[News] Albion fan given banning order.

[Seasidesage]

Justice was served. The conviction was based on the facts and considered judgement on other circumstances brought to the court's notice. Beyond reasonable doubt.

You reckon there's been a miscarriage. Relax then, as an appeal will overturn the conviction.

Firstly, I don't think there was a miscarriage at all. I'm just uncomfortable with the Police overegging the pudding with supposition. Appeals need new evidence by the way. Not sure that is very likely when its a case of throwing a pint over someone.. If however, you are happy to be guilty of something by association lets hope it doesn't happen to you eh?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

You keep on trusting[/I]. Tooth fairy and father Christmas will be along soon. It's not evidence to say joe blogs was in the same street as some trouble and therefore he must be involved. If it is I expect to be arrested any day as I've have seen a fair bit of trouble following the Albion for the last 35 years. The issue is nothing to do with this bloke, its about justice. I fail to see how you cannot see that? If I was a Police officer I would be uncomfortable with this let alone as a member of the public. Throwing a pint and having the drugs was enough to be banned why the need to add such supposition?

Er, no [MENTION=5208]drew[/MENTION]'s point was it is you that is trusting (that the information in the paper that you infer means that the case was decided on here-say is correct). In fact all we have to go on is the existenc of the conviction and the sentence (these being facts). As noted yesterday, perhaps the man himself will directly or via his many mates on NSC, provide us with the missing facts, explaining what factors contributed to the sentence and whether or not he thinks it is fair. So far this information has not been forthcoming.

Considering that someone I know got put in jail and lost his job, just for sitting in a pub and sending 'football-related' text messages, frankly I don't understand why some people posting on this thread are up in arms about what they apparently see as a heinous miscarriage of justice.

One person has actually posted 'it is not as if he glassed someone'. Forgive me for my bemusement but I hadn't realised a 3 year banning order was the standard penalty for glassing someone these days. With sentences that lenient I can only assume that Western Road is a river of blood every Saturday night.

 

[drew]

Brain engaged and it would appear you sir are a prize nob! Brain disengaged.

The point was made in earlier posts. It is highly unlikely that the evidence presented was on the basis of this bloke being in the area of where trouble occurred but that he was actually involved. I'm sure you can get your brain around that.

There are still some that hanker for the old days where going to football was a piss up and a good ruck and the football was purely incidental. Maybe that's the angle you are coming from!

 

[Seasidesage]

Yet another its not right that someone has been convicted because the Police were influencing the Court.

The person who has received the banning order:

Poured at pint over a Southampton fan - FACT
He was in possession of banned drugs - FACT

The police then presented further detail to the Court for the bench to consider.

No doubt (although not reported in the news article) that detail was presented to the Court regarding what an upstanding member of the community this person was and his actions on that day were out of character., which the bench then considered.

It would seem that you only want such detail to be one way, and the Police can not provide further detail towards the background of the accused but that only the good character of the accused can be put forward.

Take away the football issue, then the actions on the day would still have resulted in a Court appearance.

Why do people like you bother replying when you are too lazy to read what is written? I never said the bloke was innocent, this isn't my mate I don't know him. He clearly threw a pint over someone and had drugs. Fact as you put it. What I object to is the Police adding in evidence that he had been associating with hooligans and had been in the vicinity of trouble without having the proof of an conviction. What does that mean or prove? It is an opinion not a fact. I've been in the vicinity of trouble in the past, I've been going for 35 years it used to be hard to avoid, pretty much anyone my age will have been. Does that make me a hooligan? Apparently so in the eyes of the Police. Be careful who you say hello to or where you walk in the future as you are taking a risk.

Why it seems to be so difficult to separate the two issues for you is beyond me.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Hearsay is someone else saying the bloke was around trouble in the past ie a third party. That isn't admissable in court.
The police are saying he was around trouble in the past, although not actually convicted of any offence.

There is a difference. For instance, I could say I saw [MENTION=5208]drew[/MENTION] near an altercation. Apart from the fact that I would be lying, it would be hearsay. The police would have seen this bloke themselves in previous trouble.

 

[Seasidesage]

Er, no [MENTION=5208]drew[/MENTION]'s point was it is you that is trusting (that the information in the paper that you infer means that the case was decided on here-say is correct). In fact all we have to go on is the existenc of the conviction and the sentence (these being facts). As noted yesterday, perhaps the man himself will directly or via his many mates on NSC, provide us with the missing facts, explaining what factors contributed to the sentence and whether or not he thinks it is fair. So far this information has not been forthcoming.

Considering that someone I know got put in jail and lost his job, just for sitting in a pub and sending 'football-related' text messages, frankly I don't understand why some people posting on this thread are up in arms about what they apparently see as a heinous miscarriage of justice.

One person has actually posted 'it is not as if he glassed someone'. Forgive me for my bemusement but I hadn't realised a 3 year banning order was the standard penalty for glassing someone these days. With sentences that lenient I can only assume that Western Road is a river of blood every Saturday night.

Drew's main point seemed to be that I was anti Police It is true I do not know the exact details of this case. However, FSF has many examples of the police banning people for association rather than actions at clubs across the country. I don't think this can be described as justice. If you throw a pint over someone I don't think you can expect anything other than a ban. However, I don't think it is right than accusations of being in the vicinity of trouble or knowing people who cause it is right. There are a lot of cases of that happening previously and by the looks of things in this case. If you cannot prove it you shouldn't be saying it in court and it certainly wouldn't admissible in a fraud case or some such would it?

 

[Seasidesage]

The point was made in earlier posts. It is highly unlikely that the evidence presented was on the basis of this bloke being in the area of where trouble occurred but that he was actually involved. I'm sure you can get your brain around that.

There are still some that hanker for the old days where going to football was a piss up and a good ruck and the football was purely incidental. Maybe that's the angle you are coming from!

As I understand it that was exactly how the evidence was presented. After all, they didn't manage to secure a conviction did they? Firstly, you accuse me of being anti police and now I am a hooligan. Burnt any books lately? Why does the level of evidence required for a case involving football appear to be less than that for any other criminal trial?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

As I understand it that was exactly how the evidence was presented. After all, they didn't manage to secure a conviction did they? Firstly, you accuse me of being anti police and now I am a hooligan. Burnt any books lately? Why does the level of evidence required for a case involving football appear to be less than that for any other criminal trial?

That's down to politicians making laws just for football and a legacy of Hillsborough and other incidents.

 

[LamieRobertson]

Brain engaged and it would appear you sir are a prize nob! Brain disengaged.

Bit harsh

 

[alfredmizen]

I love the first comment ironically predictive text replaced full with fool! But to blame the Police is bigotry boardering on rank stupidity. Bloody idiot deserves everything he deserved. And aged 49...Sakes, I could possibly build the case for defence if 18 but if you can’t hold a beer and behave when you’re practically 50! Getting nicked for coke too is sweet cumuppence! What a tool, sell played Sussex Police!

Ironic eh ?

 

[alfredmizen]

For it to have been used, meant that his name or identity had been previously noted, but not enough evidence to charge or convict him. Now it seems they did have, and used it.
There are at least two charges here, assault and possession of a class A drug.

And ? Like you say no evidence .

 

[Seasidesage]

That's down to politicians making laws just for football and a legacy of Hillsborough and other incidents.

I agree, but crime should not have a lower evidential level for football than any other crime.

 

[alfredmizen]

Indeed. Or it was decided that prosecution wasn't worth the bother. Fifteen years ago when my son was 16 and chatting to some friends late at night in Whitstable, some knob jumped out of a car, walked over to him and headbutted him. Broke his nose. One of the girls knew the yob. There were 3 witnesses. However the CPS/OB (sorry I don't know exactly who decides to press charges) decided to not take the oaf to court, even though the oaf 'was known to the police', on the grounds that 'on balance the likelihood of conviction' did not justify the time effort and costs necessary to bring the oaf to court. Somehow I suspect they would act differently these days. At least, I hope so. As noted there is probably a bit more to this case than meets the eye.

Anyway, all he's got is a temporary banning order. He's not been banged up, or even required to pay for the Southampton supporter's shell suit dry cleaning bill, so I really don't get the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth of the long hand-wringing post somewhere above in this thread, to which [MENTION=14365]Thunder Bolt[/MENTION] has replied .

I don’t agree with your stance on the case in question , but how on earth was there no likelihood of conviction in your sons case ?? A joke !!

 

[drew]

Drew's main point seemed to be that I was anti Police It is true I do not know the exact details of this case. However, FSF has many examples of the police banning people for association rather than actions at clubs across the country. I don't think this can be described as justice. If you throw a pint over someone I don't think you can expect anything other than a ban. However, I don't think it is right than accusations of being in the vicinity of trouble or knowing people who cause it is right. There are a lot of cases of that happening previously and by the looks of things in this case. If you cannot prove it you shouldn't be saying it in court and it certainly wouldn't admissible in a fraud case or some such would it?

For argument's sake, let's say the Police have video evidence of this person when he is in a gang that are having a go at opposition supporters. Might not throw a punch but might be goading some of his more dim witted colleagues to be violent. If it happened once then I would be surprised if that evidence is used but if he is regularly making appearances in those situations then surely that points towards his character. If the defence try to paint him as a fine upstanding member of society then the prosecution can rebut that with evidence to the contrary.

Another point is whether the evidence was used to get him convicted or if it was used when determining sentence?

 

[drew]

And ? Like you say no evidence .

She didn't say 'no' evidence, she said 'not enough'. Big difference.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

And ? Like you say no evidence .

She didn't say 'no' evidence, she said 'not enough'. Big difference.

Exactly.

 

[drew]

As I understand it that was exactly how the evidence was presented. After all, they didn't manage to secure a conviction did they? Firstly, you accuse me of being anti police and now I am a hooligan. Burnt any books lately? Why does the level of evidence required for a case involving football appear to be less than that for any other criminal trial?

Firstly, that post was not directed at you unless you are a second account for Return of the Rev.

Where did you get your information that that was how that evidence was presented as it certainly wasn't from the newspaper report? I don't get your book burning reference, seems totally irrelevant! As for your last sentence, he was on video and was arrested as he arrived at Falmer. That is probably the evidence that got him convicted. The evidence about his association with other outbreaks of disorder would surely merely be considered when sentencing. Why do you think that is different to other criminal trials?

 

[alfredmizen]

She didn't say 'no' evidence, she said 'not enough'. Big difference.

No difference whatsoever not enough evidence is no evidence.

 

[crookie]

Seems a bit of a draconian sentence. What was the basis of the altercation outside the pub, maybe the guy was getting a load of abuse off the Saints fans, decides to chuck his pint rather than a fist. Bit of an idiot, sure, and the drugs didn't help, but it just seems harsh compared to the scenes that happen in most town/city centres at the weekend. Doubt the police would even bother with an official caution for chucking a pint. I'm basing this on no evidence whatsoever though !!

 

[The Clamp]

No difference whatsoever not enough evidence is no evidence.

Not commenting on this case as don't really know what if anything the bloke has been in court for but I did jury duty once. The defendant was clearly guilty of something and the police had a lot of evidence but not, in our opinion, the vital piece that would mean we could find him guilty. So I suppose there may as well have been no evidence but there was plenty in reality, just not enough for a guilty verdict for what the defendant was accused of.
In my opinion the prosecution should have chased a lesser charge which they had evidence for but the law is so nuanced.