Bohs fan fails to get 'hooligan associates' ban lifted

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by superfrank

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

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).

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jebus

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jebus

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dcfcsteve

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dcfcsteve

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

---

Yes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dcfcsteve

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dcfcsteve

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dcfcsteve

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dcfcsteve

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dcfcsteve

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jebus

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

Ah, 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.

Bohs themselves have said that he isn't a hooligan

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by passerrby

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

---

God almighty

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jebus

God almighty

---

Its true though

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by passerrby

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

---

:o:o:o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A face

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jebus

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?

Quote:

---

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

---

I've noticed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A face

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?

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.