First So called Brighton hooligans freed

[Buzzer]

I've got to say I agree with the original poster that the blokes who got sent down were, for the most part, extremely hard done by. For a few it was their first offence and if there wasn't the connection with football the majority would probably have had nothing worse than an affray charge at the magistrate's court. I look at it almost as a victimless crime. These people weren't affecting the rest of us who aren't into football violence, they didn't threaten anyone else and it was well away from where anyone else could get hurt. Please don't say passers by would have got hurt because it was clear that they just wanted to hurt each other. If it hadn't been for someone filming it from a bedroom window then none of us would have known or cared about it.

This nonsensical sentencing does affect us all as football fans. Sent to prison for throwing a few punches (yes, I've seen the video of the fight and it really was just that). By all means ban them from football but what good does sending them to prison do and what justification for such a harsh sentence when you bear in mind what point sending them to prison would do, the cost of sending them to prison and the sentences that far more serious crimes seem to attract.

 

[Questions]

Should they then be entitled to free health care when they have to go to hospital afterwards?

What ? You think they actually ever throw any punches of note.

 

[Buzzer]

Should they then be entitled to free health care when they have to go to hospital afterwards?

If you accept that boxers are allowed or those engaged in S&M or self-harming then yes, they clearly should.

 

[Simster]

if two parties are up for a "tear up" - let them have it - it's really no one elses business. many on here think its ok to watch boxing and bomb afghanistan but a punch up in a street is outrageous.

it's no-one elses business - if they are into it and decide to have a ding-doo, then that's up to them - they are adults. realbha raises decent points.

The fact that it is no-one elses business is not a good enough reason on its own to allow them to carry on. Firstly, there is this to consider:

Should they then be entitled to free health care when they have to go to hospital afterwards?

What about people who want to have sex or take drugs in a children's playground? Should they be allowed to carry on because it is nobody elses business?

 

[Questions]

The fact that it is no-one elses business is not a good enough reason on its own to allow them to carry on. Firstly, there is this to consider:



What about people who want to have sex or take drugs in a children's playground? Should they be allowed to carry on because it is nobody elses business?

Strangely enough I have done both of those acts in those places, but I must add I was young and it was late at night.
And only a spiff mind you.

 

[Simster]

If you accept that boxers are allowed or those engaged in S&M or self-harming then yes, they clearly should.

Boxing is done in a controlled environment and the argument there is that those people boxing are indulging in exercise and are suitably supervised and protected. And self harming is an illness isn't it? It's a bit tenuous to compare either of those to an organised street brawl, IMO.

 

[Questions]

If you accept that boxers are allowed or those engaged in S&M or self-harming then yes, they clearly should.

I don,t think people who stick hamsters up their arse should get help on the NHS.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

if two parties are up for a "tear up" - let them have it - it's really no one elses business. many on here think its ok to watch boxing and bomb afghanistan but a punch up in a street is outrageous.

it's no-one elses business - if they are into it and decide to have a ding-doo, then that's up to them - they are adults. realbha raises decent points.

I'm surprised at you for this post - baring when you just post a You Tube video you do normally put some thought into your arguments ( even if I don't agree with them ).

You seriously think it's OK for grown men ( and I mean physically not mentally ) to beat the shit out of each other because "it's their business" ?? Why not take it to the logical conclusion and say it's OK to have a duel to the death ? After all, it's their business. What about the innocent bystanders ? Or the example it sets young children ?

I've seen some moronic posts on here but yours in definitely in the top ten. Obviously I'm excluding any posts by [MENTION=13933]realbha[/MENTION] as he appears rather dim and it's not kind to poke fun at a retard. He's far from the "realbha" anyway - a disgrace to the club.

 

[Buzzer]

Should anyone involved in a scrap have healthcare then?

The Royal Sussex would be a lonely place at weekends if you're suggesting that.

Edit - the point of boxing is to harm your opponent more than he harms you. It may be controlled, it may also provide exercise but the point is it is deliberate violence. I think that's irrefutable.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

I don,t think people who stick hamsters up their arse should get help on the NHS.

Where do we stand on free veterinary care for the hamsters?

 

[Westdene Seagull]

If you accept that boxers are allowed or those engaged in S&M or self-harming then yes, they clearly should.

I'd be very surprised if most boxers / clubs didn't use private services to an extent, as far as I'm aware there is rarely a queue at A&E of people with S&M injuries and self-harming is a mental illness that should be treated not ignored.

 

[Commander]

Oh come on I was just playing Devil's advocate.

The sentences were overly harsh, definitely. And it does worry me that you could be attacked by some opposition fans and then end up going to prision for fighting back. That cant be right.

Although I have seen the video and it contains some of the worst 'fighting' I've ever seen. We used to have better scraps than that at school.

 

[Simster]

Should anyone involved in a scrap have healthcare then?

The Royal Sussex would be a lonely place at weekends if you're suggesting that.

Edit - the point of boxing is to harm your opponent more than he harms you. It may be controlled, it may also provide exercise but the point is it is deliberate violence. I think that's irrefutable.

Yes they should have healthcare because everyone is entitled to their health. However, grown adults brawling in the street are hardly a good use of this resource, in the same way as one might get f***ed off with twats who ignore professional advice and choose to go first time camping up mountains whilst poorly equipped and in appalling weather. Plenty of people have muttered how such types should be sent the bill for the air rescue helicopter.

Lets flip this argument on it's head. The default position of most grown ups is that a street brawl is beneath them, utterly pointless, and somebody could end up seriously injured. What is your argument that they should be entitled to just get on with it, in whatever location they see fit?

Incidentally I'm not commenting on the case in hand, as I simply know nothing about it.

 

[Buzzer]

I'd be very surprised if most boxers / clubs didn't use private services to an extent, as far as I'm aware there is rarely a queue at A&E of people with S&M injuries and self-harming is a mental illness that should be treated not ignored.

Oh come on. You'll have to do better than that. Should any boxers be allowed NHS care? Almost all boxers have received some NHS care at some point in their careers.

And just because there might not be a queue of people hurt through S&M games does not justify why they should be treated. Are you suggesting that injuries sustained through hooliganism is clogging up our waiting rooms?

 

[HawkTheSeagull]

Ever thought that the sentences might of been a deterrent to prevent it happening again ? Look at it with the riots - people convicted in that got very strong sentences to act as a deterrent.

Violence doesnt have a place in football, so if your a bunch of "fans" meeting opposition "fans" for a fight - then i hope they all get punished. Similarly (seeing as its the only example) with the Crawley and Bradford players - they should also get punished. Its 2012 - not 1978, some people really need to look at themselves if they think meeting up for fights is football - no wonder why some people think a lot of football fans are "thugs".

Boxers have private healthcare by the way, generally as its a hell of a lot quicker to be seen.

 

[Buzzer]

If they attack innocent people or smash up the stadium then throw the book at them but if like-minded people want to go off somewhere and beat the crap out of each other then, really, what's the problem?

 

[Titanic]

If they attack innocent people or smash up the stadium then throw the book at them but if like-minded people want to go off somewhere and beat the crap out of each other then, really, what's the problem?

Can't they do it on the pitch, as pre-match entertainment?

 

[HawkTheSeagull]

Can't they do it on the pitch, as pre-match entertainment?

I can imagine Richie Renyolds saying "And that was the fabulous GULLYS GIRLS, and now welcome to the pitch THE BRIGHTON VILLAGE IDIOTS !!!!"

Could work

 

[KZNSeagull]

Perhaps the Amex should be the first stadium to introduce a "safe fighting" zone?

Some sort of cage in the Car Park would suffice with bats, rocks, plastic chairs etc provided. Would have to be big enough for them to run backwards and forwards so may take up quite a lot of space, but it is a community stadium after all. Controlled hooliganism - is it the future?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

If they attack innocent people or smash up the stadium then throw the book at them but if like-minded people want to go off somewhere and beat the crap out of each other then, really, what's the problem?

If they went to some remote field where nobody else can be involved, then I would agree with you but they choose built up residential areas like Elm Grove and Poets Corner to name just two locations in the last few years. There could be innocent passers by caught up in their 'fun'.