BHAFC Fans given banning order....................

[Swillis]

the magristrates have found them guilty and the albion have banned them.

They never contested banning orders, what were they found guilty of exactly.

 

[Swillis]

You seem to be paranoid. I haven't been following you around. I doubt that I've responded to more than a handful of your posts in 6 months. I do tell other Palace posters exactly the same thing.
It isn't personal.

Oh that makes sense, good for you. Let's leave it there.

 

[LA1972]

the magristrates have found them guilty and the albion have banned them.

No, they weren't found guilty.

 

[alfredmizen]

Why are you taking this personally? It's not my rule, but the rule of the board.

Really ? Ive never heard of it.

 

[severnside gull]

oh yes , and this thread has really given you an insight on that hasnt it ? its not at all your voyeuristic tendency is it

No. Really not. Perhaps my refusal to be intimidated into silence but voyeuristic? No.

 

[Seagulls over Essex]

If you look at their Facebook pages they are just normal lads, not football hooligans. Unfortunately for them they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

[Grombleton]

Really ? Ive never heard of it.

Probably mentioned during the times you are banned

 

[alfredmizen]

Probably mentioned during the times you are banned

Even when snivelling grasses like you do get me banned it doesn't stop me viewing .

 

[Guy Fawkes]

While this is not directly linked to the case of the fans. I would assume that there would be evidence of sexual contact if very recent from the alleged rape. If thete is a longer gap between the rape and complaint then there would need to be a narrative that points to rape which the police and then the cps believe can be proved in court.

In the case in question I would assume that the video footage was shown to the court and the officers present who witnessed the violence gave evidence.

Craig Charles was cleared of rape, yet was detained in custody before the court case.

These banning orders appear to be a similar style of justice, what offences have they committed and what convictions have they got for committing these offences? - as far as i can see from the reports, they haven't got any connected convictions of any sort (yet) but have been summoned to a Magistrates Court and banned from matches because it is difficult to contest these orders (financially, etc) - Is that really how our British Justice system should work? where is the old premise of being innocent until found guilty

 

[Grombleton]

Even when snivelling grasses like you do get me banned it doesn't stop me viewing .

Have I grassed? Care to back that claim up with proof?

 

[alfredmizen]

Have I grassed? Care to back that claim up with proof?

I don't know , I don't care , you just strike me as the type

 

[wellquickwoody]

the magristrates have found them guilty and the albion have banned them.

Not one person has been found guilty of any offence. Yet the Albion have chosen to ban loyal supporters who have no previous history of football related disorder. Many on this forum perhaps know a little more than you about following England overseas but you take it upon yourself to proclaim our legal system entirely justified in condemning these chaps even though there is no publicly available evidence.

You must be known as Gully Ball.

 

[Guinness Boy]

I don't go anywhere to get into a ruck, but have at various times found myself in that situation. Luckily none of my mates ran and left me to it, because they are not cowards/tossers. Sometimes you just have to stand and fight. It does not make you a hooligan/scumbag/whatever. Until the whole circumstances are known then nobody should condemn these men.

This, especially when you're young or in a group. I take my 9 year old now and I'm confident we can avoid most problems and would run away from any that occurred because he comes before anything. But on an away day / lads weekend / England trip anything can and will happen.

the magristrates have found them guilty and the albion have banned them.

No they haven't. They have no criminal record and have not been convicted of anything. It's a shocking abuse of human rights to be honest.

 

[Grombleton]

I don't know , I don't care , you just strike me as the type

Clearly care enough to throw that about. There's many things you strike me as but as I've never met you I've no proof. See how this works?

 

[Brian Fantana]

Sounds like a proper stitch up. The violence in Marseilles was well-documented, especially with the highly-drilled and militarily-trained Russians. If these fans were caught up in the wrong place at the wrong time and chose to defend themselves against those animals, I've got every respect for them.

 

[alfredmizen]

Not one person has been found guilty of any offence. Yet the Albion have chosen to ban loyal supporters who have no previous history of football related disorder. Many on this forum perhaps know a little more than you about following England overseas but you take it upon yourself to proclaim our legal system entirely justified in condemning these chaps even though there is no publicly available evidence.

You must be known as Gully Ball.

He's from New Zealand woody, he hasn't got a clue about following England.

 

[BN9 BHA]

I do like the way that you've made this sound like it was justified if it was a journalist, but it just unfortunately turned out to be a police man

I thought it was ok to throw beer around these days, I keep seeing YouTube vids of fans throwing beer up in the air in concourses, pubs and at those fanzone places.

 

[studio150]

Craig Charles was cleared of rape, yet was detained in custody before the court case.

These banning orders appear to be a similar style of justice, what offences have they committed and what convictions have they got for committing these offences? - as far as i can see from the reports, they haven't got any connected convictions of any sort (yet) but have been summoned to a Magistrates Court and banned from matches because it is difficult to contest these orders (financially, etc) - Is that really how our British Justice system should work? where is the old premise of being innocent until found guilty

They are innocent until the evidence is proved in Court.

You have to go back to the 1980s when football violence was front page news and the desire to clamp down which has been very successful, and the banning order is footballs way of ensuring that fans with proven football related violence activities are removed from football grounds, and are unable to travel when England are playing/

The issue of finances has been the case for sometime. This has of course got worse over time due to cutbacks on legal aid, and most insurance policies where legal costs are provided exclude violence related cases.

Given more notice on the Court appearance, CAB would be able to provide some degree of assistance. I also believe there are details on the web on how to contest such orders such as the football supporters federation.

 

[SIMMO SAYS]

I thought it was ok to throw beer around these days, I keep seeing YouTube vids of fans throwing beer up in the air in concourses, pubs and at those fanzone places.

Wrong Direction did this last season - only to have a plastic pint hit him on the head seconds later.
All captured on my phone but being a complete ignoramus haven't posted it

 

[wellquickwoody]

I thought it was ok to throw beer around these days, I keep seeing YouTube vids of fans throwing beer up in the air in concourses, pubs and at those fanzone places.

Ahh, fanzones. Places that modern football fans go to get fleeced legally, at least in my day we bought from a tout and felt like we had gained a minor victory. Modern fans turn up at 'fanzones' (whatever name stadium in Cardiff) in numbers approaching 30k, pay to get in and pay stupid pound per pint for weak pisswater, whilst the stadium/venue owner earns megabucks for doing very little, all the while filming you on CCTV etc etc.. Could have gone down the local with your mates and had a real party.