5 year ban for violent Seagulls supporter

[Billy the Fish]

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

How's that been turned around on me. That's been my point from the start

 

[Billy the Fish]

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

 

[Chicken Runner61]

Whilst the argus HAS printed that he was charged found guilty it is possible they got it wrong or the facts are NOT as they have stated.

On the other argument about civil or criminal court it may well be that he was offered the chance to plead guilty and face a magistrate and take a lower sentance of a banning order etc or plead not guilty and face a criminal court where he could risk a longer sentance including custodial time. It would have depended on what evidence they had and what other previous he had.

I'm guessing that thefull story may come out in the end

 

[drew]

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

He went before the magistrates. They can hear criminal cases. He chose not to contest the evidence/charges and he was dealt with by the magistrates. Others keep refering to this as civil case. Why? A civil case is where two parties are in dispute, a plaintiff and a defendant, normally in respect of contract law or the laws of tort. He accepted the evidence so there is no need to try him before a jury in a higher court.

As for saying it is immaterial that he didn't contest the charges, what a load of bollocks. It is highly relevant. Had he contested them then he may have gone to jury trial. He pleaded guilty and took the deal. Could have contested and ended up with a custodial sentence.

 

[Herne Hill Seagull]

but we are very, very wrong as a society when people can be penalised for not commiting a crime.

I agree with this principle but he hasn't been penalised as a criminal, has he? He hasn't been fined or incarcerated, he's just been banned from the grounds. Which, as you said, the club (any club) could do themselves anyway, as private organisations.

As for the coverage? If he's ashamed of his behaviour, and doesn't want people to know about it, why does he do it repeatedly? A report on the behaviour of the huge majority of footie fans at matches being splashed on the front page of the Argus wouldn't bother them in the slightest, because they'd have done nothing they didn't want people knowing about.

In any case, tomorrow's chip wrappers, as they say. Nobody will give a shit in a few weeks, days, even. And I have to say, I'm with others on here. If you associate yourself with a football club, even indirectly, and go around behaving like a cock, you've got to accept the consequences of that club, and others, distancing themselves from you.

 

[drew]

I agree with this principle but he hasn't been penalised as a criminal, has he? He hasn't been fined or incarcerated, he's just been banned from the grounds. Which, as you said, the club (any club) could do themselves anyway, as private organisations.

As for the coverage? If he's ashamed of his behaviour, and doesn't want people to know about it, why does he do it repeatedly? A report on the behaviour of the huge majority of footie fans at matches being splashed on the front page of the Argus wouldn't bother them in the slightest, because they'd have done nothing they didn't want people knowing about.

In any case, tomorrow's chip wrappers, as they say. Nobody will give a shit in a few weeks, days, even. And I have to say, I'm with others on here. If you associate yourself with a football club, even indirectly, and go around behaving like a cock, you've got to accept the consequences of that club, and others, distancing themselves from you.

Surely he has committed a crime. It's just that he hasn't been incarcerated for it. Perhaps next time though.

 

[Billy the Fish]

He went before the magistrates. They can hear criminal cases. He chose not to contest the evidence/charges and he was dealt with by the magistrates. Others keep refering to this as civil case. Why? A civil case is where two parties are in dispute, a plaintiff and a defendant, normally in respect of contract law or the laws of tort.

A banning order IS a civil action.

It can come in two ways, either the police apply to the magistrates if they feel they have sufficient evidence that you have been a part of violence and disorder at a football match (as I believe has happened here) or if you get a criminal conviction relating to football they will slap one on you no questions asked.

What people are saying is that the police obviously didn't have enough evidence to put a criminal charge on him so have taken the civil route, which is what most people have the problem with - read xenophon's post.
I'll say it again, if it was a criminal conviction there would be some kind of sentence attached, it wouldn't be just a banning order on it's own.

 

[Publius Ovidius]

Does anyone think banning orders at footy matches work?

I know of cases where people have been banned in the past and I have seen them at games, both home and away.

 

[Easy 10]

Bet we see your son on Meridian south in 10 years smashing the pub up in Brighton. Bet many fathers didn’t expect in their wildest dreams to see their sons on it. Never tempt fate as it has a tendency to come back and haunt you for many years.

And i hope it does for you!

32,000 posts, god you’re boy is being neglected. Does Social services know you neglect your boy?

Oh you're bored now so show you your kid some loving care?, you selfish bastard!

*sigh*
Presumably this is all some kind of desperate attempt to rile me and get under my skin, right ? Sorry bucko, you want a tedious binfest with someone then go visit the P Diddy thread, might be more your level.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

A banning order IS a civil action.

It can come in two ways, either the police apply to the magistrates if they feel they have sufficient evidence that you have been a part of violence and disorder at a football match (as I believe has happened here) or if you get a criminal conviction relating to football they will slap one on you no questions asked.

What people are saying is that the police obviously didn't have enough evidence to put a criminal charge on him so have taken the civil route, which is what most people have the problem with - read xenophon's post.
I'll say it again, if it was a criminal conviction there would be some kind of sentence attached, it wouldn't be just a banning order on it's own.

The Argus uses the phrase "found guilty". You can't be "found guilty" in a civil case.

Either the Argus has libelled him, or it was a criminal conviction.

 

[drew]

A banning order IS a civil action.

It can come in two ways, either the police apply to the magistrates if they feel they have sufficient evidence that you have been a part of violence and disorder at a football match (as I believe has happened here) or if you get a criminal conviction relating to football they will slap one on you no questions asked.

What people are saying is that the police obviously didn't have enough evidence to put a criminal charge on him so have taken the civil route, which is what most people have the problem with - read xenophon's post.
I'll say it again, if it was a criminal conviction there would be some kind of sentence attached, it wouldn't be just a banning order on it's own.

Not sure I follow. The banning order can be a civil action, but that wasn't his crime, it was the punishment. You can commit a crime, be found guilty and still not receive a custodial sentence. He accepted the evidence against him and the punishment was the banning order.

Somebody could be convicted of assault at a football match and receive a custodial sentence. They could also be given a banning order for upto 10 years. That doesn't make it a civil case.

Anyway, whatever it was, the moron won't be at football for the next five years and that suits me.

 

[Brighton Breezy]

I THINK a banning order is a sort of hybrid law.

They are imposed as a response to criminal conduct, supported by criminal law sanctions, but operate under a civil law procedure.

I THINK.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Presumably he behaves that way every game he goes to.

13 games in four years? Bad fan

 

[Box of Frogs]

As I said before, with his history our club is sensible to refuse him entry to our ground and to not sell him tickets for away games.

To ban him from every football ground and make him report to his local police station when England are playing abroad is indefensible.

He has not been convicted of a criminal offence! As far as I can see.

Easy, this is aimed at you. Sussex Police advertise on local radio that people can telephone them to report dangerous/antisocial (hate that bollocks term) driving. I could repeatedly call and give your numberplate and report that you were doing the above. Maybe if I rang enough times they could ask for your driving licencse to be revoked - would that be fair?

The difference here is that there was evidence (4 years worth apparently!) to prove he was an idiot, not just somebody with a grudge making unfounded accusations.

 

[Easy 10]

Hopefully this is the start of a crackdown on the idiots in the run-up to Falmer. A five year ban is a MASSIVE disincentive to being a violent dickhead at games, so hopefully it'll send out a message.

We're going to become a club with a much higher profile once we move in to that stadium, so the more twats the club and the police can weed out before we kick off there the better as far as I'm concerned. Top work.

We don't need the likes of this scrote latching on and embarrassing everyone when we're trying to build the club back up to a decent level after so many years in the wilderness.

 

[Gazwag]

I don't know what's more sad, grown men trying to justify a football holligan's right for anonymity or the same grown men preaching their right to meet up with other grown men for the sole purpose of duffing each other up.

Still let him go freely so him and his mate can carry on and hope that his next lucky punch doesn't kill somebody, after all its only a bit of nawty fun and his basic human right

 

[sjamesb3466]

I find it amazing that somebody who has not been convicted can be treated in this way ,football hooligans are delt with more harshly than some convicted pedos im not condoaning the guy for one minute but the club needs to look at some of the dodgy types that frequent the boardroom and hospitality many with dubious pastsand convictions far more serious than this guy.

Shit, well next time I feel like getting in a fight at the football I will just have to calm down and go kiddie fiddling instead shall I? At least I will be treated better! Stop talking so much crap mate. The guy was obviously causing trouble on a number of occasions and despite the warning's continued to do so, therefore he's a f***ing idiot that we don't need or want connected with our football club. Simple

 

[portlock seagull]

Shit, well next time I feel like getting in a fight at the football I will just have to calm down and go kiddie fiddling instead shall I? At least I will be treated better! Stop talking so much crap mate. The guy was obviously causing trouble on a number of occasions and despite the warning's continued to do so, therefore he's a f***ing idiot that we don't need or want connected with our football club. Simple

But it's his "right" to be an idiot!! And it's these "rights "that's are the fundamental reason why we have so many social problems in the UK. People, and some are on this thread, simply think it's acceptable to behave in a public place however they like and leap to their defence when the civilised section of society says enough's enough. Maybe we should start sterilising kids at birth with parents who have a track record of violent disorder. You just can't risk another generation of mis-fits being paid for by honest hard-working people who are fast becoming a minority in this country......

 

[wellquickwoody]

Is it possible to discover if this lad has received a criminal conviction or not? Not interested in a 'civil conviction' or 13 cautions only a criminal conviction, as this seems to be the uncertain bit.

If he has then my questioning of the banning order stops there and then.

If he has not been charged and convicted under criminal proceedings then I will continue to ask how this banning order can be seen to be justice. If the police have the evidence they should prosecute him, if they cannot prove his guilt there should be no banning order.

That said he is still a twat/knob/whateveryoulike, I just want the law to be cast iron correct when applied, and for there to be no doubt about it's correct application.

To all those who get all 'holier than thou' about this issue I just hope Falmer does not turn into the library that you seem to want it to be.

 

[Easy 10]

Is it possible to discover if this lad has received a criminal conviction or not? Not interested in a 'civil conviction' or 13 cautions only a criminal conviction, as this seems to be the uncertain bit.

If he has then my questioning of the banning order stops there and then.

If he has not been charged and convicted under criminal proceedings then I will continue to ask how this banning order can be seen to be justice. If the police have the evidence they should prosecute him, if they cannot prove his guilt there should be no banning order.

That said he is still a twat/knob/whateveryoulike, I just want the law to be cast iron correct when applied, and for there to be no doubt about it's correct application.

To all those who get all 'holier than thou' about this issue I just hope Falmer does not turn into the library that you seem to want it to be.

I wouldn't pretend to know the legal ins and outs, and I'm not overly bothered about the semantics between a civil or criminal conviction. He wasn't sent down or prosecuted presumably because the evidence presented was irrefutable and pointless disputing, so he pleaded guilty. Had he contested the charge then perhaps he was then staring at a criminal conviction. So to avoid that, he took his medicine and had the banning order served instead. Whatever way you slice it, HE put himself in that position by acting like a dickhead on numerous occasions, so how you arrive at the conclusion that this is in some way "unjust", I still don't understand I'm afraid.

As for your closing remark - are you SERIOUSLY suggesting we need violent thugs at Falmer in order to create a good atmosphere ?

Seriously ?