Bohs fan fails to get 'hooligan associates' ban lifted

[jebus]

Bohs themselves have said that he isn't a hooligan

[passerrby]

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.
.

jebus bohs did not say any such thing if fact they did not comment on mr kelehan only to say he had associated with members of the bsc
bohs did not say he was or was not a criminal or hooligan they just said they were making no allegations

[jebus]

bohs did not say he was or was not a criminal or hooligan they just said they were making no allegations

God almighty

[A face]

God almighty

Its true though

[Da Real Rover]

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.

Apologys accepted, no harm done.

I disagree with your point about the signature, but each to their own.

But he has not been convicted of thuggery, let alone been accused of it, so therefore he is not guilty. Innocent till proven guilty and untill some evidence or some solid facts are highlighted with regards to this man then he will remain innocent.

[Da Real Rover]

bohs did not say he was or was not a criminal or hooligan they just said they were making no allegations

:o:o:o

[jebus]

Its true though

Is it such a leap to say that when Bohs put out a statement saying they are not saying he was involved in any criminality that they are not accusing him of committing any crime? My brain is slowing down second by second talking to you people

[A face]

Is it such a leap to say that when Bohs put out a statement saying they are not saying he was involved in any criminality that they are not accusing him of committing any crime?

Ah yeah, they are not accusing him of committing any crime. Your point?


My brain is slowing down second by second talking to you people

I've noticed

[jebus]

Ah yeah, they are not accusing him of committing any crime. Your point?

Is this some sort of competition between yourself and Passerby for the lead role in Rainman 2?

[d13bohs]

I haven't posted on this forum in a long time but, having ploughed through all of the posts on this thread, I have been very disapppointed by the 'lock em all up and throw away the key ' attitude displayed by many posters on here.

The individual concerned is not nor has never been involved in any hooligan activity. He was a former barman in Dalymount so of course he is on first name terms with all the regular customers. He worked under a very popular bar manager who left when a new regime (the current one) took over the club and in the bars.

Guilt by association is an absolute disgrace. Where is the line drawn? If you speak to someone who used to be invovled in a few fights 5-6 years ago when they were in their late teens/early twenties but haven't done anything for years, should you be banned? If you speak to someone who wears designer label clothes to matches rather than a jersey, scarf and hat but has never been in a fight, should you be banned? It is entirely subjective and based on the whim of individual board members (and those who report to them).

I admire those who show such faith in the decision making powers of those in charge at Bohs, however, having experienced it first hand, I cannot share it. I received a call from a senior board member, telling me that I was identified and named as a member of a travelling party to the Sligo game at Easter which included some people who were banned from Dalymount. I am fairly well known at Dalymount and, to the best of my knowledge, don't look very similar to anyone else down there so the person naming me as being part of that group clearly knew who I was and intended to get me barred as part of this 'guilt by association' policy. The board member (who I know quite well) was surprised and extremely apologetic when I informed him that I was actually on holidays in Reykjavik with my girlfriend while I was allegedly on this bus with people banned from Dalymount.

Therefore it is clear that if individuals in a position of power at Bohs decide they want to bar you, they can do so indiscriminately. I just happened to be lucky enough to know a board member well enough to have the opportunity to defend my name against the blatant lies told about me. To those who say that if people do not travel on the same form of transport as banned people, there will be no problem, I think that's outrageous. One of my good friends got barred until the end of last season for encroaching on the pitch to celebrate a (practically) last minute winner from Glen Crowe against rovers in the league cup semi-final. He shouldn't have done it but I think his actions were highly understandable in the circumstances. By travelling with him to matches, the guilt by association excuse could be used to ban me or any of my friends at any time. It is an absolute outrage and to see so many on here taking the militant right-wing view supporting this action is very disappointing.

[jebus]

I haven't posted on this forum in a long time but, having ploughed through all of the posts on this thread, I have been very disapppointed by the 'lock em all up and throw away the key ' attitude displayed by many posters on here.

The individual concerned is not nor has never been involved in any hooligan activity. He was a former barman in Dalymount so of course he is on first name terms with all the regular customers. He worked under a very popular bar manager who left when a new regime (the current one) took over the club and in the bars.

Guilt by association is an absolute disgrace. Where is the line drawn? If you speak to someone who used to be invovled in a few fights 5-6 years ago when they were in their late teens/early twenties but haven't done anything for years, should you be banned? If you speak to someone who wears designer label clothes to matches rather than a jersey, scarf and hat but has never been in a fight, should you be banned? It is entirely subjective and based on the whim of individual board members (and those who report to them).

I admire those who show such faith in the decision making powers of those in charge at Bohs, however, having experienced it first hand, I cannot share it. I received a call from a senior board member, telling me that I was identified and named as a member of a travelling party to the Sligo game at Easter which included some people who were banned from Dalymount. I am fairly well known at Dalymount and, to the best of my knowledge, don't look very similar to anyone else down there so the person naming me as being part of that group clearly knew who I was and intended to get me barred as part of this 'guilt by association' policy. The board member (who I know quite well) was surprised and extremely apologetic when I informed him that I was actually on holidays in Reykjavik with my girlfriend while I was allegedly on this bus with people banned from Dalymount.

Therefore it is clear that if individuals in a position of power at Bohs decide they want to bar you, they can do so indiscriminately. I just happened to be lucky enough to know a board member well enough to have the opportunity to defend my name against the blatant lies told about me. To those who say that if people do not travel on the same form of transport as banned people, there will be no problem, I think that's outrageous. One of my good friends got barred until the end of last season for encroaching on the pitch to celebrate a (practically) last minute winner from Glen Crowe against rovers in the league cup semi-final. He shouldn't have done it but I think his actions were highly understandable in the circumstances. By travelling with him to matches, the guilt by association excuse could be used to ban me or any of my friends at any time. It is an absolute outrage and to see so many on here taking the militant right-wing view supporting this action is very disappointing.

Very well said. The point on people with grudges possibly having the power to get this individual (or supporters like yourself) banned under this guilt by association ruling seems to have passed a lot of people on this website by

[A face]

Is this some sort of competition between yourself and Passerby for the lead role in Rainman 2?

Jebus, if your going to be an idiot just let us know and we wont respond. They haven't accused him of committing any crime. How are you having a problem with that. They said they weren't accusing him, it is in the statement. And they haven't .... where is your problem.

And you are trying twist the actual debate with your jibes re: me and Passerby and its you who is struggling at grasping the semantics of the point in question.

I responded to highlight the fact they weren't accusing him and you go and drag the debate down because of your inability to deal with the point i contested (either that or you ARE having problems with the English language)

I have gathered you're not happy with the whole thing but there is nothing can be done about it. Take it up with someone else if you are having problems dealing with it, if you cant debate it then dont.

[A face]

I haven't posted on this forum in a long time but, having ploughed through all of the posts on this thread, I have been very disapppointed by the 'lock em all up and throw away the key ' attitude displayed by many posters on here.

The individual concerned is not nor has never been involved in any hooligan activity. He was a former barman in Dalymount so of course he is on first name terms with all the regular customers. He worked under a very popular bar manager who left when a new regime (the current one) took over the club and in the bars.

Guilt by association is an absolute disgrace. Where is the line drawn? If you speak to someone who used to be invovled in a few fights 5-6 years ago when they were in their late teens/early twenties but haven't done anything for years, should you be banned? If you speak to someone who wears designer label clothes to matches rather than a jersey, scarf and hat but has never been in a fight, should you be banned? It is entirely subjective and based on the whim of individual board members (and those who report to them).

I admire those who show such faith in the decision making powers of those in charge at Bohs, however, having experienced it first hand, I cannot share it. I received a call from a senior board member, telling me that I was identified and named as a member of a travelling party to the Sligo game at Easter which included some people who were banned from Dalymount. I am fairly well known at Dalymount and, to the best of my knowledge, don't look very similar to anyone else down there so the person naming me as being part of that group clearly knew who I was and intended to get me barred as part of this 'guilt by association' policy. The board member (who I know quite well) was surprised and extremely apologetic when I informed him that I was actually on holidays in Reykjavik with my girlfriend while I was allegedly on this bus with people banned from Dalymount.

Therefore it is clear that if individuals in a position of power at Bohs decide they want to bar you, they can do so indiscriminately. I just happened to be lucky enough to know a board member well enough to have the opportunity to defend my name against the blatant lies told about me. To those who say that if people do not travel on the same form of transport as banned people, there will be no problem, I think that's outrageous. One of my good friends got barred until the end of last season for encroaching on the pitch to celebrate a (practically) last minute winner from Glen Crowe against rovers in the league cup semi-final. He shouldn't have done it but I think his actions were highly understandable in the circumstances. By travelling with him to matches, the guilt by association excuse could be used to ban me or any of my friends at any time. It is an absolute outrage and to see so many on here taking the militant right-wing view supporting this action is very disappointing.

The first post that conclusively made the case that the board may have got it wrong. It would have been good to have this posted earlier on to be honest as it would have brought balance to the whole debate.

With this post in mind, i'd retract alot of what i have said within the thread. The 'by association' element is what alot of people in the thread have a problem with. This post definitely shows it in a different light (not just the difference of opinion or disdain for the policy, but how the policy is being enforced)

[jebus]

Bohs themselves have said that he isn't a hooligan


jebus bohs did not say any such thing if fact they did not comment on mr kelehan only to say he had associated with members of the bsc
bohs did not say he was or was not a criminal or hooligan they just said they were making no allegations

I was commenting on that sort of reasoning. The 'they didn't say he was a criminal, but they didn't say he wasn't either' argument, and then you waded in A Face, probably because you had recieved such a spanking earlier on in this thread that you were still smarting about it. They are banning him for associating with people involved in criminality, they are accusing him of being a criminal by proxy, which is why I found them saying that they aren't accusing him of any such thing as ridiculous.

Passerby's logic is ridiculous, but you're continued presence in this thread after the nonsense you were coming out with earlier on is laughable. I don't suffer fools lightly, and the only thing that annoys me more is having to walk said fools hand in hand through posts that are on the same page they are posting on. Sadly there is quite a few of these people littered throughout Foot.ie. Last word from me on this thread on anything other than the case in question




With this post in mind, i'd retract alot of what i have said within the thread.

Well in future don't jump to the Daily Mail conclusion then. Anyone with a bit of common sense can see that guilt by association could lead to human errors or grudges coming into play

[A face]

I was commenting on that sort of reasoning. The 'they didn't say he was a criminal, but they didn't say he wasn't either' argument,

Thats fine, i have no problem with that. Debating the interpretation is grand. I was highlighting and that (imo) is grand too.


and then you waded in A Face

Can i only debate in certain parts of threads now? Can you point those parts out to me.


probably because you had recieved such a spanking earlier on in this thread that you were still smarting about it.

I provoked debate, it got debated. My opinion, your opinion and anyone else make up that debate. If it was wrong or right is only a consequence of that debate. Its not even a wrong/right issue when its opinion. You didn't agree with the policy, that doesn't make you wrong. In fact you would be closer to right if it was a black/white wrong/right issue. Equally my opinion carries the same weight. It isn't about be wrong/right for me. It obviously is for you, hence the jibes and insults to crutch up your argument, and thats grand too to an extent.


They are banning him for associating with people involved in criminality, they are accusing him of being a criminal by proxy, which is why I found them saying that they aren't accusing him of any such thing as ridiculous.

And you're right, not wrong .... its your opinion, and you are entitled to every single last bit of it, it yours ... for keeps.


Passerby's logic is ridiculous, but you're continued presence in this thread after the nonsense you were coming out with earlier on is laughable.

No, This is the whole 'I can only part take in certain parts of the thread' issue. You are going to have to help me out here fella. What pages, sections can i post in? You have to help me out here. I will end up posting in the wrong sections, as if it were just a regular forum, thread, debate otherwise.


I don't suffer fools lightly, and the only thing that annoys me more is having to walk said fools hand in hand through posts that are on the same page they are posting on.

Fair play, insults are good when you 'getting spanked' in the debate. Go you


Sadly there is quite a few of these people littered throughout Foot.ie. Last word from me on this thread on anything other than the case in question

You have options man, and they are all yours to choose.


Well in future don't jump to the Daily Mail conclusion then. Anyone with a bit of common sense can see that guilt by association could lead to human errors or grudges coming into play

No, i was going on what i could see, the same as anyone else, not beign a board member or a Bohs fan. I stand by everything i said up until that post made by d13bohs

And the rest of that post ..... ?? The bit you left out? Wait a second there ..... i'll do you a favour fella and get it for you.


The first post that conclusively made the case that the board may have got it wrong. It would have been good to have this posted earlier on to be honest as it would have brought balance to the whole debate.

[jebus]

You can take part in whatever part of the thread you feel like, don't get offended for being called a moron for backing up a moronic statement though (although you seem to agree with me now that Passerbys quote was rubbish?). I have options, many of them, the one I choose to use is to say that the majority of what you have posted in this thread has been nonsense. As for the 'we all have opinions' point, Nazis have opinions to, doesn't mean they shouldn't be called idiots for expressing them does it?

[skitz3]

Lads, 9 pages later and the fact of the matter is, just like i said in my post on the first page, there is more to this than meets the eye. All the facts have yet to come out in the open and if they do, a lot of people who commented in this thread will maybe feel foolish for arguing.

[A face]

Lads, 9 pages later and the fact of the matter is, just like i said in my post on the first page, there is more to this than meets the eye. All the facts have yet to come out in the open and if they do, a lot of people who commented in this thread will maybe feel foolish for arguing.

To be fair skitz, we had nothing to go on. d13bohs post was the first to outline that there was more to this. To be honest, you wouldn't think that it could happen, thats why i stuck to my guns all the way through. I'm fully prepared to take it all back now as a result.

The issue is times worse now to be honest. If this is the methodology being used by the Bohs board then its alarming to say the least.

[Greenforever]

Lads, 9 pages later and the fact of the matter is, just like i said in my post on the first page, there is more to this than meets the eye. All the facts have yet to come out in the open and if they do, a lot of people who commented in this thread will maybe feel foolish for arguing.


IF d13bohs statement is true, I'l take back my comments supporting the Bohs board and go one step further in saying they should resign for breinging their club into disrepute. If this is true the board will have no credibility and therefore should do the only honourable thing and resign enmasse.

[The Man Himself]

once again, well done bohs for banning the scum.

[passerrby]

were to start.. jebus you say you dont suffer fools you must hate your own company as for your brain slowing down well we were to polite to point this out but now that you bring it up we agree, but your are right I have been a moron for getting into a discussion with *text removed* finally opinions are like ar$%oles we all have them but not all of us choose to talk out of them

Moderation: passerrby, no call for that to be fair. [and i'm on your side :p]

[jebus]

and finnally opinions are like ar$%oles we all have them but not all of us choose to talk out of them

How ironic

[oldyouth]

If the person involved is fully innocent of any wrongdoing but chooses to hang around with wrongdoers day after day, then they deserve to be caught up in the wake

[passerrby]

your right my opoligises to all for decending into rudeness

[A face]

I can't understand how anyone will think this way. I talk to someone who does drugs every day - should I be charged with drug offences even though I never touch them

Joey, talking to them is fine but if you hang around with them to the extent that Gardai might think you wrere involved then that would be a different story. Thats the point that oldyouth is trying to make.

[Block G Raptor]

Lad's can ye not see the wood for the trees? this guy used to work as a barman at the Club he didn't exactly leave on good terms, Bohs want rid so they bring this crap up.

[oldyouth]

Indeed it was A Face. With regard to the point Joey was making, I'd say yes if your associate was dealing in drugs as opposed to just using.

[jebus]

Joey, talking to them is fine but if you hang around with them to the extent that Gardai might think you wrere involved then that would be a different story.

How is it? I hang around with people who do drugs all the time, I don't however, so what should the gardai be able to arrest me for? Not abandoning my friends? The extremist views being spouted here really belongs on the pages of the Daily Mail.

[A face]

How is it? I hang around with people who do drugs all the time, I don't however, so what should the gardai be able to arrest me for? Not abandoning my friends? The extremist views being spouted here really belongs on the pages of the Daily Mail.

jebus, i was explaining the point, degree of association that was being discussed. And that's what i would have thought initially as well, most people would, as they would think there is no smoke without fire.

I have stepped away from the point of view now, because i think there is a bit more to it now. I'm not a Bohs fan, i dont know the whole story, i was only going on what i saw, or was available for me to see. There have been posts here now that have changed my mind, particularly the one where the guy was in Iceland with his girlfriend and the Bohs board tried to accuse him for something when he wasn't even in the country.

That to me suggests there is more going on here that we know about. And i dont think i like what i see so far either. I think it is people abusing the position that they have and as someone said earlier, it would in my opinion warrant them stepping down immediately because i think it is gross misconduct.

[dcfcsteve]

I haven't posted on this forum in a long time but, having ploughed through all of the posts on this thread, I have been very disapppointed by the 'lock em all up and throw away the key ' attitude displayed by many posters on here.

The individual concerned is not nor has never been involved in any hooligan activity. He was a former barman in Dalymount so of course he is on first name terms with all the regular customers. He worked under a very popular bar manager who left when a new regime (the current one) took over the club and in the bars.

Guilt by association is an absolute disgrace. Where is the line drawn? If you speak to someone who used to be invovled in a few fights 5-6 years ago when they were in their late teens/early twenties but haven't done anything for years, should you be banned? If you speak to someone who wears designer label clothes to matches rather than a jersey, scarf and hat but has never been in a fight, should you be banned? It is entirely subjective and based on the whim of individual board members (and those who report to them).

I admire those who show such faith in the decision making powers of those in charge at Bohs, however, having experienced it first hand, I cannot share it. I received a call from a senior board member, telling me that I was identified and named as a member of a travelling party to the Sligo game at Easter which included some people who were banned from Dalymount. I am fairly well known at Dalymount and, to the best of my knowledge, don't look very similar to anyone else down there so the person naming me as being part of that group clearly knew who I was and intended to get me barred as part of this 'guilt by association' policy. The board member (who I know quite well) was surprised and extremely apologetic when I informed him that I was actually on holidays in Reykjavik with my girlfriend while I was allegedly on this bus with people banned from Dalymount.

Therefore it is clear that if individuals in a position of power at Bohs decide they want to bar you, they can do so indiscriminately. I just happened to be lucky enough to know a board member well enough to have the opportunity to defend my name against the blatant lies told about me. To those who say that if people do not travel on the same form of transport as banned people, there will be no problem, I think that's outrageous. One of my good friends got barred until the end of last season for encroaching on the pitch to celebrate a (practically) last minute winner from Glen Crowe against rovers in the league cup semi-final. He shouldn't have done it but I think his actions were highly understandable in the circumstances. By travelling with him to matches, the guilt by association excuse could be used to ban me or any of my friends at any time. It is an absolute outrage and to see so many on here taking the militant right-wing view supporting this action is very disappointing.

Good post D13 - well-presented and persuasive.

However - I have to admit that you started to lose me when you defended someone for encroaching onto the playing surface during a Bohs-Rovers derby. We can all understand why he did it, but at the same time we can all control ourselves enough not to do it. And we all know that going onto the pitch during the most heated derby in the EL is just plain stupid.

Your judgement seemed reasonable to me up until that point.

[d13bohs]

Good post D13 - well-presented and persuasive.

However - I have to admit that you started to lose me when you defended someone for encroaching onto the playing surface during a Bohs-Rovers derby. We can all understand why he did it, but at the same time we can all control ourselves enough not to do it. And we all know that going onto the pitch during the most heated derby in the EL is just plain stupid.

Your judgement seemed reasonable to me up until that point.

I agree with you that it was stupid but I think most people here ccould understand that in the heat of the moment of a late winner in a cup semi final against your most hated and bitter rivals, stepping a yard or two onto the pitch to celebrate with Glen Crowe is not the worst thing a person can do in the greater scheme of things. It was relevant to the point though, as this person was banned from Dalyer for a while and as a result, anyone seen with him can now also be barred from Dalymount because of that one (in my view relatively harmless) incident, entirely at the whim of the board or those people who have the ear of board members and want to abuse their position to settle personal grudges.

[dcfcsteve]

I agree with you that it was stupid but I think most people here ccould understand that in the heat of the moment of a late winner in a cup semi final against your most hated and bitter rivals, stepping a yard or two onto the pitch to celebrate with Glen Crowe is not the worst thing a person can do in the greater scheme of things. It was relevant to the point though, as this person was banned from Dalyer for a while and as a result, anyone seen with him can now also be barred from Dalymount because of that one (in my view relatively harmless) incident, entirely at the whim of the board or those people who have the ear of board members and want to abuse their position to settle personal grudges.

That person should be banned from Dalymount forn encroaching onto the pitch. The club gets fined for it - and if they did it in England they'd be arrested and liable for a prison scentence.

The bit about anyone being seen with them, however, is primarily fear and conjecture. Let's face it - if the Board of any club want to ban a certain fan, they'll find a way of doing. They don't need to sit on their hands waiting for them to be seen with someone who once ran onto a pitch.

[d13bohs]

That person should be banned from Dalymount forn encroaching onto the pitch. The club gets fined for it - and if they did it in England they'd be arrested and liable for a prison scentence.

The bit about anyone being seen with them, however, is primarily fear and conjecture. Let's face it - if the Board of any club want to ban a certain fan, they'll find a way of doing. They don't need to sit on their hands waiting for them to be seen with someone who once ran onto a pitch.

That person was banned from Dalymount for the rest of the season which is fair enough (not banned for life though, I'm not sure if that's what you're suggesting should have happened, if so, I would totally disagree with you). I don't think all the Stoke City fans, for example, who got on the pitch, minutes before their promotion was assured, were arrested and I would be astounded if any of them faced prison.

The 'fear and conjecture' you refer to is actually well-placed, given the events which have transpired at Dalymount. People are being banned on the vague notion that they 'associate' with people who were banned. That is what this whole thread is about. The board at Dalymount ARE doing this and are often attempting to do it based on personal agendas/ vendettas or simply based on downright lies, as happened in my situation. It has happened already and it almost happened to me so it is not conjecture, it is reality unfortunately.