Argus carrying the story of the first fan to be banned from the Amex

[sydney]

Okay, I feel better now I have torn apart a baby child and eaten it.
Most stewards devour at least 3 in a match weekend

that's a tadd strange even to me old boy.

 

[NMH]

c'mon he did say something like "could have been kicking off with the stewards.." I think the point he was making was none of us were there so what did happen? I think there has been a 99% reduction in the anti steward threads since we moved, apart from teathing probs I've found the stewards to be helpful and low profile (if that's not a contridiction)in the East

Yes, I believe you are right.
That he suggested "it might etc" was neither necessary nor indicated in the story, and of course he might have kicked off with the stewards too which is more likely since he wisely held his hands up and claimed guilt. No doubt the stewarding process performed as was required and a drunken misbehaving person was prevented from contaminating the otherwise excellent fanbase inside the stadium - which might have lead to aggression or discomfort for you the good fan of The Albion.

Don't forget that many stewards are also fans of BHA and have a personal responsibility to assess and act on all our behalf - thus not getting the club fined, fans distracted or hurt, and people feeling comfortable to return with their families and indulge themselves with the beautiful game.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Some of you people take the f***ing biscuit.

"Limited info" you say??
He responded with "no excuses I am guilty" yet you try to look for some 'grey area' where it's unfair and possibly down to steward maltreatment.


If some loser gets in and twats you, you'd be FIRST to whinge that it was a poor show that they were let in bladdered to the gills and being aggressive.
What if someone reads between your lines and believes you must have been a part of the problem, eh?

As an ex-steward myself I find your post somewhat over the top !!!! The thread was only discussing the ban not suggesting it wasn't valid. Indeed you know as little as everyone else on this particular case.

 

[bhadeb]

Very difficult to comment with that limited info.

Could have been kicking off with stewards etc, or might have been unfairly treated. Significant ban so likely to be former and may also have form, rather than first offence!

Who knows!

Kicking off at a steward is a 3 months ban - foul and abusive language is a 3 match ban - getting drunk at a pub and not even being at the ground is 3 year ban!! Someone please explain the logic it that!

 

[NMH]

Kicking off at a steward is a 3 months ban - foul and abusive language is a 3 match ban - getting drunk at a pub and not even being at the ground is 3 year ban!! Someone please explain the logic it that!

There's not much logic in that, and anyone would have difficulty finding any.
But what's it got to do with this thread, can you explain?

 

[chimneys]

Some of you people take the f***ing biscuit.

"Limited info" you say??
He responded with "no excuses I am guilty" yet you try to look for some 'grey area' where it's unfair and possibly down to steward maltreatment.


If some loser gets in and twats you, you'd be FIRST to whinge that it was a poor show that they were let in bladdered to the gills and being aggressive.
What if someone reads between your lines and believes you must have been a part of the problem, eh?

You have responded like an absolute bell end NMH!

If you bothered to read what I actually said, rather than try to interpret to your own ends, I was actually trying to prevent conspiracy theories! The OP was looking for comments on what the Argus said and I responded with impossible to comment on with such limited info. The "Who knows!" at the end summed my thoughts up.

Suggest you get over your very wide of the mark and way OTT anger and move on!

 

[NMH]

As an ex-steward myself I find your post somewhat over the top !!!! The thread was only discussing the ban not suggesting it wasn't valid. Indeed you know as little as everyone else on this particular case.

No, it's not to do with suggesting it's not valid, that's been up to someone else's judgment, and agreed with by the banned guy himself.
I take exception that anyone has suggested that "..kicked off with stewards/he might have been unfairly treated" etc when the bloke has admitted guilt!! Do you see how there is enough information there, and not "limited info" that could cause anyone to look for "unfair treatment".
Every case is not a case of stewards over-zealously going wild on fans and being excessive - if you were a steward then you know that.
There's no REASON to look for a grey area, guy was loaded, did enough to get himself banned, and beyond being simply found guilty - he admits it in an interview.
Isn't that good enough for anyone reading his case? Does there have to be a 'hidden story he's not really telling'?

He should have stayed in the pub and not come to the ground all effed up on alcohol, and I would imagine he might reflect on that as a fact if he's gained anything from the experience.

And fair play to him really, for holding his hand up and confessing his guilt. He may well reform his activity and demeanor for future games once he's allowed back - admission is a big step forward.

 

[bhadeb]

There's not much logic in that, and anyone would have difficulty finding any.
But what's it got to do with this thread, can you explain?

I was saying about the bans that the club have given to fans - some that weren't even at the ground

 

[NMH]

I was saying about the bans that the club have given to fans - some that weren't even at the ground

Really? That sounds odd, what's that about? Was there associated behavior in the pub that led to their bans?

 

[bhadeb]

Really? That sounds odd, what's that about? Was there associated behavior in the pub that led to their bans?

Someone that didn't even get to the match who was pissed was arrested and fined £80.00. the police then contact the club and the club ban the person for 3 years!! they were nowhere near the Amex.

 

[NMH]

You have responded like an absolute bell end NMH!

If you bothered to read what I actually said, rather than try to interpret to your own ends, I was actually trying to prevent conspiracy theories! The OP was looking for comments on what the Argus said and I responded with impossible to comment on with such limited info. The "Who knows!" at the end summed my thoughts up.

Suggest you get over your very wide of the mark and way OTT anger and move on!

I CAN read English mush, and the OP did NOT "look for comments", they stated without any additional injection. Only you placed any doubts about a done-and-dusted case where the actual party ADMITTED GUILT.

Just read your own typing will you? If you can't, then I guess that explains why you are talking more shite now.

 

[Beach Hut]

I CAN read English mush, and the OP did NOT "look for comments", they stated without any additional injection. Only you placed any doubts about a done-and-dusted case where the actual party ADMITTED GUILT.

Just read your own typing will you? If you can't, then I guess that explains why you are talking more shite now.

Is there any chance of you f***ing off to work and giving us all a rest ?

 

[Acker79]

I CAN read English mush, and the OP did NOT "look for comments",

Why else was it posted on here? Was clippedgull advertising the argus?

 

[Gus is god]

Someone that didn't even get to the match who was pissed was arrested and fined £80.00. the police then contact the club and the club ban the person for 3 years!! they were nowhere near the Amex.

really any prove on this or just gossip?

 

[bhadeb]

really any prove on this or just gossip?

It's true! Someone that a friend knows

 

[timbha]

another ban coming up after today

 

[looney]

Yes ofcourse it does, but you dont get banned from a football ground and charge just for being drunk, you have to be either not able to look after yourself, or causing disorderly conduct, the club are more than right to ban a drunk man from entering i seen in happen in pubs/clubs so why not football grounds?

Wrong.

 

[NMH]

Is there any chance of you f***ing off to work and giving us all a rest ?

You can f*** off and take a rest, you have my permission.

 

[NMH]

Why else was it posted on here? Was clippedgull advertising the argus?

Are you also having trouble with normal thinking?
The thread was started with a post that was matter-of-fact, and certainly didn't suggest some ethereal up-in-the-air hanging doubts about whether or not the person was enticed by, or was further worked up by anyone else. He claimed his guilt.
IF the verdict was "Guilty" and he hadn't commented - we could intimate that perhaps he might have been unfairly treated. But HE said he WAS guilty, so he wasn't unfairly treated.

There was no need for conjecture surrounding his activity, nor doubt about whether he should have been punished.
Have you got it now?

 

[Beach Hut]

Have you got it now?

Yes we have, little dick is back from massaging his ego