Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
The poor hard done by fellow. He can't go to a football match for three years. Some people would think that's a blessing. Funnily enough, the ones moaning about it, don't go to our matches any more.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[News] Albion fan given banning order.
- Thread starter AmexRuislip
- Start date
The poor hard done by fellow. He can't go to a football match for three years. Some people would think that's a blessing. Funnily enough, the ones moaning about it, don't go to our matches any more.
The Kid Frankie
New member
- Sep 5, 2012
- 2,082
I go regularly and I think he has been hard done by.
Dave the OAP
Well-known member
AH!!! I take it all back...hang him
Being banned from Brighton matches is one thing but being banned from going within five miles of any football stadium in England and Wales for four hours before and after kick off of any match for three years just seems insane! Do him for assault and ban him from Brighton matches for 3 years by all means but that? It just seems far too excessive. I'm not sticking up for him at all and I am a regular at Brighton matches but just think that is too draconian.
Why am i not suprised to see you posting in this thread defending someone has been given a banning order. Next you will be trying to justify why he had crack cocaine on him.
- Jul 10, 2003
- 27,792
I don't know the details of the banning, but unless he has to present himself at a police station or has a tag, he doesn't really have to be that many miles away. He just needs to avoid going to matches or doing twatish things on matchdays.
Oh, I see your point
The Kid Frankie
New member
- Sep 5, 2012
- 2,082
I'm not justifying anything.
My personal opinion is simple; the punishment does not fit the crime.
This argument has been done to death on here every time a story like this is printed. I doubt either side will back down, which is fair enough.
alfredmizen
Banned
- Mar 11, 2015
- 6,342
legally its not, what im trying to say is , that as far as convicting someone using previous 'suspected' crimes, is outrageous , its hearsay, no more.
Very true.
I'm not commenting on this case as I know nothing about it, and don't care enough to read up on it. What I will say though is that everybody knows that when it comes to disorder surrounding football, the punishment doesn't fit the crime. So WHY DO IT then? It's no good bleating about it after the event, especially if you're old enough to know better.
alfredmizen
Banned
- Mar 11, 2015
- 6,342
i do, the kid frankie does.......
Do you happen to know how many of these punishments get appealed down to a couple of months?
I get the feeling the powers at be like to splash the news of 'tough on football 'violence' ', but then quietly back down.
The Kid Frankie
New member
- Sep 5, 2012
- 2,082
I would also add that without speaking to Steve I highly doubt it was 'crack cocaine' in his pocket that day. Crack and powder are two very different things. My money is on a clueless Argus reporter not quite understanding the difference between the two on that one.
The Kid Frankie
New member
- Sep 5, 2012
- 2,082
I happen to know that never ever happens. You can appeal to have the ban withdrawn when you have served two thirds of it.
The Kid Frankie
New member
- Sep 5, 2012
- 2,082
I can't disagree with that. As a result I behave like an absolute saint at games these days - and I am not even joking on that one an FBO would be an absolute pain in the arse for me right now.
I can speak from experience that the tough stance works as it would have made me think twice before chucking a pint in someones face.
It just doesn't sit well with me that people who commit what I would consider to be minor offences at football face such harsh punitive action, when other others convicted of what I would perceive to be much worse can escape with much less. For example;
http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/1561...d_porn_images_on_his_computer_is_spared_jail/
Captain Sensible
Well-known member
Of course, they should be dealt with in law the same way a knuckledragger would if they started trouble in town on a Friday night. But not treated differently because they may or may not be a season ticket holder.
During a week when I've written a character reference for a very good friend who is currently the subject of a Football Banning Order, I also feel pretty strongly about how the "associated with football" element significantly enhances the punishment given out for incidents that might otherwise not even reach court.
It's just another example of the demonisation of football supporters that has been in place for so many years.
Don't get me wrong, I go to games with my 15-y-o daughter and 7-y-o son and I'm massively appreciative that I am able do so, knowing that they will be completely safe, but that doesn't mean that relatively minor disturbances should be treated in the way they are, simply because there is some loose association with a football match.
The report on this specific case is relatively light on detail. Was the Football Banning Order the only punishment that came out of this?
It's just another example of the demonisation of football supporters that has been in place for so many years.
Don't get me wrong, I go to games with my 15-y-o daughter and 7-y-o son and I'm massively appreciative that I am able do so, knowing that they will be completely safe, but that doesn't mean that relatively minor disturbances should be treated in the way they are, simply because there is some loose association with a football match.
The report on this specific case is relatively light on detail. Was the Football Banning Order the only punishment that came out of this?
Captain Sensible
Well-known member
That’s my problem with it too. I actually wish the punishments were all harsh. But they aren’t. Just for football and most of the time these incidents have nothing to do with football.
I don't know anything about that either and presumably nor do you. I do find it slightly annoying that you're perfectly happy to make all sorts of assumptions with that particular case based on a newspaper article, yet are acting all aggrieved at others doing exactly the same thing on this case.
To clarify, I believe football disorder is still punished to excess, but also believe you'd have to be a fool to get involved as this is common knowledge. But you can't illustrate your point with some half-arsed ill-considered "example" of a completely unrelated crime when you don't have the full facts to hand - it just makes you look like a hypocrite.
McTavish
Well-known member
- Nov 5, 2014
- 1,589
But that's not what has happened, the previous behaviour has been used to influence the sentencing in the same way as if his Sunday School teacher had come in to say what a good boy he was, that might have influenced things the other way. Neither are "evidence" bearing on whether he was convicted or not, they are things that the magistrates take into account when sentencing.
Captain Sensible
Well-known member
I answered dark wolfs point. Your question didn’t make sense. I am not arguing against FBO’s. Just that they are being used when football has nothing to do with incidents and therefore anyone that might have a ticket for football will be judged more harshly. It’s like if I have a scuffle in a pub, because someone insults my wife. Then my gym membership gets taken away and I get banned for 3 years. It sounds stupid but that is exactly what FBO’s are being used for and it’s wrong.