5 year ban for violent Seagulls supporter

[Westdene Seagull]

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.

And therein lies the problem.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

He's been naughty.
He's been caught.

He should take his punishment like a man rather than some blabbing six year old. Strange how holligans are soooooo tough normally but when caught they suddenly revert to their mental age and start claiming injustice and that they're a pillar of society really.

 

[DJ Leon]

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.

He's been behaving anti-socially (clearly), he's admitted that he has and he's been punished. What can possibly be wrong with that?

Anti-social behaviour penalties are often handed to people who haven't been convicted of a crime, often because one party won't press charges, because they haven't done anything overtly criminal or because obtaining evidence is incredibly difficult. But does that mean we (society) shouldn't act? Of course not, it may be legal for 20 teenagers to stand outside my house drinking and intimidating everyone that walks by. Doesn't mean it's acceptable though and we should be sensible enough to say that it should be punished if it's persistently done.

Oh and BTW to say that Falmer might become a library because we don't let some hoolie elements in is PATHETIC.

 

[xenophon]

Oh and BTW to say that Falmer might become a library because we don't let some hoolie elements in is PATHETIC.

It is, that's why he never said it - you and Easy 10 did. We've enough straw men in this thread now to fill Falmer with 22,500 Wurzel Gummidge replicas

Well done all, death to logic and all that

 

[Easy 10]

It is, that's why he never said it - you and Easy 10 did. We've enough straw men in this thread now to fill Falmer with 22,500 Wurzel Gummidge replicas

Well done all, death to logic and all that

Thanks for the link, but I don't really need to consult Wikipedia to find out what your 'phrase of the moment' means. Can you just explain how this statement:

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.

'This issue' being the banning for 5 years of a man who has been involved in incidents of violent disorder at football matches 13 times, and wellquickwoodys apparent disdain that "fans" like this will be banned from Falmer, thus creating a library atmosphere.

How can anything said by me or DJ Leon in response to that be termed a 'straw man' argument ?

 

[wellquickwoody]

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 ?

Here is where you hopefully realise that I am no liberal.

If the evidence was irrefutable then I would like to see him on a criminal charge and convicted and sentenced accordingly. If the police have failed to go for a criminal conviction whilst in possession of damning evidence then, in my view, it is the wrong decision.

And to your second point, stop being such a cock for heaven's sake. Football should be passionate, noisy and intense. It seems many on here want to ban swearing, shouting and bantering/insulting opposition fans, if they suceed football will become only a shadow of it's former self.

 

[xenophon]

Thanks for the link, but I don't really need to consult Wikipedia to find out what your 'phrase of the moment' means. Can you just explain how this statement:



'This issue' being the banning for 5 years of a man who has been involved in incidents of violent disorder at football matches 13 times, and wellquickwoodys apparent disdain that "fans" like this will be banned from Falmer, thus creating a library atmosphere.

How can anything said by me or DJ Leon in response to that be termed a 'straw man' argument ?

Ah, now it's ad hominem, we might as well work through all the logical fallacies.

Anyway, the statement was clear - nowhere did the fella say anything like what you two came up with.

He said:

"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."

You said:

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

The other fella then said:

"Oh and BTW to say that Falmer might become a library because we don't let some hoolie elements in is PATHETIC."

It's pretty clear to me - you both misrepresented what he said, added emotive language which he himself never used in his argument and innuendo, and hey presto! You've warped an weaved his position into something far removed from what was actually said.

You're not from the Argus are you?

 

[pasty]

Why have people got an issue with this? Personally I'm glad he's been banned.

Moore was observed by Sussex Police football spotters over a period of four years and on 13 occasions was found to contribute to violence and / or disorder at home and away matches. Moore did not contest the evidence.

 

[Simster]

It's pretty clear to me - you both misrepresented what he said, added emotive language which he himself never used in his argument and innuendo, and hey presto! You've warped an weaved his position into something far removed from what was actually said.

You're not from the Argus are you?

And it's pretty clear to me that you're talking bollocks. Let's just recap what wellquickwoody actually said:

"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."

So how did wellquickwoody get from removing an unpleasant trouble maker, to Falmer turning into a library, if his inference wasn't that these people are required in order for Falmer to have an atmosphere?

 

[Easy 10]

Here is where you hopefully realise that I am no liberal.

If the evidence was irrefutable then I would like to see him on a criminal charge and convicted and sentenced accordingly. If the police have failed to go for a criminal conviction whilst in possession of damning evidence then, in my view, it is the wrong decision.

The fact he's been banned from football grounds for 5 years is a decent enough deterrant to getting involved in violent disorder though. Had he actually assaulted someone who was then pressing charges against him then presumably he'd be up on a charge of ABH / GBH, and then you'd hopefully have your custodial sentence. As it stands, he's been removed from football grounds for 5 years and thats good enough for me.

And to your second point, stop being such a cock for heaven's sake. Football should be passionate, noisy and intense. It seems many on here want to ban swearing, shouting and bantering/insulting opposition fans, if they suceed football will become only a shadow of it's former self.

Football should indeed be passionate, noisy and intense. Where have I ever said otherwise ? There IS a line to be drawn though, namely escalating it to violent disorder. Most of us with an IQ higher than a shirt number know where that line is. If cretins like this bloke need that line drawn for them by the law, then so be it.

 

[Tooting Gull]

Oh and BTW to say that Falmer might become a library because we don't let some hoolie elements in is PATHETIC.

My local library would love it to be as quiet as Withdean. They have to put 'Quiet Please' signs up to curb unruly behaviour. No need at Withers...

 

[Da Man Clay]

If the evidence was irrefutable then I would like to see him on a criminal charge and convicted and sentenced accordingly. If the police have failed to go for a criminal conviction whilst in possession of damning evidence then, in my view, it is the wrong decision.

Probably because the conduct on it's own for each incident wasn't considered serious enough to warrant a Section 5/4 charge for each incident, but all put together were sufficient to show that he was going to football with the intention to cause trouble. That would be my guess anyway.

 

[xenophon]

And it's pretty clear to me that you're talking bollocks. Let's just recap what wellquickwoody actually said:

"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."

So how did wellquickwoody get from removing an unpleasant trouble maker, to Falmer turning into a library, if his inference wasn't that these people are required in order for Falmer to have an atmosphere?

Yeah, it must be "bollocks" because you say so, thanks for adding such reasoned debate to the..er..."debate".

I'll leave you boys to it, I'm off for a shag now

 

[beorhthelm]

It is, that's why he never said it - you and Easy 10 did. We've enough straw men in this thread now to fill Falmer with 22,500 Wurzel Gummidge replicas

Well done all, death to logic and all that

straw man? Ad hominem? logical fallacies? have you been attending internet debating society or somthing. do some more homework:

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.

Oh and BTW to say that Falmer might become a library because we don't let some hoolie elements in is PATHETIC.

clearly he *did* say that about a library. Easy asked a question to clarify wellquickwoody's point. neither of these points are straw men or ad hominen. the start of this post might be a little of the later, but well deserved.

at the risk of getting back to the topic,

... Football should be passionate, noisy and intense. It seems many on here want to ban swearing, shouting and bantering/insulting opposition fans,

i dont think anyone is suggesting that. just drawing a clear line at violence. which is what the banning order is for.

 

[Easy 10]

Probably because the conduct on it's own for each incident wasn't considered serious enough to warrant a Section 5/4 charge for each incident, but all put together were sufficient to show that he was going to football with the intention to cause trouble. That would be my guess anyway.

Sounds plausible.
Where's Edna when you need her ?

 

[DJ Leon]

It is, that's why he never said it - you and Easy 10 did. We've enough straw men in this thread now to fill Falmer with 22,500 Wurzel Gummidge replicas

Well done all, death to logic and all that

Erm....

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.

...so, in other words, if we hand out such punishments to people who have obviously been behaving violently around football there will be a poor atmosphere at Falmer.

That's what he says, no? Please feel free to explain how this absolutely is NOT what he means.

Edit: sorry wouldn't have posted this if I'd read everyone else saying the exact same thing above.

 

[Publius Ovidius]

erm...he pleaded guilty.

end of story surely

 

[Easy 10]

erm...he pleaded guilty.

end of story surely

12 pages later, seemingly not
Gotta love NSC.

 

[beorhthelm]

erm...he pleaded guilty.

end of story surely

you'd have thought. seems theres a few wannabe Danny Dyers who think he's the Saltdean One and this is a travesty of justice. 13 cautions hadnt stopped him so the system went up a gear. will he learn now?

 

[Simster]

That's what he says, no? Please feel free to explain how this absolutely is NOT what he means.

No no no, he's off for a shag - proof if it was needed, that he's too cool and "bovvered" to have to defend to his own gibberish.