Replying to certain posts/comments, but in general, and without siding with any side. Basically, Abuse is the common word used in relation to any form of continual negative action/behaviour towards another person/group (male or female) by any single person/group with intent to cause some form of physical, psychological or emotional pain, includes belittlement in the eyes of others and/or beating into submission. Continual abuse can, and does include continual harassment, and vice versa. A, Abuse/Harassment is not classed as abuse/harassment if it is a one off instance, ie, 2 people having a fight, one person hitting another or verbal argument etc, but Abuse/Harassment can be claimed if the negative behaviour/s towards a person/group is continual, or regular over the course of one day. B, Abuse/Harassment becomes Abuse/Harassment when the negative behaviour/actions toward a person/group happens on two or more occasions (becomes regular/continual). This is what Psychologists call a pattern, a pattern is forming/formed or being observed, also includes the use of varying forms of Abuse/Harassment. Forms of abuse, Physical, Sexual, Verbal, Emotional and Psychological. Sexual, Verbal, Emotional and Psychological abuses can also be seen/included in letter form, posters or adverts and, Cyber bullying, which as everyone would know is Abuse/Harassment over the internet towards one person or group. In the "Cellino out" situation, the harassment and verbal abuses have become wide spread being included on the likes of Twitter, Facebook and various media reply/comment posts. If any legal action comes about, the legal eagles will probably include it in their case, be it for the defence or plaintiff, then it'll be for the Judge/s to decide what is classed as what. Remember it's just a basic version, the 5 versions of abuse mentioned also include numerous forms of single and/or collective forms of negative behaviours/actions. Cheers.
I'm guessing that this is a clinical definition. I suspect the legal definition might be a little different, but not sure in which way. In fact, it's probably different in criminal law & different again in civil law.
So by this definition junior doctors are currently harassing and abusing the government with their current protest?? Poor Jeremy Hunt (is that cockney rhyming by the way)
Jock, The law is pretty clear on abuse and harassment, all forms, it's illegal, abuse is abuse by any definition, and on any level.......
"with intent to cause some form of physical, psychological or emotional pain, includes belittlement in the eyes of others and/or beating into submission." would be the key thing wouldn't it and hard to prove I would guess. Simply campaigning to show discontentment with current ownership and business practice would be deemed acceptable, surely? Even if it's directly outside the stadium. As soon as there's mocking and 'belittlement' then it would probably fall into this category.
Yes, but how can you justify it on the basis of business practice if you have ABSOLUTELY no clue as to what is happening within the club: tough decisions to be made; financial constraints; budget compliance; GFH involvement; political agenda of agents, players, media hacks, disgruntled staff etc., etc. Not one item of tangible evidence was used in this campaign. Just opinion & supposition. Fully justifying the employment of the phrase 'not a shred of evidence'. I'm sure if they had any sort of tangible evidence, it would be shared with us. It hasn't.
Then every football fan in the country is guilty. Who hasn't hurled abuse at the ref, opposing managers and players. Sorry I can't see the point of this opening post, signing out of this thread...
This must be the most irrelevant thread I`ve seen on here,aren`t we here to talk Leeds United and football?
Oh so we're name calling now. How childish. Pompous because I called you out. I'd much rather you proved me wrong by providing hard evidence. But you can't can you?
