Are Police to Ban the wearing of England Shirts in Pubs During the World cup ?

[Gary L]

LOL someone posts a piece of news that is of the opposite. and they jump on the person as if he made it happen!

did the foreigner get the sack?

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Standard journalistic language. They would use terms such as 'claimed' and 'alleged' even if there had been 100 cameras recording the events. If there had been 100 cameras recording the events, there would still be many people around here denying that it took place.

For each person(eg bus driver) that actually acts in that manner, how many actually want to do this sort of thing but don't.

If there were a hundred cameras recording the event, don't you think the Daily Heil would have pointed that out. Newspapers, especially the one in question, use words like "could, may have, alleged, claimed, might, believed to be" etc. when they don't have any evidence to support their claims, or when they hyperbolise the truth. It is entirely possible that the bus driver was teasing the lad and the mother took offense to his accent.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

If there were a hundred cameras recording the event, don't you think the Daily Heil would have pointed that out. Newspapers, especially the one in question, use words like "could, may have, alleged, claimed, might, believed to be" etc. when they don't have any evidence to support their claims, or when they hyperbolise the truth. It is entirely possible that the bus driver was teasing the lad and the mother took offense to his accent.

Really? There were witnesses to the contrary.

But he faced a torrent of anger from incredulous passengers, and minutes later backed down and allowed the family to board.

You will usually see in the media (TV, newspapers etc) the use of the words such as 'claimed' and 'alleged' when reporting news items.

[Flyboy]

Let's assume that this bus was a typical bus, with the driver shut away behind a perspex screen. It is unlikely that the rest of the crowded bus was really able to hear exactly what he was saying. What is more possibly likely to have happened, is that the mother shouted, "did you 'ear what 'e said? 'e said, that my darling little boy's Engerland shirt offends 'im. Can yer believe it? You all 'eard 'im, didn't yer, righ' ?"

But then, "...a torrent of anger from incredulous passengers...," probably means two old dears saying, "tsk" and raing theior eyeborws a little, "...minutes later backed down..." probably means two seconds later, he allowed her on the bus, to avoid an unnecessary scene which she was creating herself. I am not saying that the story is untrue, but going on this particular publication's history and its propensity to stretch the truth, it would irresponsible for anyone to ignore that there were other explanations.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

Let's assume that this bus was a typical bus, with the driver shut away behind a perspex screen. It is unlikely that the rest of the crowded bus was really able to hear exactly what he was saying. What is more possibly likely to have happened, is that the mother shouted, "did you 'ear what 'e said? 'e said, that my darling little boy's Engerland shirt offends 'im. Can yer believe it? You all 'eard 'im, didn't yer, righ' ?"

But then, "...a torrent of anger from incredulous passengers...," probably means two old dears saying, "tsk" and raing theior eyeborws a little, "...minutes later backed down..." probably means two seconds later, he allowed her on the bus, to avoid an unnecessary scene which she was creating herself. I am not saying that the story is untrue, but going on this particular publication's history and its propensity to stretch the truth, it would irresponsible for anyone to ignore that there were other explanations.

thats one hell of an imagination you have there,are you related to Agatha christie ??

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

Let's assume that this bus was a typical bus, with the driver shut away behind a perspex screen. It is unlikely that the rest of the crowded bus was really able to hear exactly what he was saying. What is more possibly likely to have happened, is that the mother shouted, "did you 'ear what 'e said? 'e said, that my darling little boy's Engerland shirt offends 'im. Can yer believe it? You all 'eard 'im, didn't yer, righ' ?"

But then, "...a torrent of anger from incredulous passengers...," probably means two old dears saying, "tsk" and raing theior eyeborws a little, "...minutes later backed down..." probably means two seconds later, he allowed her on the bus, to avoid an unnecessary scene which she was creating herself. I am not saying that the story is untrue, but going on this particular publication's history and its propensity to stretch the truth, it would irresponsible for anyone to ignore that there were other explanations.

Ok. that's the way it happened everybody. the bus driver didn't find anything offensive. the woman just made the whole thing up along with the media. it just never happens in real life

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

Let's assume that this bus was a typical bus, with the driver shut away behind a perspex screen. It is unlikely that the rest of the crowded bus was really able to hear exactly what he was saying. What is more possibly likely to have happened, is that the mother shouted, "did you 'ear what 'e said? 'e said, that my darling little boy's Engerland shirt offends 'im. Can yer believe it? You all 'eard 'im, didn't yer, righ' ?"

But then, "...a torrent of anger from incredulous passengers...," probably means two old dears saying, "tsk" and raing theior eyeborws a little, "...minutes later backed down..." probably means two seconds later, he allowed her on the bus, to avoid an unnecessary scene which she was creating herself. I am not saying that the story is untrue, but going on this particular publication's history and its propensity to stretch the truth, it would irresponsible for anyone to ignore that there were other explanations.

Oh get over yourself. There's nothing to suggest the mother is making this up. Chances are it happened the way she says it did but the bus company (quite rightly) stamped on it as it was the opinion of one man and not the whole company.

[Flyboy]

I am amazed that none of you are prepared to accept that the Daily Heil would exaggerate a story. The mind just boggles at the sheep-ery.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

I am amazed that none of you are prepared to accept that the Daily Heil would exaggerate a story. The mind just boggles at the sheep-ery.

Baa!

Your version was a bit far fetched though

Originally Posted by Flyboy

I am amazed that none of you are prepared to accept that the Daily Heil would exaggerate a story. The mind just boggles at the sheep-ery.

None?

btw, my personal opinion is that using the words sheeple/sheep-ery says more about the user than the intended recipients.....

[naeskydish]

You should be flying your St Georges flag from every hoose and car when your team's playing. That's some wind up, banning the English shirt in pub's

Hope you enjoy yourselves!

Can't wait for the games to start, some great players to see.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by naeskydish

That's some wind up, banning the English shirt in pubs

That's exactly what it is - a wind up because it's not true.

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by naeskydish

You should be flying your St Georges flag from every hoose and car when your team's playing. That's some wind up, banning the English shirt in pub's

Hope you enjoy yourselves!

Can't wait for the games to start, some great players to see.

As soon as I get a hoose, I'll give it a go.

Is that a cross between a horse and a caribou?

[BBKing]

I am amazed that none of you are prepared to accept that the Daily Heil would exaggerate a story.

Quite.

They normally just make it up.

A few facts:

1) the ECHR and thus the Human Rights Act explicitly protect things like wearing England shirts under the first part of Article 10:

# Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. this right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2) Note 'public authority' - private authorities, such as pub landlords, are perfectly within their rights to operate things like dress codes, as long as they don't expect the police to help enforce them (they can expect the police to help enforce public order, say if they try and throw someone off their property and he becomes violent).

3) Therefore it's quite possible to walk into a pub in an England shirt and be told to get out. This isn't the fault of the Muslims, it's the fault of the English habit of letting private individuals do what they want, within reason. Having once had to search London for a pub that would let a mate wearing a Doncaster Dragons rugby league shirt come in, I can attest to this.

4) Note that private individuals don't have complete freedom of action on their own property - you can't build a bomb or murder someone or use racist/threatening language to the customers - again this is in the ECHR, in the second part of Article 10:

# The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

So all you need to do to be in the clear is argue that wearing an England shirt doesn't have implications for national security, territorial integrity, public safety, crime/disorder prevention, health, morals, reputation, privacy and judicial independence. Which shouldn't be hard. Easier than defending reading the Daily Mail, which breaks several of those.

Ahhhhemmm...

No - really??