TO THE ORANGE WARRIORS

 

PAT YOURSELVES ON THE BACK--

 

you should be realy proud of yourselves the way you managed to subdue those 2 lads in the NSL

 

it was a master stroke of yours youve realy out done yourselves tonight-

 

ENJOY YOUR PINT WITH THE LADS REGALING IN YOUR GLORY

 

IT WAS ABSOLUTE GENEOUS the way you big brave lads yes 3 of you managed to handle the kids

 

 

WHICH GENEOUS HAD THE BRIGHT IDEA OF PUTTING THE LAD IN THE BIN -

 

OH HOW YOU WILL CHUCKLE WHEN YOU TELL YOUR MATES HOW HARD YOU ARE

 

TOTAL AND UTTER KNOBS

Name and shame the fcukers, addresses too.

 

Fcuk em.

 

I assume most of these pricks are local so surely someone must know 'em - root 'em out and put a squeze on 'em.

 

All as it takes is dropping in their real name or their local area and they'd soon sh!t it, and then the attitude might change a bit.

 

I reckon most of 'em get a lazy lob just thinking about if they can get away with chucking some one out of the ground....w@nkers.

I assume most of these pricks are local so surely someone must know 'em - root 'em out and put a squeze on 'em.

 

All as it takes is dropping in their real name or their local area and they'd soon sh!t it, and then the attitude might change a bit.

 

I reckon most of 'em get a lazy lob just thinking about if they can get away with chucking some one out of the ground....w@nkers.

 

i thinkthe same lot do stewarding at wigan warriors as well, seen a few when at the match

i thinkthe same lot do stewarding at wigan warriors as well, seen a few when at the match

 

Pricks the lot of them, hopefully some will travel to madrid then at night on the way home they can get a fcking good kicking off both the wanderers fans out there then the madrid ultras

Obvious points but need to be made...

 

The Stewards are not coppers.

They have no actual right to 'legitimate' use of force.

What they did last night to those 2 lads was assault.

If they were actually any good at their job they'd be doing private security somewhere decent,

not freezing their balls off in Horwich.

Pricks the lot of them, hopefully some will travel to madrid then at night on the way home they can get a fcking good kicking off both the wanderers fans out there then the madrid ultras

 

I'd have thought there'd be more than two wanderers fans going.

did you see the fat tawat with the little pony tail what the fuuk is that all about

kill them all the kid threatening cowards they are scum ,boring uninportent twaats

Obvious points but need to be made...

 

The Stewards are not coppers.

They have no actual right to 'legitimate' use of force.

What they did last night to those 2 lads was assault.

If they were actually any good at their job they'd be doing private security somewhere decent,

not freezing their balls off in Horwich.

 

As an 'independent witness', they used reasonable force last night as the lads conerned started lashing out. They are employees of the club and have legitmate rights to chuck people out.

 

Dunno why I know that

 

Squidgy

 

Devil's advocate

 

It was funny as f?ck though

You are right Sqidgy. Think it'll say somewhere either on your ticket or on that un-read poster at the entrance:

 

The management of Bolton Wanderers FC reserve the right to refuse entry, to persons unfit through drink or any other reason, entry into the stadium.

 

This, as likely as not, also refers to those who gained entry and then acted in a manner so as to offend or upset others within the ground.

Lets get them photographed and name and shame them on here.

If you are caught taking photographs inside a football stadium you are liable to be thrown out, that is number 14? on that un read list at the turnstile entrance (I know because it happened to me at Burnden

The management of Bolton Wanderers FC reserve the right to refuse entry, to persons unfit through drink or any other reason, entry into the stadium.

 

Shame they haven't applied that to some of our players over the years, mentioning no names

 

COCK

Neil Redfern fan then Stanley?

Three years ago I was talking to a group of security guards at the Slough Bonfire Event (yes Slough really as it all!), and I asked them in passing if they had travelled far to get to the event. I was absolutely amazed when they told me that they lived in Ipswich (which is probably about a three-hour drive away) - the company that employed them having won the stewarding contract for the event.

 

Apparently the money they were being paid was not a great deal (not much above minimum wage if I recall correctly), but they were paid a travel allowance - and this allowance plus their pay on the night made it (in their opinion) well worth their while.

 

The reason why I mention this is that they also told me in conversation that they also did the stewarding for the Reading home matches (which is the next town along from Slough).

 

It might be therefore that the stewards at Bolton might not live locally at all.

 

Anyway as for naming and publishing their addresses if anyone actually did know any of them - this is absolutely wrong.

 

If anyone really does feel that any steward is 'assaulting' anyone - then they should report it to the club directly or even the police - for appropriate action to take place. (There are plenty surveillance cameras watching the crowd - so any illegal force used by the stewards will have been captured on CCTV footage).

 

Taking things into your own hands and talking about vigilante action is not only illegal but also ironic - as the people calling for the stewards to be named post themselves under assumed names and aliases!

Posting names and addresses certainly isn't illegal, but it's unethical for this website. I don't have a problem with people posting pictures of them though.

Posting names and addresses certainly isn't illegal, but it's unethical for this website. I don't have a problem with people posting pictures of them though.

 

I'm no expert but my understanding of the Data Protection Act is that - in my words - it is illegal to post someone's personal data on to any computer site unless that person as given permission to do so first.

 

People have a legal right to privacy - the making public of a person's name and address on a web site like this - will break that right, and thus is an illegal act.

 

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/ukpga_19980029_en_1

I'm no expert but my understanding of the Data Protection Act is that - in my words - it is illegal to post someone's personal data on to any computer site unless that person as given permission to do so first.

 

People have a legal right to privacy - the making public of a person's name and address on a web site like this - will break that right, and thus is an illegal act.

 

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/ukpga_19980029_en_1

 

As we aren't publishing addresses, as previously stated, then pseudo-legal advice is superfluous, thanks all the same.

I'm no expert but my understanding of the Data Protection Act is that - in my words - it is illegal to post someone's personal data on to any computer site unless that person as given permission to do so first.

The data protect act was brought in to give people rights over their personal data that companies store in databases. So if I owned a website which had members and email addresses then each member has a right to see what data i am storing, request that the data be removed and they are not allowed to pass it on without say so of each member. The organisation also has a responsibility to ensure the data does not get into the wrong hands.

 

If it was illegal to post someone's personal data on a website then wouldn't most news websites break this. In fact we wouldn't be able to refer to any players by name as they haven't given us permission.

 

I'm not sure on the ins and outs of it really but I think the Data Protection Act doesn't apply in cases such as this. Someone may have broke the act though, depending on where the information comes from (e.g a list of addresses from members of this site, a list of names and addresses from some other database that is used for some other purpose).

Edited February 17, 200818 yr by cbwfcd

The data protect act was brought in to give people rights over their personal data that companies store in databases. So if I owned a website which had members and email addresses then each member has a right to see what data i am storing, request that the data be removed and they are not allowed to pass it on without say so of each member. The organisation also has a responsibility to ensure the data does not get into the wrong hands.

 

If it was illegal to post someone's personal data on a website then wouldn't most news websites break this. In fact we wouldn't be able to refer to any players by name as they haven't given us permission.

 

I'm not sure on the ins and outs of it really but I think the Data Protection Act doesn't apply in cases such as this. Someone may have broke the act though, depending on where the information comes from (e.g a list of addresses from members of this site, a list of names and addresses from some other database that is used for some other purpose).

eh? what's this got to do with Rod being a nobber?

That was pretty much my understanding of it, based on studying it at uni (over 12 years ago).

eh? what's this got to do with Rod being a nobber?

 

Indeed. This is our Rod:

 

http://archive.thisislancashire.co.uk/1999/9/14/757861.html

 

But is this also our Rod?

 

http://archive.burytimes.co.uk/1999/7/22/764264.html

The stewards do not go into the crowd until they get the go ahead that the cctv camera is watching them. Under the data protection act you can ask to be supplied with a copy of the tape.

That was pretty much my understanding of it, based on studying it at uni (over 12 years ago).

 

The original Data Protection Act that you studied as been repealed and replaced with the Data Protection Act 1998 (which in simple terms was required due to European Legislation - part of which being the Human Rights Act - right to privacy)

 

 

The data protect act was brought in to give people rights over their personal data that companies store in databases. So if I owned a website which had members and email addresses then each member has a right to see what data i am storing, request that the data be removed and they are not allowed to pass it on without say so of each member. The organisation also has a responsibility to ensure the data does not get into the wrong hands.

 

If it was illegal to post someone's personal data on a website then wouldn't most news websites break this. In fact we wouldn't be able to refer to any players by name as they haven't given us permission.

 

I'm not sure on the ins and outs of it really but I think the Data Protection Act doesn't apply in cases such as this. Someone may have broke the act though, depending on where the information comes from (e.g a list of addresses from members of this site, a list of names and addresses from some other database that is used for some other purpose).

 

The Act covers all personal data held by electronic means (and so any personal information published on this or other public forums would be included under the Act).

 

The are exceptions to the Data Protection / Human Rights Acts - one of which is reporting information in the public interest / public domain (but even then the personal data can only contain that that is relevant) - For example a football player can be named if say he is playing in a match - but his address cannot be given. However if the same player was convicted for some wrong doing both his name and address can be given (subject to the courts ruling).

 

I guess what I am trying to say is that I would advice anyone publishing anyone else's personal data to get their consent first.

The Act covers all personal data held by electronic means (and so any personal information published on this or other public forums would be included under the Act).

 

The are exceptions to the Data Protection / Human Rights Acts - one of which is reporting information in the public interest / public domain (but even then the personal data can only contain that that is relevant) - For example a football player can be named if say he is playing in a match - but his address cannot be given. However if the same player was convicted for some wrong doing both his name and address can be given (subject to the courts ruling).

 

I guess what I am trying to say is that I would advice anyone publishing anyone else's personal data to get their consent first.

Its one of those grey areas i suppose. My view is that WW isn't storing personal data, they are storing posts that contain text, it isn't organised as personal data.

 

If people want to find his address to pay him a visit then isn't the information in public interest and relevant?

 

What if the information is freely available in the phone book?

 

(Not that anyone would want to really, its all hypothetical)

 

Law is boring. Those orange fuckers shouldn't have the authority to man handle people and throw them out, i don't think its just a problem at the bok. I remember being at villa a couple of years ago and stewards threw a guy out for smoking in the smoking area, they are all failed coppers and having authority turns them on. I think if a steward touches a fan they should be liable for assault.