How do they know which country the idiot responsible came from? Although it seems an obvious answer….I am sure they have no proof …
Doesn't matter where he/she was from, England hosted the game so are responsible for crowd behaviour.
Im more concerned that the thug responsible is identified and banned for life + charged with a criminal offence
It’s not about where they were from, it’s about who’s ground they were in and which association failed to control fans in their stadium.
Go on then tell us how much we were fined. We haven't been fined have we, we have been charged and guilt still to be proved.
€30,000. About £26,000. FA fined by Uefa after incidents during England win over Denmark https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/57788267
I don't agree with booing national anthems, but I also disagree with fining a team for the fans doing so. Although I understand why we are fined for the laser incident, I again don't agree with fining the team. It should be investigated as a criminal offence and punished to the max.
Whatever, it’s a description I made on this forum and not a criminal charge. Can I ask, are you more concerned that the person/moron who did this might receive perhaps OTT comments/criticism/ condemnations, for their action, more than what they actually did?
Well if you're happy to encourage wholly inaccurate descriptions of what someone in any particular situation has actually done, I'll leave you to it. Perhaps however we ought to concentrate on the definition of the word "thug". Which is: "a violent person, especially a criminal - a member of a group or organization of robbers and assassins in India who waylaid and strangled their victims, usually travellers, and stole their belongings. They were suppressed by the British in the 1830s" Laser Person is an idiot. He might be 14 years old. He might be a she. He is not by definition a "thug" by virtue of this act, no matter how you might these days stretch the concept of violence towards another. That is my point. If you don't respect the meaning of a word or words, there is no point typing them out, or indeed in anyone reading them. Someone who shines a laser at someone does not by so doing become a "thug" - by English language definition. And to say they deserve being called anything that anyone could possibly come up with, no matter how vile that might be, is worse than simply calling them a thug in the first place. To finally answer your question, I'm more concerned with accuracy all round.
IMO you’re only concern is fek all to do with accuracy of the word thug or all round accuracy, it’s simply to try and point Score on semantics on this subject. This is highlighted by the fact when you say ‘he might be a she’ which I already said he/she. I haven’t encouraged any wholly inaccurate description it’s simply my opinion. Notice you mention the age of 14 and not an adult age to try and make it sound more sinister in some way. So shining a laser light on someone might not be violence in one person’s book but it is in mine. Don’t start lecturing to me about respect. There have been many threads on this board on the subject of football violence and hooliganism, IF YOU RESPECT THE MEANINGS OF WORDS Have you ever challenged any of them on here other then mIne? In history who are the hooligans?
