this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2023
3 points (100.0% liked)

Football / Soccer / Calcio / Futebol / Fußball

143 readers
1 users here now

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

This article is from November 17th, so a couple days old, but I found it worthwhile.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TheGoldenPineapples@alien.top 1 points 1 year ago (4 children)

What a fucking moron.

Basically torn his own world apart for literally no reason at all.

For anyone who can't click on the link, in doing this utterly fucking stupid thing, he has:

  • Been given a 5-year stadium ban.

  • Had to pay a £154 victim surcharge.

  • Had to pay £85 in prosecution costs.

  • 12-week suspended prison sentence (suspended for up to 18 months).

  • Ordered to do 200 hours of unpaid work.

What a fucking moron.

It even says in the article that he's had to move out of his parents' home because of the backlash his actions caused, and apparently his relationship with his partner has been affected too.

Can't believe someone would willingly do something like that anyway, such a stupid and unkind thing to do, and that's even before you get to how fucking stupid it is to do these days anyway, especially when we live in a world where everything is recorded.

[–] pavoganso@alien.top 1 points 1 year ago

That's not even the start of the repercussions. Finding work before the conviction is spent, price and availability of things like car insurance. Security clearances. Travel.

[–] Amarules@alien.top 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Also lost his job as a window fitter.

[–] LudereHumanum@alien.top 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And the job after that, was thrown out of his parents' home and had problems with his partner. According to this article, he seemed remorseful during the court proceedings and afterwards, so hopefully he learned a lesson, and many other onlookers.

[–] kiteboarderni@alien.top 1 points 1 year ago

Chat shit get banged I guess...

[–] MissingLink101@alien.top 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The guy is 32, his parents are probably happy to have an excuse to make him move out.

[–] Chazzarules@alien.top 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I knew this guy reasonably well at school, although that is a long time ago now he was always a bit of an idiot but I was surprised by this because he should know better than most about how a the death of a child can affect family and friends.

When he was around 15-16 Dale lost his best friend in an awful traffic collision where he was hit by a coach while crossing the dual carriageway outside school. It was fucking awful, it had a huge impact on his friends and family including Dale. So I thought he of all people would know better.

[–] iparkfreely@alien.top 1 points 1 year ago

This is a different thing because Dale apparently used a picture of this kid who died with cancer to mock opposing fans, but I will say I do know people whose humor hits different because of histories like that. Like I was watching an event on TV with someone else and a similar story to Bradley Lowery came on - they turned to me and were like "dying of cancer? Jesus Christ, what a pussy." Which was hilarious in the moment but also because I knew they'd had cancer before and their life was very much disrupted because of the death of someone they loved of cancer when they were a child.

Obviously, the big difference between these two situations is the audience and the intent. I don't mean to say that Dale wasn't being a complete dickhead. But sometimes, the more personal it is to someone, the more likely they are to make those comments.

[–] vin_unleaded@alien.top 1 points 1 year ago

One suspects they're the problem.

[–] iamnotexactlywhite@alien.top 1 points 1 year ago (4 children)

suspended prison sentence for that? 200hrs of unpaid work? lol jesus, thats excessive

[–] Dazzling-Lab2788@alien.top 1 points 1 year ago

What, so you thought it was just harmless bantz?

[–] jimbo_kun@alien.top 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Reading through the list of consequences, the social consequences were probably a sufficient deterrent. Losing jobs and banned from football matches (the football association being distinct from the government).

Not a fan of governments getting involved in prosecuting speech. I think social sanctions and consequences are more appropriate, even for heinous speech like this.

[–] terryjuicelawson@alien.top 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The odd thing is, what are these social consequences? Getting abuse and threats to the point of moving home is also something that needs acting on, surely. Or are they just deciding who can and can't have abuse aimed at them?

[–] jjw1998@alien.top 1 points 1 year ago

I mean they probably would act upon it but things like that are extremely easy to do anonymously, compared to being stupid enough to do what this guy did at a football match

[–] Ryan8Ross@alien.top 1 points 1 year ago

I think the fact that he printed something out at home shows it wasn't a complete spur of the moment thing and that's why its a bit harsher.

When youre at home whipping up something to make fun of a child of cancer, how does nothing in your brain go off telling you to stop?

[–] _Milanista_@alien.top 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Justice imo. You don’t mock a child who lost a battle to cancer. No excuses for that. Fucker got what he deserved.

Hope he enjoys the 200 hours unpaid graft too.

[–] GopnikOli@alien.top 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's not justice though my dude, the punishment doesn't fit the crime tbh.

[–] Outrageous_Pension90@alien.top 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Shouldn't even been a crime for the authorities to prosecute. This was something that should of been settled between the team and him. Ban him from attendance. This is censorship whether we like the results or not.

[–] Feed_me_cocaine@alien.top 1 points 1 year ago

Freedom of speech doesn’t exist in the UK and it never has. The right to freedom of expression is subject to a range of restrictions in UK law, including the: Malicious Communications Act 1988 and the Communications Act 2003, which criminalises “indecent or grossly offensive” messages and threats.