5 year ban for violent Seagulls supporter

[Twinkle Toes]

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.

Excuse me for interloping on your post, but it's made me think about the consequences of giving somebody a volley of verbals at the footie. I must confess that I'm certainly not averse to launching into a foul-mouthed tirade at times (c/w rude gesticulations!), so there's always the chance that my actions could possibly get me into trouble. If they did, there's no doubt I would feel that I was being singled out/ being made an example of - but I know that it would make me seriously consider my future M.O. The lad who's copped the 5 year ban here had THIRTEEN occassions where the evidence was strong enough to be submitted to a court, & there were probably countless other times where he didn't 'get caught'. Quite honestly, it really makes me wonder how stupid these characters are sometimes: or is a ban or a stretch worthwhile if it gives them the oft-yearned-for cred in the eyes of like-minded individuals & groups?

 

[southwickseagull]

As i said earlier, well done to the powers that be in sorting this cretin out. Now lets have a few more of those who in to a game, not to watch football, but purely to wind other people up, banned. Those that stop the stewards doing their job, those with the same pathetic chanting at the away fans every game. Those that persist in standing and when asked to sit come out with the same old shit time after time. Warn them then ban them.

 

[Skint Gull]

Well that was an interesting 20 mins read! God knows how Easy and Nibble had the patience to keep having to repeat sense to numbskulls who will never understand the real world, and how if you don't act like a retard you will find that actually, the world is not against you!

13 instances of anything like this, that he has not denied, amounts to acting like a bellend. How anyone can stick up for idiots like this is beyond me....

 

[wellquickwoody]

As i said earlier, well done to the powers that be in sorting this cretin out. Now lets have a few more of those who in to a game, not to watch football, but purely to wind other people up, banned. Those that stop the stewards doing their job, those with the same pathetic chanting at the away fans every game. Those that persist in standing and when asked to sit come out with the same old shit time after time. Warn them then ban them.

I hope you enjoy your library sir.

Lastly I will point out that at no time on this thread have I defended this plonkers actions. I would just like to see the correct course of law followed which should be a criminal conviction, if the evidence proves his guilt, and then the enforcement of a banning order should follow after.

 

[Pot noodles for everyone]

Lastly I will point out that at no time on this thread have I defended this plonkers actions. I would just like to see the correct course of law followed which should be a criminal conviction, if the evidence proves his guilt, and then the enforcement of a banning order should follow after.

No, no, no. You don't understand. You're being a numbskull. One news report is all the evidence that NSC need to make up their minds on the matter. Just follow Easy 10 and you'll be fine.

 

[Spiros]

A caution is effectively a formal warning given to someone who admits that they are guilty of a particular type of offence. In this case it looks as though the guy accepted the caution as a preferable alternative to being tried and/or being fined or locked up, probably because he was bang to rights. To me if 13 counts of threatening behaviour just gets you a caution and a 5 year ban from forking out shedloads of money to watch crap football then it's frankly a let-off. If he's accepted the caution he now has a criminal record (if he didn't already). Also, he can only get a caution if he's admitting the offence. As has been said many times over already, we're better off for not having this 'character' among us for a while

 

[Easy 10]

No, no, no. You don't understand. You're being a numbskull. One news report is all the evidence that NSC need to make up their minds on the matter. Just follow Easy 10 and you'll be fine.

Well, one report mentioning 13 counts of violent disorder, but lets not split hairs eh. I'm sure its all been made up / blown out of all proportion / a fit-up etc, and in reality this character is a lovely chap who buys flowers for his mum, but unfortunately just "oversteps the mark" on one or twelve occasions. We've all done it, course we have. Bastards, picking on him like that.

Would you want to find yourself with a season ticket sat next to him ? Get Helter, Xenophobe and wellquickwoody along, you can have a right old time whipping up the atmosphere. Forget the singing section, lets have the ASBO section instead and get some PROPER atmos going.

Cor, quite good this irony thing isn't it.

 

[Publius Ovidius]

I hope you enjoy your library sir.

Lastly I will point out that at no time on this thread have I defended this plonkers actions. I would just like to see the correct course of law followed which should be a criminal conviction, if the evidence proves his guilt, and then the enforcement of a banning order should follow after.

erm..he pleaded guilty

 

[wellquickwoody]

Well, one report mentioning 13 counts of violent disorder, but lets not split hairs eh. I'm sure its all been made up / blown out of all proportion / a fit-up etc, and in reality this character is a lovely chap who buys flowers for his mum, but unfortunately just "oversteps the mark" on one or twelve occasions. We've all done it, course we have. Bastards, picking on him like that.

Would you want to find yourself with a season ticket sat next to him ? Get Helter, Xenophobe and wellquickwoody along, you can have a right old time whipping up the atmosphere. Forget the singing section, lets have the ASBO section instead and get some PROPER atmos going.

Cor, quite good this irony thing isn't it.

 

[Man of Harveys]

I think unless they include a special hoolies-only section for the usual boring, bloated, ugly, sociopathic, shaven-headed, thick freaks at Falmer, then there's basically no bloody point in building the thing.

 

[Simster]

I think unless they include a special hoolies-only section for the usual boring, bloated, ugly, sociopathic, shaven-headed, thick freaks at Falmer, then there's basically no bloody point in building the thing.

True. Without one of these, the place will be a LIBRARY.

 

[Nibble]

There are three routes for asking the courts to impose a football banning order:

* When the police have evidence that an individual has previously caused or been involved in violence or disorder and continues to pose a threat they can ask a magistrate’s court to impose a football banning order on the basis of an array of evidence (e.g. video recordings gathered at home or abroad, overseas convictions for violence or disorder, police intelligence reports, etc).
* When someone has been convicted of a football related offence (that can be almost any criminal offence connected with football, committed in any location, 24 hours either side of a match), the law requires that the court imposes a banning order if it is satisfied that an order will help to prevent further football-related violence or disorder.
* During a control period – which starts five days before an overseas match or tournament and lasts until the event has finished – the police can intercept and prevent from travelling an individual (not already subject to a banning order) when they have evidence that the person has previously been involved in violence or disorder and grounds for suspecting that the individual continues to pose a risk. Any individual so intercepted must face banning order court proceedings within 24 hours.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

No, no, no. You don't understand. You're being a numbskull. One news report is all the evidence that NSC need to make up their minds on the matter. Just follow Easy 10 and you'll be fine.

I would have thought the Argus reporting that he was found guilty was evidence enough to make your mind up. The court records are a matter of public publication so it's hardly likely they are making it up !

The guy pleaded guilty FFS - if he didn't think he'd done anything wrong then he should have challenged the charge. If he's too stupid to understand that then he's far too stupid to understand the rules of football and so shouldn't be watching football anyway !

 

[Mackenzie]

Forget the singing section, lets have the ASBO section

This is one of the most entertaining threads I have ever read.

Thankyou.

 

[southwickseagull]

Just a thought, i believe Daren Balkham post on here, perhaps if he's allowed, he can sort this out once and for all. Eg how many times this twat has been ejected, what precisely did he do, has he any convictions related to football etc etc.

 

[Easy 10]

I dunno who Daren Balkham is, and I don't think this is the place to reveal specifics on someones personal records tbh.

There's nothing to sort out or clear up anyway, is there.

 

[Pot noodles for everyone]

I would have thought the Argus reporting that he was found guilty was evidence enough to make your mind up. The court records are a matter of public publication so it's hardly likely they are making it up !

The guy pleaded guilty FFS - if he didn't think he'd done anything wrong then he should have challenged the charge. If he's too stupid to understand that then he's far too stupid to understand the rules of football and so shouldn't be watching football anyway !

I never said they were making it up. FFS back at you. Despite (or because of) the way it's been reported we've had all sorts of conjecture as to whether it's a criminal/civil case. And for the last time, I'm not defending his actions.

Can I please point you back to Xenophon's excellent post where he had this absolutely nailed:

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

Suggest that before you lot start accusing me et al of defending this thug that you look up the definitions of ad hominem, straw man argument, association fallacies and the like.

 

[London Pompous]

I find it hard to believe that a proper nawty boy would have a record of sending letters to the ARGUS about UFO's in Saltdean....

http://www.theargus.co.uk/yourargus/letters/2324250.UFOs_identified_as_paper_bags/

 

[Man of Harveys]

I find it hard to believe that a proper nawty boy would have a record of sending letters to the ARGUS about UFO's in Saltdean....

http://www.theargus.co.uk/yourargus/letters/2324250.UFOs_identified_as_paper_bags/

He drinks in the Spanish Lady? Guilty as SIN.

 

[LA1972]

I was looking forward to Falmer untill I realised that most of you knobs will be there - f***ing hell some of you just need to get the last word dont you....Im gonna be reading this thread till christmas