Freedom of Speach

[deebee]

and freedom of expression are legal human rights in this country (it,s the law). That is what DF was expressing in his interview yesterday and no law was broken, therefore no punishment can legally be dished out. If the FL decide to punish DF for his legal right then that in itself is illegal if you get my drift. How many times have we sung let him die to an injured opposition player, doesn't mean we really want him dead. We often say do that again and I will kill you, doesn't mean we will. If everyone who has made such remarks were punished the prisons and courts would be overflowing. Lets hope the FL see it as it was meant an off the cuff comment said in the heat of the moment about actually true incidents. Then get down to the more serious subject of training and employing competent professional referees so these instances are reduced.

[Copps is Magic]

Threats to kill, whether the person who said it intends to kill anyone or not, is illegal. Threats to harm are also illegal.

You've severly misunderstand your right to free speech if you think it gives you the right to say you want to harm or kill someone.

I know what Fergie said was an off the cuff comment btw before someone starts.

[Glyn_Wigley]

and freedom of expression are legal human rights in this country (it,s the law).

And I bet you've never read and understood what the Law says.

[graingrover]

If such outbursts  help to wake the FA to the need to make refereeing a full time professional job then any 'collateral damage' from the outburst is ok by me.

[Bentley Bullet]

'Threats to kill'! Hahahahahahahahahahaha.........

[roversdude]

Think it needs to be put into perspective it was a throw away general comment, not an out and out threat

[the vicar]

There is NO FREE SPEECH in Britain at all that is the problem we are all afraid to say anything in case it offended anyone

[Copps is Magic]

'Threats to kill'! Hahahahahahahahahahaha.........

Threats to kill. The making of a threat to kill is an offence wherein the defendant intends the victim to fear it will be carried out. It is immaterial whether it is premeditated or said in anger.

Offences against the Person Act 1861

[graingrover]

There is a long thread on the Pasoti fans' forum on DF . It shows just how twisted football fans are in their perceptions of who is who and what the real issues of refereeing are at this level.

[Jonathan]

'Threats to kill'! Hahahahahahahahahahaha.........

Threats to kill. The making of a threat to kill is an offence wherein the defendant intends the victim to fear it will be carried out. It is immaterial whether it is premeditated or said in anger.

Offences against the Person Act 1861

Crikey. Are you serious that you took it as a threat to kill?

[Dutch Uncle]

Slippery slope here

Where do we draw the line? Is everything Trump says to be taken as in jest and banter?
 
Hell hath no Fire and Fury like a President scorned.....

[Copps is Magic]

'Threats to kill'! Hahahahahahahahahahaha.........

Threats to kill. The making of a threat to kill is an offence wherein the defendant intends the victim to fear it will be carried out. It is immaterial whether it is premeditated or said in anger.

Offences against the Person Act 1861

Crikey. Are you serious that you took it as a threat to kill?

I never said I took it as a threat to kill. Where have you got this from?

I am quoting what the law says. You can interpret it how you like. How do you interpret it?

[deebee]

He didn't say what he would like to shoot them with, he could have meant a jet of cold water or a pea shooter, any number of things. No where did he say stand them in front of a firing squad and kill them.

[Jonathan]

'Threats to kill'! Hahahahahahahahahahaha.........

Threats to kill. The making of a threat to kill is an offence wherein the defendant intends the victim to fear it will be carried out. It is immaterial whether it is premeditated or said in anger.

Offences against the Person Act 1861

Crikey. Are you serious that you took it as a threat to kill?

I never said I took it as a threat to kill. Where have you got this from?

I am quoting what the law says. You can interpret it how you like. How do you interpret it?

Not as a threat to kill.

Even if we are to take the comment literally, how are we to know that the intention wasn’t to use a nerf gun so as to just stun the officials rather than take their lives?

[deebee]

Now clarified here. https://www.doncasterroversfc.co.uk/news/2018/january/ferguson-clarifies-remarks-on-officials/

[Copps is Magic]

Jonathan.

You offer some reasoned responses on this board. As I posted, the law clearly emphasises that the focus is on whether the person(s) for who the threat is intended interprets it as a genuine threat of harm or not. Not my words, but the law, which seems fairly easy to interpret.

Although you do offer some reasoned responses, if you genuinely think Fergie wanted to shoot the refs with a 'nerf gun', you can't really go round accusing me of daft comments when simply quoting what the law says in response to the opening poster who's talking about free speech in general.

I don't Fergie wants to kill referees, and I think he just said a poor turn of phrase.

[Campsall rover]

If such outbursts  help to wake the FA to the need to make refereeing a full time professional job then any 'collateral damage' from the outburst is ok by me.

Yes let’s hope, well it is hope of course that this kicks start the FA and EFL to do something.
First step make another 40+ referees full time. Pay them a retainer basic of around £300 per week and then a further £300 for each league 2 match they officiate, £400 for league 1 and £500 for the Championship. These figures are of course plucked out of the air, but sound about right imo.
One thing that will do straight away is make the ‘job’ of being a ref far more attractive than it is now.

[LincsRover]

If such outbursts  help to wake the FA to the need to make refereeing a full time professional job then any 'collateral damage' from the outburst is ok by me.

  couldn't have said it better myself. Something needs to change and no one in football listens to anyone lower than the championship so if this helps raise the ugly truth then so be it!

[The Beast]

Can someone change the title of this topic before fans of other clubs see it? 

[roversdude]

By changing an a for an e

[Donnywolf]

deebee can edit it easily if he sees this

[BillyStubbsTears]

It’s not about whether Ferguson literally meant that referees should be shot. Of course he didn’t. It’s more about the aggressive attitude towards referees, and the fact that Ferguson’s words add to that. That was what I meant about him being stupid and utterly unprofessional.

This is the sort of place it can lead.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk/2005/mar/13/football.deniscampbell

Mourinho never called for Anders Frisk to be harassed and threatened. But in painting the referee as corrupt or biased or worthless, and in blaming the ref for Chelsea’s defeat, he helped to normalise a culture in which some of the d**kheads who follow the club felt it suitable to send death threats to Frisk.

It’s clear from some of the responses In here that Ferguson’s comments have tapped into a vein of bile against referees. Allegations of them being bent or biased or corrupt or incompetent or unfit or out to get us.

Referees are people. Human beings. Ones who work damn hard for a pittance. Ones who have to preside over matches where devious, conniving cheating t**ts are lauded as heroes. Ones who get the overwhelming majority of decisions right but are fallible. And when they get decisions wrong, they are abused and verbally attacked by idiots every week (and yes, that includes me).

How many of you have the strength of personality and the professional commitment to do what they do for so little money? How many of you would put up with the abuse and the denigration? I wouldn’t last a week.

[anne honemous]

Look, Fergie's going to get banned for a few games. It's inevitable!

If he doesn't, every other manager who is contesting a charge in the future is basically going to use 'well he didn't get banned for saying they should be shot so why should I be banned?'

His point is valid though and other managers/players have been saying the same things for years.

Look how many people have had run ins with Trevor Kettle over the years, yet he's still bumbling along cocking games up left, right and centre during a full season.

As long as the FL have a set number of referees on their list, who will be good little nodding dogs and not accept bribery or anything, and who pass the fitness test, then they don't care.

Improving refereeing standards has been a subject to debate for years and, well, they haven't improved and many of the referees haven't changed.

The best that can come out of this is some referees get intimidated by his presence when he is back on the touchline and we get a few more favourable decisions.

And there's also scope for a 'Fergie's gonna shoot ya!' chant, the next time we do have a crap referee!

[Alan Southstand]

Pussy

[CrippyCooke]

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from criticism when you make an idiotic statement.

[since-1969]

I wonder if DF is a Clapton fan . I shot the sheriff but I didn’t shoot  ..... Referee


2016 ...Police in Argentina are searching for a footballer who is said to have shot and killed a referee after being sent off in a match played in the Córdoba province.

According to local reports, the player retrieved a gun from his bag after being shown a red card, returned to the pitch and shot 48-year-old César Flores dead.

A police source told the Efe news agency: “It all happened during the football match. We don’t know [exactly what took place], but it appears the player was angry, fetched a gun and killed him.”

[bobjimwilly]

Plymouth fans have a f*cking nerve; Ferguson makes a throw-away comment, a saying that all of us have problem said before, yet none of us (one assumes) are murderers. Yet their keeper HAS has served time for killing kids

[RTID!!!]

Legally there should not be a punishment, probably other than a small sub clause in the law, which makes all the difference.  By the way, what DF was clearly not threats to harm or kill.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Just because you don't mean to be taken literally doesn't mean you can say it without condemnation; the FA expects certain standards to be maintained, that's why he'll get whatever they decide is punishment for falling below those standards.

[drfchound]

Just because you don't mean to be taken literally doesn't mean you can say it without condemnation; the FA expects certain standards to be maintained, that's why he'll get whatever they decide is punishment for falling below those standards.

Not picking a fight Glyn, but it is a shame the FA don’t look for the refereeing standards to be maintained.