5 year ban for violent Seagulls supporter

[Billy the Fish]

I understand but in this case it is fairly black and white by the look of it. The Argus don't so much make up stories as use sensationalist language. It is up to each of us to read any news article with a filter on and try and get past any flowery language that each paper uses. I try to get to the bones of a story and the facts are well substantiated in this case.

My personal point of view, given the facts is that a young man has admitted to causing trouble in a place where other members of the public are likely to be affected and was given a punishment. I think it is afair judgement. I don't know the kid but I am glad he faced consequences for his actions, something that is all too rare these days.

That's a fair poit of view, at least someone can make a point without resorting to the usual insults. As for not contesting the application, yes that is the same as admitting it in the eyes of the law, but it's not really the same thing. He might've had crap/no legal advice and as you say, we don't know what any of the 13 incidents were.

As I said, if they had evidence of him doing anything bad then he'd be up on a criminal charge.

 

[Billy the Fish]

No made-up quotes of the "a close friend said..." No sensationalist speculation.

He's been found guilty of 13 charges of violent behaviour

He hasn't. You can't be found guilty if you haven't been charged with anything, it's a civil case, but that doesn't sound as good in the local rag.

I've quoted the law below, it covers pretty much everything from hitting someone to swearing. The 13 incidents could literally have all been swearing, they're probably not but we don't know. I'll say again, 5 years and pictures in the paper is pretty harsh when they can't even charge you with anything.

Football Spectators Act 1989 (FSA), section14B:

1. An application for a banning order may be made by the chief officer of police for the area in which the person resides or appears to reside if it appears that the condition in (2) is met.
2. The condition is that the respondent has at any time caused or contributed to any violence or disorder in the UK or elsewhere.
3. Application is by complaint to a magistrates' court.
4. If
1. it is proved on the application that the condition in subsection (2) is met, and
2. the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that making a banning order would help to prevent violence or disorder at or in connection with any regulated football matches, the court must make a banning order in respect of the respondent.

Football Spectators Act 1989, section 14C: matters to be taken into account

1. "Violence" means violence against persons or property and includes threatening violence and doing anything which endangers the life of any person.
2. "Disorder" includes
1. stirring up hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins, or against an individual as a member of such a group,
2. using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour.
3. displaying any writing or other thing which is threatening abusive or insulting.
3. Violence or disorder are not limited to violence or disorder in connection with football.
4. In deciding whether to make an order under section 14B (civil application) the court may take into account, inter alia
1. any decision of a court or tribunal outside the UK,
2. deportation or exclusion from a country outside the UK,
3. removal or exclusion from premises used for playing football matches whether in the UK or outside,
4. conduct recorded on video or by any other means.
5. In determining whether to make such an order
1. The magistrates' court may not take into account anything done by the respondent before the beginning of 10 years ending with the application under 14B except circumstances ancillary to a conviction,
2. before taking into account any conviction for a relevant offence, where a court made a statement under 14A(3) or section 15(2A) or section 30(3) of the Public Order Act 1986, the magistrates’ court must consider the reasons given in the statement.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

He hasn't been found guilty of anything because it's a civil case

He was found guilty of violent behaviour. That is a criminal charge and a criminal conviction. A five year football banning order is a step in the direction of a criminal punishment. Breach of a banning order is a criminal offence that, on conviction, carries a penalty of up to 6 months imprisonment and/or a £5,000 fine.

 

[patchamalbion]

13...thats impressive,i cant even think of 13 times in the last 4 years when Brighton lads have been involved in violent disorder...this lads always at the place at the time eh

 

[Goldstone Rapper]

At the risk of getting drawn into this, when was the last time you heard of a "scarfer" getting caught up in this sort of thing and when was the last time you (yes, you personally) witnessed any organised violence (or even random violence by a Brighton hoolie on any non-hoolie)?

You and I both know that this sort of stuff is now almost exclusively organised between like-minded hoolies and the rest of us who have no interest in mixing violence and football are usually in absolute blissful ignorance. The way you paint this guy (who I'm guessing you have only heard of today), if he hadn't been banned he'd have been up on murder charges by the end of the season.

May I respectfully suggest that your wild speculations as to what he would or wouldn't have done are just that - wild speculations?

To fully get Easy's point and not see it as wild speculation requires a retracing of a few steps, IMHO.

Helter had insinuated earlier that people who had been in trouble with the law had greater life experience. To paraphrase, people who hadn't had this in their life were in no position to pass judgement on matters relating to football violence.

So when Helter carried on further down that line, this time suggesting that Easy 10 knew 'f*** all' about life and the world, I think it was fine for Easy 10, in that context, to reprise Helter's earlier conflation of hooliganism/convictions/criminality and life experience. The actual example he gave isn't to be taken literally, at least not in my reading of Easy 10's post, but served to illustrate the connection Helter was seeking to make at its most ludicrous form.

 

[Billy the Fish]

He was found guilty of violent behaviour. That is a criminal charge and a criminal conviction. A five year football banning order is a criminal punishment.

Where does it say that?

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Where does it say that?

I've amended the original post. A five year football banning order is a step in the direction of a criminal punishment. Breach of a banning order is a criminal offence that, on conviction, carries a penalty of up to 6 months imprisonment and/or a £5,000 fine.

The other bit of my original post remains true:-

He was found guilty of violent behaviour. That is a criminal charge and a criminal conviction.

 

[Pot noodles for everyone]

To fully get Easy's point and not see it as wild speculation requires a retracing of a few steps, IMHO.

Helter had insinuated earlier that people who had been in trouble with the law had greater life experience. To paraphrase, people who hadn't had this in their life were in no position to pass judgement on matters relating to football violence.

So when Helter carried on further down that line, this time suggesting that Easy 10 knew 'f*** all' about life and the world, I think it was fine for Easy 10, in that context, to reprise Helter's earlier conflation of hooliganism/convictions/criminality and life experience. The actual example he gave isn't to be taken literally, at least not in my reading of Easy 10's post, but served to illustrate the connection Helter was seeking to make at its most ludicrous form.

All good points except he also posted this:

.......
So they should have let him off eh ? Tap on the wrist and all that. How about if this cretin lamped you one this Saturday at the Tranmere game ? And you then found out he'd just been up in front of the beak for 13 other counts of violence ? Would you want to be number 14 ? How liberal would you be to his rights then ?

Sheesh.

Sorry, but in my eyes that's just silly scaremongering.

 

[Billy the Fish]

I've amended the original post. A five year football banning order is a step in the direction of a criminal punishment. Breach of a banning order is a criminal offence that, on conviction, carries a penalty of up to 6 months imprisonment and/or a £5,000 fine.

That's all well and good but it's not a criminal conviction. This is the problem with sensationalist reporting, on reading the article you'd think he's been caught 13 times hitting people. If that was the case even once then he would've been charged with some sort of criminal offence.

Read the wording of the law and the definition of disorder because that's all they've got to prove to the magistrate, if you all think that's still worthy of a five year ban then fair enough, to me it seems harsh. It's te reporting that I disagree with, because they're saying "13 charges of violent behaviour" when that isn't even close to the whole story and is highly likely to not be the case for reasons I've said in the first paragraph.

 

[Billy the Fish]

He was found guilty of violent behaviour. That is a criminal charge and a criminal conviction.

No he hasn't

 

[Lord Bracknell]

No he hasn't

Then why did the Argus report say:-

"A Brighton and Hove Albion fan was today banned from going to any of his beloved team’s matches after being found guilty of violent behaviour."

?

 

[beorhthelm]

He hasn't. You can't be found guilty if you haven't been charged with anything, it's a civil case, but that doesn't sound as good in the local rag.

That's all well and good but it's not a criminal conviction. This is the problem with sensationalist reporting, on reading the article you'd think he's been caught 13 times hitting people. If that was the case even once then he would've been charged with some sort of criminal offence.

really i dont get your point. are you trying to say no charge was made, no offence committed or the charge isnt criminal but civil?

because either way, he has been charged, the case was in the Magistrates, and he was found guilty of somthing, either criminal or civil. or are you saying that there wasnt a court case, it didnt happen? in which case we look forward to the libel case against the Argus.

and yet another person popping up with "if you knew the story"... seems alot of that, suspect noone knows the other side. he didnt feel it worth challenging the charges either, so what other side was there?

 

[Billy the Fish]

Then why did the Argus report say:-

"A Brighton and Hove Albion fan was today banned from going to any of his beloved team’s matches after being found guilty of violent behaviour."

?

Because the Argus wants to be a red top tabloid and that sounds better than the truth. It is only a banning order, there is no conviction, no charge, no criminal offence. Had there been evidence of a criminal offence I wouldn't be bothering to write this and the police would've charged him with a criminal offence. They haven't and that's why the story doesn't read "Brighton fan convicted of assault/GBH/ABH/Affray/Voilent Disorder" (take your pick) "fan sentenced to 5 year banning order and 150 hours community service/6 months in prison"


I've quoted the law about 5 posts ago. The telling part is this: the respondent has at any time caused or contributed to any violence or disorder in the UK or elsewhere

The definitions for disorder are :

stirring up hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins, or against an individual as a member of such a group,
2. using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour.
3. displaying any writing or other thing which is threatening abusive or insulting.
3. Violence or disorder are not limited to violence or disorder in connection with football

All worthy of some kind of reprimand, but it's not the 13 acts of violence that the paper is reporting.

 

[DerbyGull]

God i love this website you are all legends with differing opinions. God bless you

 

[Pot noodles for everyone]

really i dont get your point. are you trying to say no charge was made, no offence committed or the charge isnt criminal but civil?

because either way, he has been charged, the case was in the Magistrates, and he was found guilty of somthing, either criminal or civil. or are you saying that there wasnt a court case, it didnt happen? in which case we look forward to the libel case against the Argus.

and yet another person popping up with "if you knew the story"... seems alot of that, suspect noone knows the other side. he didnt feel it worth challenging the charges either, so what other side was there?

Maybe it's true and he's just taking what's due

Maybe he was leant on by the police

Maybe he wasn't expecting such a harsh punishment and so for an easy life was prepared to take what he thought would be a 1-2 year ban.

Maybe he couldn't afford to contest it.

Just off the top of my head, like. I'm sure others could come up with other plausible explanations. I'm sure it won't stop people from jumping to conclusions though.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

There's obviously some confusion here, probably arising from the fact that the police can make a civil application to a court for a banning order, even though there have been no criminal charges.

But banning orders can also be imposed after a criminal conviction.

In this case, the Argus makes it clear that Moore was found guity of violent behaviour. The only circumstances in which someone is "found guilty" is if criminal charges have been brought. Being found guilty means that there has been a conviction for a criminal offence.

Court Powers

Football banning orders are made in the following situations;

1. As part of the sentence imposed for a relevant offence (section 14A of the Football Spectators Act 1989).

2. On the court hearing a civil application made by the police for a football banning order even though there is no conviction for an offence (section 14B of the Football Spectators Act 1989).

 

[Billy the Fish]

really i dont get your point. are you trying to say no charge was made, no offence committed or the charge isnt criminal but civil?

because either way, he has been charged, the case was in the Magistrates, and he was found guilty of somthing, either criminal or civil. or are you saying that there wasnt a court case, it didnt happen? in which case we look forward to the libel case against the Argus.

and yet another person popping up with "if you knew the story"... seems alot of that, suspect noone knows the other side. he didnt feel it worth challenging the charges either, so what other side was there?

I've spelled it out for you, if you don't understand the difference between a civil and a criminal case then there's no point in arguing about it.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

I've spelled it out for you, if you don't understand the difference between a civil and a criminal case then there's no point in arguing about it.

I might understand your point if you can tell me how someone can be "found guilty" in a civil case.

 

[xenophon]

If the charges and evidence were deemed unfair, then presumably he would have contested it.

Blimey, the authorities finally dish a decent penalty out to a persistant thug, and everyone goes all Citizen Smith, championing his cause and leaping to his defence, cos "the pigs are out to get us".

Straw man argument, no-one said this here. I'd just be happier that suspected criminals were tried and convicted before punishment is served. If you're happy that they're not then follow it out to the logical conclusion. Assuming the police must have something on him is fine in this case, let them apply that to everyone then - are they infallible, can you trust the police all the time? Can you f***.

This guy is probably a grade one cock, whether he is or isn't he should still go before a criminal court and a verdict reached the proper way. No-ones defending the dickhead, just making sure it's done properly.

Bottom line - a man has a draconian 5 year football banning order and a serious restriction imposed on his personal freedom to move about freely, and he wasn't convicted in criminal law before judgemnet and sentence was passed on him. He was shown the evidence, shit himself, then the book was thrown at him, no mitigation, no innocent til proven guilty.

Because he doesn't contest his accusers is immaterial as well, he may be too f***ing stupid to know what the score is, or he may have received poor council.

The Argus, the utter cnuts, joined in and splashed his ugly visog all over the paper as a "yob" - never tried and convicted as a yob.

Utter bullshit, the lot of it, it f***ing stinks

 

[Billy the Fish]

But banning orders can also be imposed after a criminal conviction.

In this case, the Argus makes it clear that Moore was found guity of violent behaviour. The only circumstances in which someone is "found guilty" is if criminal charges have been brought. Being found guilty means that there has been a conviction for a criminal offence.

That's what I'm trying to say, it's bad reporting. There's no such charge as Violent behaviour. Violent Disorder is a public order offence and would carry some kind of sentence, but as they haven't mentioned a sentence then I assume there hasn't been a criminal charge and the Argus has taken the wording from Football Spectators Act and shortened it down to make juicier reading.

Unless they've got the wording wrong and he's been charged and convicted of Violent Disorder, in which case I take it all back

In the words of US - I'm going LARGE on bad reporting.