...and it's as ill thought out as an ASBO too. Yet more waste of resources on something that should in reality come fairly low on the priority of police in London these days.
[cite]Posted By: Salad[/cite]they have not been convicted - they have agreed to a banning order
which is obviously a choice between keeping schtum and accepting a ban or getting the book thrown at you in fine/time and getting a ban on top... doesn't look like much of a choice to me
[quote][cite]Posted By: ISawLeaburnScore[/cite][quote][cite]Posted By: Salad[/cite]they have not been convicted - they have agreed to a banning order[/quote]
which is obviously a choice between keeping schtum and accepting a ban or getting the book thrown at you in fine/time and getting a ban on top... doesn't look like much of a choice to me[/quote]
[cite]Posted By: ISawLeaburnScore[/cite]which is obviously a choice between keeping schtum and accepting a ban or getting the book thrown at you in fine/time and getting a ban on top... doesn't look like much of a choice to me
I presume you are referring to their opportunity to face a trial in court if they prefer that to a banning order.
OB said they were guilty and therefore without a trial or any evidence of any crime they are banned ?
I cant spell for my life but once alongtime in the past it was a corner stone of our justice system that (1) you got a fair trial.(2) you were inocent untill proven guilty.(3) There is no such "crime" as guilt by association.
As with everything though im sure ifthey had the right lawyer it would have been thrown out were it belongs in a pile of sh*T.
[quote][cite]Posted By: WhenIwasLittleBoy[/cite][quote][cite]Posted By: ISawLeaburnScore[/cite][quote][cite]Posted By: Salad[/cite]they have not been convicted - they have agreed to a banning order[/quote]
which is obviously a choice between keeping schtum and accepting a ban or getting the book thrown at you in fine/time and getting a ban on top... doesn't look like much of a choice to me[/quote]
Exactly.......[/quote]
No charges, no arrest, nothing like that. No trial, just in front of Judge to issue ban.
The report says that as well as associating with known hooligans, they were actualy caught inciting opposition fans with violence and abuse.
So if they were caught doing something they shouldn't and this was deemed to be likely to cause further violence as a result, why is it out of order that they got banned?
As I say if I've got hold of the wrong end of this then sorry.
How many people can say they've never EVER said/done anything abusive towards an oppo fan, I know for a fact I can't, nor can anyone who was at Southampton with me, does that mean we should be banned?
No Stu, but if you continually did it, at various venues, with the same group of people to the extent where the OB set up a sting operation to catch you, the answer's yes.
So u and a few mates are having a beer. There is a fight a few miles away and OB are worrid that other elements may join in. You and your mates walk out the pub and walk to the ground. OB see your group and think that you may be heading to get in volved. They can (and do) stop you issue a "section 60" notice which means you have to stay away from an area and be in an area that they designate. This is instant and cant be argued with. Tough that you are normal fans and tough that you had tickets etc.
There is no such crime as "guilt by association" unless its football related.How is it we can stop "football holligans" from traveling etc but we cant stop scum bags coming into or get scum bags out ofthis country ?
"The yobs ....... would either go into pubs designated for opposition fans or hang around outside grounds looking for trouble."
Going into pubs? "Hanging around" outside grounds?
Fug me, I reckon all of us on here are in line for one of these bans then by virtue of our "association" - via this board - with AFKA, who is now a well known associate of an associate of someone who once did something a little bit naughty.
makes you wonder why they can't take this hard line on everything in society doesn't it? what about the lads that got cleared yesterday for after downloading terror material as it was "research"... don't see that defence (and nor should it by the way) working for paedophiles
the whole judicial system and law and order structure is totally confused and without a shred of consistency
[cite]Posted By: Goonerhater[/cite]
There is no such crime as "guilt by association" unless its football related.How is it we can stop "football holligans" from traveling etc but we cant stop scum bags coming into or get scum bags out ofthis country ?
Quite agree in the GH. It probably makes the OB's figures look better and justifies the cost of policing football matches.
[quote][cite]Posted By: Stu of SE7[/cite]What exactly is inciting violence?
How many people can say they've never EVER said/done anything abusive towards an oppo fan, I know for a fact I can't, nor can anyone who was at Southampton with me, does that mean we should be banned?[/quote]
Of course I've done it in my time but is it exactly what these guys have done?
When I was in the Covered End with a few thousand other like minded souls I wouldn't ever have been likely to get turfed out for giving abuse to the other teams fans, nor did I.
If however, I was to leave the confines of our area and venture towards the south of the ground and did the same thing within spitting distance of the away supporters I would have been clobbered by the OB and chucked out for sure. (Came close twice, Sheff Wed & Spurs but that was after they had taken the Covered End first).
Outside the ground the same rules apply. Stick with your own and sing abuse, very rarely will you get singled out. Leave the group and raid the oppositions own haunts to do the same and you get done for sure. Either by the OB or the other fans.
Additionally the key part of the report is that it says 'violence' and if that's true then how can they complain?
it may have been originally meant for that R but they now use it for any gathering of people (apparently) in the immediate vicinity of an offence, or if there is deemed potential for an offence to take place - how open ended is that?
look at how they threw that pensioner out for heckling at the labour conference under the "anti-terror" laws
just shows you how any legislation, regardless of purpose can be played around with to suit alternative ends
I remember the Met trying to use it on a Critical Mass a couple of months ago, the problem was they tried it on a laywer who shredded the police view on it in a nanosecond
I remember the Met trying to use it on a Critical Mass a couple of months ago, the problem was they tried it on a laywer who shredded the police view on it in a nanosecond
Instead they should've just driven a couple of vans through that load of knobends. That would've shifted them.
Section 60 is indeed part of the anti terror laws. How ever the OB can you it as they see fit. The OB used it at the CAFC v Spurs game at the end of last season and in both Palarse games.
Problem is though, as football supporters, we have never been treated as law abiding citizens.
A lot of these laws which are used on football supporters, were brought in to combat terrorism, but are used on football fans, because we are an easy target, and people still view all football fans as hooligans.
[cite]Posted By: budgie[/cite]Problem is though, as football supporters, we have never been treated as law abiding citizens.
A lot of these laws which are used on football supporters, were brought in to combat terrorism, but are used on football fans, because we are an easy target, and people still view all football fans as hooligans.
In this case these four were probably confronted with enough photographic evidence of their activities to make a conviction a dead cert and so were given a choice - either submit to a ban voluntarily - as they did, or get taken to court, fined, banned and possibly get a sentence of some description - even if it was just for using threatening language/behaviour. Think of it as the football version of being stopped for speeding - take an on-the-spot fine and three points or go to court, contest the case and get a larger fine etc.
As for the reason why football fans get stopped so frequently - sadly the sport has the reputation for attracting the sort of boneheads who are normally meek and mild the rest of the week but get carried away with the emotion of a situation and believe that because they are in a crowd they can do and say whatever they like.
So using ur logic if my mates all speed everywhere and i drink with them im guilty ? If OB had pics of these 4 doing something at footie they would have used it 100%.
makes you wonder why they can't take this hard line on everything in society doesn't it? what about the lads that got cleared yesterday for after downloading terror material as it was "research"... don't see that defence (and nor should it by the way) working for paedophiles
............
A different thing altogether, downloading pornographic images of children would likely mean that the children in question had been abused or were being abused, thus the act of d/ling is aiding and abetting that act, more so if there is money involved. The more child porn about the more likely it is that more children will get abused - think supply and demand, it will encourage some sicko to abuse and take advantage of children - especially if money is involved, therefore banning and criminalising the d/ling of this material is consistent with trying to eradicate child porn.
Downloading stuff on terrorism and bomb making may or may not lead to that person constructing a bomb, but until then it shouldn't be criminalised.
[quote][cite]Posted By: Goonerhater[/cite]So using ur logic if my mates all speed everywhere and i drink with them im guilty ? If OB had pics of these 4 doing something at footie they would have used it 100%.[/quote]
At the risk of me still missing the point - They didn't need pics did they, I thought they caught them in the process of doing what they got arrested for?
If I might turn it round Gh, were you known to the OB because you were constantly hanging around with your mates who are known to be speed merchants liable to cause serious injury or death to innocent members of the public and you were then caught sitting in a ferrari, revving up your engine just as a bunch of school kids were crossing the road, then yes I'd expect you to get pulled for it.
You might not be guilty of a crime, you might not have intended to drive, but you'd certainly be guilty of being dim in the extreme.
These guys as far as I know were not just wandering aimlessly around helping old ladies across the road when they got nicked.
If they were, I apologise, but that's not how it's been reported.
Comments
which is obviously a choice between keeping schtum and accepting a ban or getting the book thrown at you in fine/time and getting a ban on top... doesn't look like much of a choice to me
which is obviously a choice between keeping schtum and accepting a ban or getting the book thrown at you in fine/time and getting a ban on top... doesn't look like much of a choice to me[/quote]
Exactly.......
I cant spell for my life but once alongtime in the past it was a corner stone of our justice system that (1) you got a fair trial.(2) you were inocent untill proven guilty.(3) There is no such "crime" as guilt by association.
As with everything though im sure ifthey had the right lawyer it would have been thrown out were it belongs in a pile of sh*T.
which is obviously a choice between keeping schtum and accepting a ban or getting the book thrown at you in fine/time and getting a ban on top... doesn't look like much of a choice to me[/quote]
Exactly.......[/quote]
No charges, no arrest, nothing like that. No trial, just in front of Judge to issue ban.
The report says that as well as associating with known hooligans, they were actualy caught inciting opposition fans with violence and abuse.
So if they were caught doing something they shouldn't and this was deemed to be likely to cause further violence as a result, why is it out of order that they got banned?
As I say if I've got hold of the wrong end of this then sorry.
How many people can say they've never EVER said/done anything abusive towards an oppo fan, I know for a fact I can't, nor can anyone who was at Southampton with me, does that mean we should be banned?
So u and a few mates are having a beer. There is a fight a few miles away and OB are worrid that other elements may join in. You and your mates walk out the pub and walk to the ground. OB see your group and think that you may be heading to get in volved. They can (and do) stop you issue a "section 60" notice which means you have to stay away from an area and be in an area that they designate. This is instant and cant be argued with. Tough that you are normal fans and tough that you had tickets etc.
There is no such crime as "guilt by association" unless its football related.How is it we can stop "football holligans" from traveling etc but we cant stop scum bags coming into or get scum bags out ofthis country ?
Going into pubs? "Hanging around" outside grounds?
Fug me, I reckon all of us on here are in line for one of these bans then by virtue of our "association" - via this board - with AFKA, who is now a well known associate of an associate of someone who once did something a little bit naughty.
the whole judicial system and law and order structure is totally confused and without a shred of consistency
Quite agree in the GH. It probably makes the OB's figures look better and justifies the cost of policing football matches.
How many people can say they've never EVER said/done anything abusive towards an oppo fan, I know for a fact I can't, nor can anyone who was at Southampton with me, does that mean we should be banned?[/quote]
Of course I've done it in my time but is it exactly what these guys have done?
When I was in the Covered End with a few thousand other like minded souls I wouldn't ever have been likely to get turfed out for giving abuse to the other teams fans, nor did I.
If however, I was to leave the confines of our area and venture towards the south of the ground and did the same thing within spitting distance of the away supporters I would have been clobbered by the OB and chucked out for sure. (Came close twice, Sheff Wed & Spurs but that was after they had taken the Covered End first).
Outside the ground the same rules apply. Stick with your own and sing abuse, very rarely will you get singled out. Leave the group and raid the oppositions own haunts to do the same and you get done for sure. Either by the OB or the other fans.
Additionally the key part of the report is that it says 'violence' and if that's true then how can they complain?
look at how they threw that pensioner out for heckling at the labour conference under the "anti-terror" laws
just shows you how any legislation, regardless of purpose can be played around with to suit alternative ends
I remember the Met trying to use it on a Critical Mass a couple of months ago, the problem was they tried it on a laywer who shredded the police view on it in a nanosecond
Instead they should've just driven a couple of vans through that load of knobends. That would've shifted them.
A lot of these laws which are used on football supporters, were brought in to combat terrorism, but are used on football fans, because we are an easy target, and people still view all football fans as hooligans.
In this case these four were probably confronted with enough photographic evidence of their activities to make a conviction a dead cert and so were given a choice - either submit to a ban voluntarily - as they did, or get taken to court, fined, banned and possibly get a sentence of some description - even if it was just for using threatening language/behaviour. Think of it as the football version of being stopped for speeding - take an on-the-spot fine and three points or go to court, contest the case and get a larger fine etc.
As for the reason why football fans get stopped so frequently - sadly the sport has the reputation for attracting the sort of boneheads who are normally meek and mild the rest of the week but get carried away with the emotion of a situation and believe that because they are in a crowd they can do and say whatever they like.
............
A different thing altogether, downloading pornographic images of children would likely mean that the children in question had been abused or were being abused, thus the act of d/ling is aiding and abetting that act, more so if there is money involved. The more child porn about the more likely it is that more children will get abused - think supply and demand, it will encourage some sicko to abuse and take advantage of children - especially if money is involved, therefore banning and criminalising the d/ling of this material is consistent with trying to eradicate child porn.
Downloading stuff on terrorism and bomb making may or may not lead to that person constructing a bomb, but until then it shouldn't be criminalised.
At the risk of me still missing the point - They didn't need pics did they, I thought they caught them in the process of doing what they got arrested for?
If I might turn it round Gh, were you known to the OB because you were constantly hanging around with your mates who are known to be speed merchants liable to cause serious injury or death to innocent members of the public and you were then caught sitting in a ferrari, revving up your engine just as a bunch of school kids were crossing the road, then yes I'd expect you to get pulled for it.
You might not be guilty of a crime, you might not have intended to drive, but you'd certainly be guilty of being dim in the extreme.
These guys as far as I know were not just wandering aimlessly around helping old ladies across the road when they got nicked.
If they were, I apologise, but that's not how it's been reported.