3 Darlington thugs to appear in court...

Open now for discussion of all things Darlo!

Moderators: mikkyx, uncovered

banktopp
Posts: 857
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 8:59 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Hereford

Re: 3 Darlington thugs to appear in court...

Post by banktopp » Sat Sep 10, 2016 10:02 pm

spen666 wrote:
Darlogramps wrote:No he's not.
It's a reductionist argument which ignores other factors (recourse from individuals involved, reputational damage) that mean it simply couldn't happen in the real world.

It's a shame you've decided to follow a worthless troll like Spen and deliberately ignore the points I'm making.
Sadly Gramps it is the legally correct answer. You are wrong in law.
Accept the facts.

You may have the moral high ground d but not the legal high ground.


Try looking up the law and deal with facts rather than resort to the use of abuse.

If you think stating what the law actually is, is abuse or trolling, then it says more about you than me.
I have to agree with spen666, and Darlogramps you are wrong.
"Deliberately ignore the points I'm making", how dare anyone ignore your points.
Arrogant, supercilious, condescending, are not adjectives I would use to describe you, others might.

Darlogramps
Posts: 6025
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: 3 Darlington thugs to appear in court...

Post by Darlogramps » Sat Sep 10, 2016 11:07 pm

spen666 wrote:
Darlogramps wrote:No he's not.
It's a reductionist argument which ignores other factors (recourse from individuals involved, reputational damage) that mean it simply couldn't happen in the real world.

It's a shame you've decided to follow a worthless troll like Spen and deliberately ignore the points I'm making.
Sadly Gramps it is the legally correct answer. You are wrong in law.
Accept the facts.

You may have the moral high ground d but not the legal high ground.
This is why your argument is reductionist. If an organisation is going to ban someone, they do not act solely on what the lawbook says. There are additional factors in play, which I've already listed. It must be considered within the wider context in which the ban is occurring.

In saying there's a moral element to it (I. E. not solely the law) you're proving my point.

P.S. Spare me the victim playing routine. You've been trolling others on this board for ages, so don't whine when it happens to you. Being called a worthless troll clearly bothered you, so if you can't take it, don't give it out.
Last edited by Darlogramps on Sat Sep 10, 2016 11:40 pm, edited 4 times in total.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

Darlogramps
Posts: 6025
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: 3 Darlington thugs to appear in court...

Post by Darlogramps » Sat Sep 10, 2016 11:14 pm

banktopp wrote:
spen666 wrote:
Darlogramps wrote:No he's not.
It's a reductionist argument which ignores other factors (recourse from individuals involved, reputational damage) that mean it simply couldn't happen in the real world.

It's a shame you've decided to follow a worthless troll like Spen and deliberately ignore the points I'm making.
Sadly Gramps it is the legally correct answer. You are wrong in law.
Accept the facts.

You may have the moral high ground d but not the legal high ground.


Try looking up the law and deal with facts rather than resort to the use of abuse.

If you think stating what the law actually is, is abuse or trolling, then it says more about you than me.
I have to agree with spen666, and Darlogramps you are wrong.
"Deliberately ignore the points I'm making", how dare anyone ignore your points.
If you're engaged in an argument with someone, you sort of need to listen to the points other people are making. Judging by your above statement, that simple concept seems to be beyond you.
banktopp wrote:Arrogant, supercilious, condescending, are not adjectives I would use to describe you, others might.
So you have neither the wit or intelligence to construct a counter argument of your own. Instead you'll throw around a few harmless adjectives. Be my guest.

Basically there's no point to your post whatsoever.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

shawry
Posts: 2600
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 4:55 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: 3 Darlington thugs to appear in court...

Post by shawry » Sun Sep 11, 2016 6:09 am

So I'm not sure how you can just refuse anyone you like, you need a reason or you open yourself up to discrimination charges.

I know it's America, but over there you need a reason, it can be that you're dressed inappropriately, or drunk etc but not that you are black or gay or disabled. So unless you can justify a reason then you are asking for trouble.

Surely it's similar over here?

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

spen666
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:12 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: 3 Darlington thugs to appear in court...

Post by spen666 » Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:04 am

Darlogramps wrote:
spen666 wrote:
Darlogramps wrote:No he's not.
It's a reductionist argument which ignores other factors (recourse from individuals involved, reputational damage) that mean it simply couldn't happen in the real world.

It's a shame you've decided to follow a worthless troll like Spen and deliberately ignore the points I'm making.
Sadly Gramps it is the legally correct answer. You are wrong in law.
Accept the facts.

You may have the moral high ground d but not the legal high ground.
This is why your argument is reductionist. If an organisation is going to ban someone, they do not act solely on what the lawbook says. There are additional factors in play, which I've already listed. It must be considered within the wider context in which the ban is occurring.

In saying there's a moral element to it (I. E. not solely the law) you're proving my point.

P.S. Spare me the victim playing routine. You've been trolling others on this board for ages, so don't whine when it happens to you. Being called a worthless troll clearly bothered you, so if you can't take it, don't give it out.

The simple fact is you as the owner/ manager of a pub, football club, shop etc can ban anyone and you do not need a reason nor do you have to give a reason.

A member of the public has no right to enter such premises.

Darlogramps
Posts: 6025
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: 3 Darlington thugs to appear in court...

Post by Darlogramps » Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:41 am

Except it's not that simple and wouldn't work like that in real life. You're arguing purely from a legal point of view. What I'm saying is there are other factors in play that mean what you're saying simply couldn't happen.

Imagine a pub/football club banning someone completely at random, or for the most spurious, ludicrous reason.

They would suffer ridicule and reputational damage which would affect their image and business. After all, who'd go somewhere they could be banned for no reason whatsoever? And would suppliers want to do business and therefore associate themselves with such an organisation? I know for a fact there were people who wouldn't get on board with Reynolds because of the way he was behaving.

And then there's the opportunity for recourse from the "banned" individual. The organisation doing the banning can be running a massive risk and wind up in real trouble if there's not sufficient justification. There are plenty of instances of this, particularly when it comes to discrimination laws.

You can bang on about "this is the law" etc. But laws/rules do not fit every possible scenario.

The specific context has to be considered, with the relevant rules/laws interpreted and then applied in a way that best suits that context. This is the whole reason why there are criminal/civil court cases - to consider specific contexts, and then interpret and apply relevant laws/rules accordingly.

And this context contains social factors that as myself and Shawry have pointed out, make it impossible, or at least very difficult, to ban people at random and for spurious reasons. There are too many potential repercussions.

This is why your argument is reductionist. It focuses too much on the lawbook and not enough on the other factors at play.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

spen666
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:12 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: 3 Darlington thugs to appear in court...

Post by spen666 » Sun Sep 11, 2016 1:36 pm

Darlogramps wrote:Except it's not that simple and wouldn't work like that in real life. You're arguing purely from a legal point of view. What I'm saying is there are other factors in play that mean what you're saying simply couldn't happen.

Imagine a pub/football club banning someone completely at random, or for the most spurious, ludicrous reason.

They would suffer ridicule and reputational damage which would affect their image and business. After all, who'd go somewhere they could be banned for no reason whatsoever? And would suppliers want to do business and therefore associate themselves with such an organisation? I know for a fact there were people who wouldn't get on board with Reynolds because of the way he was behaving.

And then there's the opportunity for recourse from the "banned" individual. The organisation doing the banning can be running a massive risk and wind up in real trouble if there's not sufficient justification. There are plenty of instances of this, particularly when it comes to discrimination laws.

You can bang on about "this is the law" etc. But laws/rules do not fit every possible scenario.

The specific context has to be considered, with the relevant rules/laws interpreted and then applied in a way that best suits that context. This is the whole reason why there are criminal/civil court cases - to consider specific contexts, and then interpret and apply relevant laws/rules accordingly.

And this context contains social factors that as myself and Shawry have pointed out, make it impossible, or at least very difficult, to ban people at random and for spurious reasons. There are too many potential repercussions.

This is why your argument is reductionist. It focuses too much on the lawbook and not enough on the other factors at play.
Argue all you like.

I have merely stated correctly the legal position.

DarloDean
Posts: 195
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2013 10:01 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: 3 Darlington thugs to appear in court...

Post by DarloDean » Sun Sep 11, 2016 1:48 pm

I liked when we talked about the topic at hand.

Anymore news on the 3 culprits?

User avatar
DarloOnTheUp
Posts: 6336
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:35 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: 3 Darlington thugs to appear in court...

Post by DarloOnTheUp » Sun Sep 11, 2016 3:12 pm

spen666 wrote:The simple fact is you as the owner/ manager of a pub, football club, shop etc can ban anyone and you do not need a reason nor do you have to give a reason.

A member of the public has no right to enter such premises.
This is true to a point: you can't ban someone based on a protected characteristic such as race or sexual orientation.

Any ban can also be legally challenged and may be overturned (or not).

So you usually will have to give a reason.

End of discussion? *laughs nervously*

:shifty:

Darlogramps
Posts: 6025
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: 3 Darlington thugs to appear in court...

Post by Darlogramps » Sun Sep 11, 2016 5:25 pm

spen666 wrote:
Argue all you like.

I have merely stated correctly the legal position.
Yep, you've repeatedly stated the legal position. In multiple posts, it's all you can muster.

And at the same time you've ignored the flaws and criticisms of your argument.

Now if you're just repeating yourself, as opposed to actually engaging with counter points others have raised, that says a lot about the weakness of the argument you're forwarding.

The reason you're refusing to engage with the points myself, Shawry and DarloOnTheUp have raised is that you understand these points are legitimate and expose your argument as reductionist.

So unless you're going to directly challenge the counter-arguments, I don't see what else you have to add to this discussion.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

Sussex07
Posts: 517
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 9:08 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: 3 Darlington thugs to appear in court...

Post by Sussex07 » Sun Sep 11, 2016 5:56 pm

Bring Back The Birch !!!

User avatar
Magical Quakers
Posts: 445
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 12:33 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Nottingham

Re: 3 Darlington thugs to appear in court...

Post by Magical Quakers » Sun Sep 11, 2016 6:18 pm

Sussex07 wrote:Bring Back The Birch !!!
Mark Birch? Reckon he's past it now :D

User avatar
Robbie Painter
Posts: 2289
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 8:37 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: 3 Darlington thugs to appear in court...

Post by Robbie Painter » Sun Sep 11, 2016 6:44 pm

Never ever get into an argument with Darlogrumps. He'll never concede his point and will always want the last word.

Feethams 1966
Posts: 293
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2012 6:13 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: 3 Darlington thugs to appear in court...

Post by Feethams 1966 » Sun Sep 11, 2016 7:48 pm

I'm sick of this thread. I only open it to see if the 3 culptits have been identified yet.

Beano
Posts: 1461
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 11:33 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: 3 Darlington thugs to appear in court...

Post by Beano » Sun Sep 11, 2016 7:58 pm

Feethams 1966 wrote:I'm sick of this thread. I only open it to see if the 3 culptits have been identified yet.
Snap.

Darlogramps
Posts: 6025
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: 3 Darlington thugs to appear in court...

Post by Darlogramps » Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:23 pm

Robbie Painter wrote:Never ever get into an argument with Darlogrumps. He'll never concede his point and will always want the last word.
That's about the size of it. Although given you're one of the more intelligent posters on here Robbie, I'm disappointed the best you can come up with is Darlogrumps.
Last edited by Darlogramps on Sun Sep 11, 2016 10:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

User avatar
DarloOnTheUp
Posts: 6336
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:35 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: 3 Darlington thugs to appear in court...

Post by DarloOnTheUp » Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:37 pm

Darlogramps wrote:Yep, you've repeatedly stated the legal position. In multiple posts, it's all you can muster.
Except spen is wrong: what he said ISN'T the correct legal position.

Darlo_Pete
Posts: 14075
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:13 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: 3 Darlington thugs to appear in court...

Post by Darlo_Pete » Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:53 pm

Does anybody know these 3 idiots and when are they due in court?

The_Natural
Posts: 339
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 3:38 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: 3 Darlington thugs to appear in court...

Post by The_Natural » Sun Sep 11, 2016 9:44 pm

Darlogramps...never afraid to double down when shown to be talking shite !

Keep going, don't let them grind you down with facts or reason ;)

Darlogramps
Posts: 6025
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: 3 Darlington thugs to appear in court...

Post by Darlogramps » Sun Sep 11, 2016 10:23 pm

The_Natural wrote:Darlogramps...never afraid to double down when shown to be talking shite !
Come on then, what in my argument outlined above is "shite"?

And given 2 other posters have made similar arguments to me, why have you singled me out?

Actually engage in the argument rather than cowardly hurling insults from the sidelines.

Seems like you're the one who's willing to abandon facts and reason in order to make a cheap shot.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

The_Natural
Posts: 339
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 3:38 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: 3 Darlington thugs to appear in court...

Post by The_Natural » Sun Sep 11, 2016 11:36 pm

Settle down old man, I actually like your posts full of passion
!
Bit like my old grandad, loved gobbing off at all and sundry as well...keep it up !

spen666
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:12 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: 3 Darlington thugs to appear in court...

Post by spen666 » Mon Sep 12, 2016 9:00 am

DarloOnTheUp wrote:
Darlogramps wrote:Yep, you've repeatedly stated the legal position. In multiple posts, it's all you can muster.
Except spen is wrong: what he said ISN'T the correct legal position.

Strangely you neither say what is allegedly wrong or what the correct legal position is.


The position is that a football club, pub, shop etc. are not premises that the public have a right to enter and the owner/ manager etc. can refuse entry or ask you to leave without having to give a reason. It is exactly the same as you having the right to refuse someone entry to your house without giving a reason.

I refer you to the cases of In R v Armagh Justices (1897) 2 Ir 57, and
R v Rymer (1877) 2 QBD 136

Which both confirm that which I say is correct in law

spen666
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:12 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: 3 Darlington thugs to appear in court...

Post by spen666 » Mon Sep 12, 2016 9:06 am

Darlogramps wrote:
spen666 wrote:
Argue all you like.

I have merely stated correctly the legal position.
Yep, you've repeatedly stated the legal position. In multiple posts, it's all you can muster.

And at the same time you've ignored the flaws and criticisms of your argument.

Now if you're just repeating yourself, as opposed to actually engaging with counter points others have raised, that says a lot about the weakness of the argument you're forwarding.

The reason you're refusing to engage with the points myself, Shawry and DarloOnTheUp have raised is that you understand these points are legitimate and expose your argument as reductionist.

So unless you're going to directly challenge the counter-arguments, I don't see what else you have to add to this discussion.

The reason I repeat myself and refuse to engage in your debate is because the point I am making is simple and correct. Namely the public have no right of entry and the owner or manager can refuse entry without having or giving a reason

anything else you state is not something I am commenting on.

I am stating the law and nothing more.
You may care to look up the law, here are a couple of cases for you to start withIn R v Armagh Justices (1897) 2 Ir 57, R v Rymer (1877) 2 QBD 136,

Darlogramps
Posts: 6025
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: 3 Darlington thugs to appear in court...

Post by Darlogramps » Mon Sep 12, 2016 10:27 am

spen666 wrote:
Darlogramps wrote:
spen666 wrote:
Argue all you like.

I have merely stated correctly the legal position.
Yep, you've repeatedly stated the legal position. In multiple posts, it's all you can muster.

And at the same time you've ignored the flaws and criticisms of your argument.

Now if you're just repeating yourself, as opposed to actually engaging with counter points others have raised, that says a lot about the weakness of the argument you're forwarding.

The reason you're refusing to engage with the points myself, Shawry and DarloOnTheUp have raised is that you understand these points are legitimate and expose your argument as reductionist.

So unless you're going to directly challenge the counter-arguments, I don't see what else you have to add to this discussion.

The reason I repeat myself and refuse to engage in your debate is because the point I am making is simple and correct. Namely the public have no right of entry and the owner or manager can refuse entry without having or giving a reason

anything else you state is not something I am commenting on.

I am stating the law and nothing more.
You may care to look up the law, here are a couple of cases for you to start withIn R v Armagh Justices (1897) 2 Ir 57, R v Rymer (1877) 2 QBD 136,
You admit you're refusing to engage in the debate, even though the counter points raised to your simplistic argument are relevant.

As has been stated repeatedly, this is not just about the law. It is about the wider social and cultural factors that impact on the organisation's decision-making.

Simply stating one section of the law in the context of this discussion is a flawed argument. You ignore additional factors and other sections of law which damages your argument's credibility.

Intriguingly, the examples you state once again fail the reductionist test. Doing reading on R v Rymer, analysis actually cites discrimination law as a factor which says private organisations cannot ban at random or for whatever reason they like. Therefore, that as an argument is far too simplistic.

So you've been hoisted by your own petard. The analysis of examples you've provided actually backs up what myself, DOTU and Shawry have stated earlier in this thread. You conveniently ignored the analysis which didn't fit with your argument.

Now I'm happy to go on all day with this because I believe I'm right. You've stated what you believe to be correct - I've stated this is a reductionist point in the wider debate we're having.

But other people on this thread have stated the debate is getting tedious for them (it has gone on several days in fairness). So I suggest if you wish to continue this, we carry on via DM.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

User avatar
theoriginalfatcat
Posts: 6702
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: 3 Darlington thugs to appear in court...

Post by theoriginalfatcat » Mon Sep 12, 2016 5:02 pm

spen666 wrote:I refer you to the cases of In R v Armagh Justices (1897) 2 Ir 57, and R v Rymer (1877) 2 QBD 136
These cases make me chuckle - anything a little more up to date Spen ?
Profile pic ↗️
Feethams the Panda. 28 Jan 2012.
Now extinct!

Comfortably_numb
Posts: 2071
Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009 12:23 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: 3 Darlington thugs to appear in court...

Post by Comfortably_numb » Mon Sep 12, 2016 6:32 pm

Love this thread. It's got the feel of a Monty Python sketch to it. Can't wait to read the punchline.

notgnilrad
Posts: 753
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 1:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: 3 Darlington thugs to appear in court...

Post by notgnilrad » Mon Sep 12, 2016 6:43 pm

Been told in court Wednesday, hopefully they will get their just desserts. :thumbup:

liddle_4_ever
Posts: 858
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 12:13 am
Team Supported: Darlo
Location: Scotland

Re: 3 Darlington thugs to appear in court...

Post by liddle_4_ever » Mon Sep 12, 2016 11:35 pm

theoriginalfatcat wrote:
spen666 wrote:I refer you to the cases of In R v Armagh Justices (1897) 2 Ir 57, and R v Rymer (1877) 2 QBD 136
These cases make me chuckle - anything a little more up to date Spen ?
I don't think you know the legal system.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Now is not the time to cry
Now’s the time to find out why
I think you’re the same as me
We’ll see things they’ll never see
Darlo’s going to live forever!

User avatar
Robbie Painter
Posts: 2289
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 8:37 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: 3 Darlington thugs to appear in court...

Post by Robbie Painter » Wed Sep 14, 2016 11:03 pm

notgnilrad wrote:Been told in court Wednesday, hopefully they will get their just desserts. :thumbup:
Did they?

notgnilrad
Posts: 753
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 1:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: 3 Darlington thugs to appear in court...

Post by notgnilrad » Thu Sep 15, 2016 7:29 am

Robbie Painter wrote:
notgnilrad wrote:Been told in court Wednesday, hopefully they will get their just desserts. :thumbup:
Did they?

Will let you know my mole hasn't got back to me yet.

Post Reply