[News] Albion fan given banning order.

[Thunder Bolt]

Banned from one ground after incident in the stadium hardly comparable

Banned from from one ground after incident in the stadium hardly comparable.

Banned from one ground after incident in the stadium hardly comparable.

Plus rugby league fans are probably viewed on the same level as football supporters. Well done for knowing how to use google though.

Good use of the word probably.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Good use of the word probably.

Thanks .. can you provide any links of rugby League/Union fans receiving similar treatment from our judicial system?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Thanks .. can you provide any links of rugby League/Union fans receiving similar treatment from our judicial system?

The examples I gave were harsher ie, life bans not three year bans.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

The examples I gave were harsher ie, life bans not three year bans.

The answer is no then. Yes being banned from one ground by a private business is a lot worse than the state telling you where you can and can't go in numerous locations at specific times across the country on pain of further punishment/imprisonment ...

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

A prick for throwing a pint over someone, but this seems very excessive for a first offence. Don’t give a toss about the crack.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

He sounds LOVELY

 

[Weststander]

Clearly known to the police if they identified him that quickly, throwing a pint is a bit pathetic and carrying crack cocaine to the football is pretty ridiculous. I doubt many will miss this bloke's presence.

Frees up his seat for a decent fan.

 

[Pantani]

Fact is this is a classic case of a football fan being treated differently from a standard citizen. Chucking a pint on someone is not even an offence in any other walk of of life. Told to **** off by bouncers? Yes. Asked to leaver the premises? Yes. Police and courts involved in any way? No.

Is Mr Taylor a dick? Almost certainly. Was he carrying crack? I very much doubt it. Are we better without this guy at the Amex? Probably. But none of this matters, a first conviction regardless of what the police suspect, is a first conviction. This stinks in my opinion, and the bed wetters on here who think otherwise want to hope they are never in the wrong place at the wrong time needing to defend themselves.

 

[Wrong-Direction]

Quite a few people need banning from when we got promoted..

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

 

[Emperor Tomato Ketchup]

Interesting discriptions on here from people that don’t know him and have never met him

 

[Don Tmatter]

Interesting discriptions on here from people that don’t know him and have never met him

Do you?

 

[drew]

Interesting discriptions on here from people that don’t know him and have never met him

Character witness for the defence by any chance then?

 

[Emperor Tomato Ketchup]

Do you?

Of course, otherwise I wouldn’t have been in a position to make that comment

 

[maffew]

Of course, otherwise I wouldn’t have been in a position to make that comment

Pringle time

So he's a nice upstanding decent bloke yeah who bleeds blue and white? Sounds like it. I do think the punishment is way OTT by the way

 

[Emperor Tomato Ketchup]

Character witness for the defence by any chance then?

I’d speak up for his character in court although I couldn’t discuss the incident in question as, along with those that have posted on here, I wasn’t there.

 

[Emperor Tomato Ketchup]

Pringle time

So he's a nice upstanding decent bloke yeah who bleeds blue and white? Sounds like it. I do think the punishment is way OTT by the way

I applaud your efforts to turn it into “Pringle time” but alas, no one is quoted as saying the statement you’ve typed and I certainly won’t be defending him on here.

 

[studio150]

If people reading this article or about it on here about this part of the case don't find this sort of justice disturbing, or an eye opener to the questionable sort of practices used in regard to Policing and our Courts in this Country, and which demonstrates how the Justice system as it stands is extremely flawed against individuals with little or no way to challenge this non evidence which is used to inflate sentences, then i despair. Why is it even allowed in our Courts?

The individual in this case here shows no convictions, there is no evidence offered to show that the defendant was in any way actually involved in any of that disorder being referred to, but is being judged guilty by the justice system as the coincidence of being in an area is being deemed enough to be able to be used to judge character and behaviour (wrongly imo) to help ensure a harsher sentence, and the general public seem to be accepting this.

it's like saying that you were in Marseilles during the Russian football violence, but not involved in any of the fighting, they can claim that you were present in the area (be it at the opposite end of the stadium from the trouble, or away from the street battles that occurred but by simply being near enough to the troubles in their eyes,) it's unfairly determined that it can be used as evidence in your sentencing even though ts completely unrelated to that incident and it has no bearing on the case or proof that your character is one of violence or disorder, but it appears association (like this example of Marseilles) would be enough to seemingly find someone guilty of a behaviour that they didn't commit in this information presented post verdict but prior to sentencing.

People wrongly trust and accept the Justice system we have and presume everything is moral and based on proper justice for all parties involved and not to try to influence sentences by using flimsy evidence which hasn't been scrutinized or cross examined by the defence or allowed to be challenged and potentially thrown out

And some people always believe that the Police stitch people up, and everyone in Court is innocent regardless of the evidence presented.

 

[Hampster Gull]

I applaud your efforts to turn it into “Pringle time” but alas, no one is quoted as saying the statement you’ve typed and I certainly won’t be defending him on here.

So you prefer a banal comment then. Perfect for NSC

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I’d speak up for his character in court although I couldn’t discuss the incident in question as, along with those that have posted on here, I wasn’t there.

Join date Oct 2017. Welcome to North Stand Chat. As you are the character witness for the subject of the thread, it would be useful to know from you what part of NSC's collective (albeit majority but not unanimous) impression of your mate we've got wrong (nowithstanding the fact that you were not there and therefore presumably got your information from the horse's mouth). For example, assuming the bare facts are correct (the flying beer, the previous appearances on police officers' notebooks - but not charged - and the charlie), what are the mitigating circumstances (and I accept there may be some - we can all go through dark times and lose control and judgment)? It would be a pity if somone is mocked and vilified unfairly, and it would seem that you hold the key information. Care to share?

 

[Emperor Tomato Ketchup]

So you prefer a banal comment then. Perfect for NSC

No but I am impressed that so many people have got an insight into an event they never saw perpetrated by someone thery’ve never met simply on the basis of a link to an online publication that employs the services of a regular poster on here that is often slagged off on here for talking and typing bollocks