose.

Devout Muslims tend not to go to places were alcohol is served - but if a lady in a veil tried to enter your pub and you refused her on clothing grounds, then you'd rightly be in a world of bother.

[bigmac]

This Decision Would Be Laughed Out Of Court!

Read the original post :rolleyes:

[cesc]

meh, he associates with scum, ban away

[jebus]

You would get away with refusing the odd person individually, but if it became a noticeable trend - and more importantly, if you linked refusal directly to ethnic clothing - then you should and hopefully would be challenged. And you would lose.

I know exactly what the law is, my example was in reference to people who seem to feel that the rights of private ownership usurp all rational thought and national laws. Surely saying we're not letting you in because we've seeing you talk to scumbags is just another form of discrimination that will be thrown out of court? Yet some on here are advocating it as the way Eircom League clubs should go to deal with a largely non-existant problem

[OneRedArmy]

I know exactly what the law is, my example was in reference to people who seem to feel that the rights of private ownership usurp all rational thought and national laws. Surely saying we're not letting you in because we've seeing you talk to scumbags is just another form of discrimination that will be thrown out of court? Yet some on here are advocating it as the way Eircom League clubs should go to deal with a largely non-existant problemAs DCFCsteve said your example is irrelevant. You stated an example which would be a breach of the discrimination laws. Nowhere above has anyone stated that this Bohs fan being LEGALLY discriminated against, based on Irish legislation. Of course the morals of Bohs actions are a completely different question & this is what merits discussion.

[Da Real Rover]

[QUOTE=Da Real Rover;941404]
Class.This man is innocent, dont forget that, so please dont drag James Connolly into it. [QUOTE]

Wasn't it yourself who brought JC into it originally?

Ah yes DRR, I keep forgetting you're posting from the last bastion of true socialism in Europe where the road leading into town from Galway is called the Ray McSharry road :eek: and where the locals get to choose between Declan Bree, Sean McManus and Jimmy Devins. Out of that lot, I'd definitely be giving the innocent Bohs supporter my No. 1 if he was on the ticket.

[QUOTE=Da Real Rover;941404]He has committed as much thuggery as yourself.[QUOTE]

:rolleyes:That's what I love about you guys - you're so on top of the facts all the time.


What is your problem?
I never mentioned James Connolly or anything to do with James Connolly in this thread, so cut the bull****.

As for the comment on Sligo:rolleyes:
Dont make me laugh.
I never said Sligo was a bastian of Socialism, even though I fail to se what this has got to do with your idiotic and deeply flawed post on the Bohs fan.
Its really quite pathetic that on a thread on a Bohs fan you have to revert to attacks on Sligo, can you deal with the topic at hand or will you just embaress yourself more?

As for Declan Bree, great Socialist and great man, wrong man to single out, you could have easily picked out alot more of the right wing politicans in sligo than him. God knows theres a few to pick from. Declan Bree has done alot of good work, so please dont drag him into this debate, try to discredit him. I can give you links to such men from sligo such as John Lynch, Partridge etc, all great socialists from sligo, fought with the ICA, founders of the ITGWU here and friends of Connolly. Its not exactly a bastion, I am not delluding myself, but there is a good tradition.

Ok cause your so on top of your facts,
Now you better answer this
Where has this Bohs fan committed thuggery?

[jebus]

As DCFCsteve said your example is irrelevant. You stated an example which would be a breach of the discrimination laws.

No I didn't, I was stopping people people for the clothes they wear, which is almost as ridiculous as stopping someone for who they are friends with. I cited that I had an underlying reason that was masked by my explaination, but maybe Bohs have one here? Who knows?

[passerrby]

What?

Of course they'd have to prove it. If they have no proof that he's done anything else, then he can't accuse him of anything else.
so what your saying is unless they have solid stand up in court proof they should not ban anybody... just for a second think of the implications of that

Bohs have said they banned him because

They're accusing him of associating with hooligans because that's what he did and they must have evidence of it.

why do you assume they must have proof maybe their proof is only hearsay from realible sources but still only hearsay and noy much good in court

They are not accusing him of anything else because they don't have any evidence to suggest he has done anything else. And yet you seem to be certain that
.
How are you so certain? Where's your evidence? Bohs have none but you must if you're making accusations like that.

I am not certain of anything in fact i know nothing of this case only what ive seen in the papers so i unlike you will not judge bohs or this man the only point ive made is that you like me are unaware of the decision making process at bohs so wil not make any judgements until i hear all the facts

[BohDiddley]

Is there a facts-to-posts ratio competition anywhere on the web? If there is, this thread has to have set a record, of the wrong kind.
(With regret for adding to the post count).

[sadloserkid]

Surely the actual 'hooligans' have already been banned if this guy has? And if they're not allowed in the ground and Bohs haven't the stones to suggest that this guy has ever been involved in anything unsavory then why isn't he allowed in again? Because he associates with people who have commited acts of hooliganism and are surely accordingly banned already? :confused:

[dcfcsteve]

I know exactly what the law is, my example was in reference to people who seem to feel that the rights of private ownership usurp all rational thought and national laws.

Firstly - who has suggested anywhere that Dalymount law usurps National law ? :confused: Most peoplel seem to be trying to point out the opposite.

Secondly - are you now the universal determinant of 'rational thought' ...? I would've thought it was rational to question the motives of a football fan who travels to football games with hooligans of that club. Rationality is not fact - it is dependent entirely upon interpretation.


Surely saying we're not letting you in because we've seeing you talk to scumbags is just another form of discrimination that will be thrown out of court? Yet some on here are advocating it as the way Eircom League clubs should go to deal with a largely non-existant problem

Again - you're just not getting this at all. So long as you don't break any discrimination laws, a premises has the right to with-hold entry to whoever it likes. Their reasons for doing so can, of course, be challenged in a court - which is where you're trying to second-guess this case. Barring people for who they associate with is extremely common practice throughout the country. Find someone who is barred from a night-club and well known to the bouncers, and then see how much luck you have getting in if you go up to the door with them together.

And again : being seen talking to 'scumbags' differs massively from actively travelling around the country with them. Please make the differentiation, as it will doubtless be key to this case.

Finally - the question-mark you've put after your asssertion that disciminating against "scumbags" is illegal suggests you're not even sure if it is yourself. I am not aware of any law that would force premises to let in anyone they would define as a 'scumbag'. To the contrary, the law happily lets premises of all sorts exclude such people week-in week-out up and down the country.

[MyTown]

Da Real Rover:

You're right about dragging the Sligo references into this threead being inappropriate and out of order. It was cheap stuff and I regret it.

If you quote James Connolly in your signiture, for me, he's included and relevant to every post you make.

You posted that the Bohs fan was as guilty of thuggery as I am. My reference to FACTS was how could you know this? - Just as I couldn't know how "guilty" he is.

I envy this guy being able to take a legal action to defend his rights. I haven't got the money to be making a trip to the Four Courts for an issue like this - but more importantly, I wouldn't want to put myself in a position where I'd have to.

[jebus]

Firstly - who has suggested anywhere that Dalymount law usurps National law ? :confused: Most peoplel seem to be trying to point out the opposite.

Scroll back a few pages, people have said that Bohs have every right to bar this man. The question is whether or not Bohs should be allowed to lump this man into a group that they are barring when they have stated he doesn't partake in their activities. I would suggest that that is infringing on his rights and he could easily call into question why he is being singled out by Bohs. Some say yes they should be allowed, I say no they're not


Secondly - are you now the universal determinant of 'rational thought' ...?

Yes




Again - you're just not getting this at all. So long as you don't break any discrimination laws, a premises has the right to with-hold entry to whoever it likes.

I get that clearly, what you're not getting is that I am questioning whether it is morally okay to do so. I brought up a reference to barring an African from a bar as I'm sure it would be very difficult for a lawyer in court to prove that you barred said African on race, perhaps I should have put forward a scenario of a publican barring a local because he associates with the wrong people (Africans in this scenario). I am saying that he would be entitled to do so, but that doesn't mean he would be correct in doing so. Same situation applies here, Bohs are entitled to bar this man from Dalymount, but that doesn't mean it's correct to do so. Hopefully he winds on appeal


Their reasons for doing so can, of course, be challenged in a court - which is where you're trying to second-guess this case. Barring people for who they associate with is extremely common practice throughout the country.

Really, I didn't know that, for you see I've been living in a cave, with my eyes closed and with fingers in my ears these past 27 years. I realise people get excluded from establishments for no reason at all (I've worked in clubs, I remember the bouncers deciding one night theywanted to pull, and so they were going to let in 2 girls to every guy, and so a lot of guys got sent home), still doesn't make it right.


And again : being seen talking to 'scumbags' differs massively from actively travelling around the country with them. Please make the differentiation, as it will doubtless be key to this case.

And I still say that as long as he didn't partake in any hooligan activity then he shouldn't be banded in with them


Finally - the question-mark you've put after your asssertion that disciminating against "scumbags" is illegal suggests you're not even sure if it is yourself.

Nope, just asking a question.


I am not aware of any law that would force premises to let in anyone they would define as a 'scumbag'.

Anti-discrimination laws. Example from when I worked in a cinema when I was 18, Rathkeele travellers regularly attended a Limerick cinema on Thursdays, and a few of them would constantly cause fights, rub their **** against the toliet walls and talk loudly during a screening. Certain individuals were banned but the cinema weren't allowed ban the whole group of them (about 50 used to travel together every week), despite them wishing to do so. And so the cinema were forced by law to allow people they did not want on their premises into the shows

[OneRedArmy]

The question is whether or not Bohs should be allowed to lump this man into a group that they are barring when they have stated he doesn't partake in their activities. Respectfully, I don't think this is the question (if by the question, you mean the legal question). And as long as you can't see why this isn't the question, then anything else is a moot point.

[jebus]

It's not the legal question, but we are looking at this from football supporter's perspectives, and on that point I can't see how any of you are backing this decision

[OneRedArmy]

It's not the legal question, but we are looking at this from football supporter's perspectives, and on that point I can't see how any of you are backing this decisionAh, but thats a very different question.

See back a couple of pages re the differentiation between moral rights and legal rights.

Personally I don't have enough info to know if Bohs were morally right to do what they did and I'd hazard that most fans are in the same boat.