Scumbag [racist Charlton] fans

[daveinprague]

oh you mean 'stereotypes'...I see.
I guess it will deflect away the offensive behaviour of these drunk, aggressive hooligans.

 

[Creaky]

No , we really , really aren't.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...drinking-walk-free-after-attack-on-woman.html


****stands by for mealy mouthed defence of ridiculously lenient sentencing****

You won't get one from me!!!!!!

They should have received jail sentences IMO, albeit I wasn't in court to hear all the evidence.

There are numerous examples of judges "getting it wrong" in the court of public opinion covering all sorts of people and all sorts of offences.

 

[dougdeep]

It'll put a message out to others. Sometimes you have to make an example of these people.

 

[Arthur]

To be fair, I shouldn't have accused bushy of defending them. But it felt more sympathetic than angry which surprises me. Do you care that they've been so harshly dealt with or are you suggesting that other crimes should have a more sever punishment?

Anyone singing that sort of shit is a pretty low human being as far as I'm concerned. I actually agree that the sentence is disproportionate compared with many others you read about. But to be honest, I couldn't give a rats arse what happens to them. It's not the harmless singing that really bothers me. It's knowing what they must be like. Horrible people who don't care about anyone else.

Yes I care!

I expect every single one of those lads would have already been massively punished both mentally and financially over the last near on two years (they were nicked in Jan 2012). My guess is they would have been on conditional bail restricting their movements and certainly not letting them anywhere near a game of football. Now they've got between 8 and 18 months worth of bird to do. I expect all of them will lose their jobs making them not allot less employable after their term instantly making them a burden on the state. Good chance they'll lose their home(s) so once again most likely to become a burden on the state. Whack on top of that the cost of keeping them inside (on average roughly £30k - £45k per prisoner per year) and the whole thing has cost and will continue to cost the tax payer a considerable amount of money.

All for singing a song!?!

I don't know any of them and they may be scumbags as you say and perhaps I shouldn't care what happens to them but on the flip side they might be stand up blokes who acted like pricks whilst on a day out at football. I'm more than happy to admit I've done some daft things over the years that in the cold light of a sober day I regret. I've not once thought that I deserve imprisonment/losing my job/losing my house/any of the above for though.

But in those cases were there others in close proximity, unable to move away as in being on a train, that felt "intimidated and feared there was a real and significant risk of violence"

Oh come off it. That is just rubbish the CPS/Police tack on to sensationalise things. You could claim that with any group of football fans on public transport even if it was good natured singing. Even if you take away the football element you could claim similar on any public transport in London.

 

[happypig]

I'm not saying these tools shouldn't have been punished for their behaviour. But frightening people, or putting them in fear of imminent violence is not, in my opinion, worthy of a year or so in prison. Had they actually attacked someone then fair enough. But from what I've read, they were not about to attack anyone - they were just being a bunch of obnoxious twunts. Unpleasant, yes. Unneccessary, yes.

But worth being sent down for ?

I cannot help thinking that the sentence is somewhat disproportionate. It's almost as if they got a harsher sentence for "putting people in fear of violence" than they would have for actually assaulting them.
In many cases, prison is often seen as a "proper" punishment, whereas 300 hours of unpaid work is seen as "walked free from court" when it can be far more onerous and, arguably, far more effective.

 

[fataddick]

It'll put a message out to others. Sometimes you have to make an example of these people.

Exactly this. There is a huge rise in open racism in this country at present, as demonstrated by all the new neo-Nazi groups that have popped up in the past few years, a lot of it revolving around football. 'Harsh' sentencing may have a deterrent effect on others, something very much needed where such racism is concerned. Also this case has taken nearly two years to come to court, so it's hardly a kneejerk reaction, but one based on a well built up case, involving dozens of witness statements, etc. Each case is taken on its own merit, and if the "they wouldn't have been jailed if they'd been ethnic, they'd have all been given free council houses, quack quack quack" divwits on here can't see that, can I ask them a question - how long a custodial sentence did that woman who was filmed on a racist rant on a Croydon tram end up getting? Answer: None, she was given community service. As I say, every case is judged on its own merits, and the length of these pillocks' sentences merely illustrates quite how vile their behaviour must have been. And the person who suggested it might just have been an one-off must live on Planet Loopyfruit - the sort of people who would even know a Stephen Lawrence chant don't strike me as the sort of people who would only sing it once.

 

[Philzo-93]

Scum of the earth that aren't real Charlton supporters! Always enjoy chatting to Addick fans whenever we play them home or away and they have been very supportive in our recent history and vice versa.

Rot in hell.

These people do not deserve to be apart of such a well respected club.

 

[Ernest]

Football fans have been singing offensive songs since the year dot, 18 months clink for it is excessive

 

[Creaky]

Yes I care!

I expect every single one of those lads would have already been massively punished both mentally and financially over the last near on two years (they were nicked in Jan 2012). My guess is they would have been on conditional bail restricting their movements and certainly not letting them anywhere near a game of football. Now they've got between 8 and 18 months worth of bird to do. I expect all of them will lose their jobs making them not allot less employable after their term instantly making them a burden on the state. Good chance they'll lose their home(s) so once again most likely to become a burden on the state. Whack on top of that the cost of keeping them inside (on average roughly £30k - £45k per prisoner per year) and the whole thing has cost and will continue to cost the tax payer a considerable amount of money.

All for singing a song!?!

I don't know any of them and they may be scumbags as you say and perhaps I shouldn't care what happens to them but on the flip side they might be stand up blokes who acted like pricks whilst on a day out at football. I'm more than happy to admit I've done some daft things over the years that in the cold light of a sober day I regret. I've not once thought that I deserve imprisonment/losing my job/losing my house/any of the above for though.



Oh come off it. That is just rubbish the CPS/Police tack on to sensationalise things. You could claim that with any group of football fans on public transport even if it was good natured singing. Even if you take away the football element you could claim similar on any public transport in London.

It wasn't the police that claimed that they "felt intimidated and feared there was a real and significant risk of violence" - it was numerous witnesses who stood up in court and swore an oath to tell the truth that claimed that - were they all perjurers?

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

If we sing the "Peter Sutcliffe" song at Donny on Saturday we could also be nicked for aggravated racism and perceived fear of violence.

 

[Arthur]

It wasn't the police that claimed that they "felt intimidated and feared there was a real and significant risk of violence" - it was numerous witnesses who stood up in court and swore an oath to tell the truth that claimed that - were they all perjurers?

I'm not saying that at all and you know it. If you get a group a bloke of blokes together regardless of what they are doing there is a good chance someone will feel intimidated by them. Certainly intimidated enough not to saying anything to them if they start acting like berks which in this instance they most certainly did. It's very easy to then suggest that had you have said something that there might have been a risk of violence.

 

[Creaky]

I'm not saying that at all and you know it. If you get a group a bloke of blokes together regardless of what they are doing there is a good chance someone will feel intimidated by them. Certainly intimidated enough not to saying anything to them if they start acting like berks which in this instance they most certainly did. It's very easy to then suggest that had you have said something that there might have been a risk of violence.

Yes the witnesses said they felt intimidated and yes they said they thought there was a real risk of violence - nothing I can find in the reports to suggest that fear depended on them saying anything.

The seven were charged with and found guilty of causing a racially aggravated fear of violence. A Public Order offence aggravated by a racial element as defined by the Crime and Disorder Act.

The prosecution had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt three elements to achieve a guilty verdict - First that the accused's behaviour did cause a real fear of violence, secondly that this fear was reasonable and thirdly that the defendant's behaviour was racially motivated. A jury heard all the evidence and felt these three points had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt - I'll go along with their decision because they heard all the evidence.

 

[cjd]

The poppy burners were arrested.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nding-public-order-Armistice-Day-protest.html

It seems one of those (Emdadur Choudhury) was found guilty of burning the poppy and chanting hate slogans..................................and received a fine of £50.00.

Is that correct...?

 

[daveinprague]

That is correct..for the burning of the poppies.

 

[Seagull1989]

Not that im defending these guys at all because what they were singing was disgusting! But then you need to look at how Leeds fans glorify the death of the Man Utd Munich air crash and how other fans glorify the death of Leeds fans getting stabbed in Turkey..

how is that any different?

 

[WhingForPresident]

It seems one of those (Emdadur Choudhury) was found guilty of burning the poppy and chanting hate slogans..................................and received a fine of £50.00.

Is that correct...?

Point proven.

 

[Creaky]

Point proven.

What point

 

[cjd]

That is correct..for the burning of the poppies.

Oh..OK.

He chanted ..."British Soldiers burn in hell" during the two minute silence on Remembrance day, and was convicted of actions......" likely to cause harrassment, harm and distress".

A £50.00 fine....hmmmmmmm.

Note; I understand the fine was low as he lived on benefits.

 

[Arthur]

Yes the witnesses said they felt intimidated and yes they said they thought there was a real risk of violence - nothing I can find in the reports to suggest that fear depended on them saying anything.

The seven were charged with and found guilty of causing a racially aggravated fear of violence. A Public Order offence aggravated by a racial element as defined by the Crime and Disorder Act.

The prosecution had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt three elements to achieve a guilty verdict - First that the accused's behaviour did cause a real fear of violence, secondly that this fear was reasonable and thirdly that the defendant's behaviour was racially motivated. A jury heard all the evidence and felt these three points had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt - I'll go along with their decision because they heard all the evidence.

I agree. Doesn't detract away from the fact that it is fluff from the police/CPS to sensationalise things to make it sound good for the papers which was my original point.

 

[WhingForPresident]

What point

Only white people are persecuted for racism.