[News] Albion fan given banning order.

[Return of the Rev]

This bit is quite disturbing if you happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time .

“He had no previous convictions, but in open court yesterday we did put forward a number of incidents where he was present and where there had been disorder.”

I was not to far from the Grand Hotel at the time of the bombing and also not far from the west pier before it caught fire and was working in Edward street when the Athena B came ashore Best hand myself in then.

 

[Questions]

Could you get a banning order just for having Crack on your possession if it were found on you when being searched coming into The Amex etc?

Apparently yes. But now they tell us.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Happens every time Albion lads get an FBO and wind up in the Argus. Faceless and gutless. Happy to vent on here but would have a panic attack before they could say in person what they have managed to type. It has been the same story on here for years. Most recently the lads banned after Marseille and MC after the net jumping incident in Lincoln in January.

On each occasion I have offered the opportunity for anyone willing to get in touch to share their views in person. I have known Steve for years so I suppose the same offer stands now. So far none have taken up the offer. Funny that.

I am intrigued by your post. Some folk on here posted that getting an FBO for what you friend did was harsh. Others then say it isn't harsh. Then you suggest that anyone in the latter camp should say it to your friend's face. Why on earth would people who regard the outcome of his case fair feel the need to meet him? I think its more likely to be the other way round. Indeed, I think there may be one or two more cynical posters on here who have a feeling that your friend might feel inclind to be threatening and intimidating to anyone who might consider him 'bang to rights'. So I have a suggestion. Rather than put him through the tedium of having to use reason and logic to explain himself repeatedly to all and sundry, face to face, you could save a lot of time by asking him to write down his thoughts and then post them on here on his behalf.

 

[Napper]

Does this bloke have history ? Does he drink with those that do ?

If the answer to either of those is yes then the club and balkham will use the smallest thing possible to get this ban .

I'd suggest that's what's happened here.

Even if your on the fringes of this scene then you have to be whiter then white as balkham and the club are out to get you .

Throwing beer queens head is naive

 

[chaileyjem]

Surprised they knew it was crack as most about is so unpure im told its a waste of money bad enough wasting a beer imo. Sounds like if it hadn't of been football related it could of been any bod down Queens road /west st on a weekend night . Anyhow throwing a beer happened regulary last season on the concourses last year and no one got nicked.

Away to Forest - they did : https://nortr3nixy.nimpr.uk/showthread.php?352875-Beer-quot-fight-quot

 

[LamieRobertson]

I just looked up your first post of last month (pasted below). I would have assumed it was a joke, but your intervention on this thread, and your complete disregard of my actual question makes me think you are a troll, probably someone previously registered under another name and banned. Best ignored. Goodbye.

"Hello, new poster here, I’m not police, honest. But where’s a good place for a good old fashioned tear up with them Palace? Also I want to make friends with some of the lads that like this type of thing so if anyone could provide names (and addresses where possible) please let me know. "

And he called you mate

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

I was not to far from the Grand Hotel at the time of the bombing and also not far from the west pier before it caught fire and was working in Edward street when the Athena B came ashore Best hand myself in then.

Indeed. I am inclined to disbelieve the newspaper coverage since being in the vicinity of an incident is not illegal. It’s most likely to be amateur and sensationalist journalism which would make sense because that’s what journalists do.
As to the people on here who would be comfortable to live in a society where people are punished for being in the wrong place at the wrong time I wonder if they apply that right wing law and order outlook to other offenses or just to football related incidents.

 

[GT49er]

Cocaine and crack cocaine are two different things... No surprise they would use the term crack cocaine to make it sound like he was a junkie...

Perhaps "they" knew that cocaine and crack cocaine are two different things too, so maybe they used the term 'crack cocaine' in order to describe a substance which was crack cocaine?

 

[drew]

I was not to far from the Grand Hotel at the time of the bombing and also not far from the west pier before it caught fire and was working in Edward street when the Athena B came ashore Best hand myself in then.

Rather than hand yourself in perhaps you could engage your brain!

 

[Seasidesage]

Scary that so many see no problem with 'evidence' that someone was in the same area as trouble and/or knew people who engaged in violence. If you throw a pint over someone you can't be surprised to get a ban, but to support the prosecution case with hearsay and conjecture is a disgrace and an abuse of the justice system. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

 

[drew]

Scary that so many see no problem with 'evidence' that someone was in the same area as trouble and/or knew people who engaged in violence. If you throw a pint over someone you can't be surprised to get a ban, but to support the prosecution case with hearsay and conjecture is a disgrace and an abuse of the justice system. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

It's probably equally troubling that some read so little into the comment from a newspaper article without having seen what evidence was presented by the Police.

 

[Seasidesage]

It's probably equally troubling that some read so little into the comment from a newspaper article without having seen what evidence was presented by the Police.

You keep on trusting. 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?

 

[drew]

You keep on trusting. 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?

But you're interpreting what was said to suit your own anti Police agenda. Do you honestly think that the evidence presented was merely that he happened to be strolling along the same road/street when violence between others erupted?

 

[majnoon]

A worse punishment would be a CPFC season ticket with mandatory attendance required

 

[Seasidesage]

But you're interpreting what was said to suit your own anti Police agenda. Do you honestly think that the evidence presented was merely that he happened to be strolling along the same road/street when violence between others erupted?

Firstly I don't have an anti police agenda. I do have a pro justice one but anyone who thinks we don't need the Police is an idiot. I just want them to present the facts in court. If they don't have the evidence to charge someone with an offence they shouldn't be allowed to use it as they cannot prove whatever it is that they think happened. How can it be justice to say I was near a fight and had the police not been there I would've hit someone? There is no possible way of knowing my motivation for being there. It is hearsay.

If I know someone who likes a fight at the football does that make me guilty too? If I know a someone convicted or murder does that make me a potential murderer too? It's ridiculous, unjust and is only ever used in football related matters. The Police's job should be to present the facts and allow the court to decide not unduly attempt to influence a court with their opinion. If people commit crimes they should be punished for those crimes not for who they know or where they walk.

 

[studio150]

Firstly I don't have an anti police agenda. I do have a pro justice one but anyone who thinks we don't need the Police is an idiot. I just want them to present the facts in court. If they don't have the evidence to charge someone with an offence they shouldn't be allowed to use it as they cannot prove whatever it is that they think happened. How can it be justice to say I was near a fight and had the police not been there I would've hit someone? There is no possible way of knowing my motivation for being there. It is hearsay.

If I know someone who likes a fight at the football does that make me guilty too? If I know a someone convicted or murder does that make me a potential murderer too? It's ridiculous, unjust and is only ever used in football related matters. The Police's job should be to present the facts and allow the court to decide not unduly attempt to influence a court with their opinion. If people commit crimes they should be punished for those crimes not for who they know or where they walk.

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.

 

[Return of the Rev]

Rather than hand yourself in perhaps you could engage your brain!

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

 

[Weststander]

Firstly I don't have an anti police agenda. I do have a pro justice one but anyone who thinks we don't need the Police is an idiot. I just want them to present the facts in court. If they don't have the evidence to charge someone with an offence they shouldn't be allowed to use it as they cannot prove whatever it is that they think happened. How can it be justice to say I was near a fight and had the police not been there I would've hit someone? There is no possible way of knowing my motivation for being there. It is hearsay.

If I know someone who likes a fight at the football does that make me guilty too? If I know a someone convicted or murder does that make me a potential murderer too? It's ridiculous, unjust and is only ever used in football related matters. The Police's job should be to present the facts and allow the court to decide not unduly attempt to influence a court with their opinion. If people commit crimes they should be punished for those crimes not for who they know or where they walk.

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.

 

[The Clamp]

Okay, I could see how a mate might defend this bloke for the pint thing, we all get riled up and mates do silly things (although none of mine have ever done this, it's like something some menopausal bird would do on Eastenders) but defending carrying crack cocaine into the Amex? You'd have to have rocks in your head to defend a mate like that.

 

[Creaky]

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.

We don’t even know if the guy pleaded ‘not guilty’ - more likely they plead ‘guilty’, especially regarding the drugs.