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

[Badger]

Seems a bit like a kangaroo court, they could have been defending themselves or helping the bar owner rearrange his furniture and the SNEAKY Feds didn't see the complete picture.

I would have pleaded NOT guilty and it would have been thrown out of court.

I think you'll find it would have been LUZZED out of court.

 

[The Kid Frankie]

Typical clueless responses on here.

Can't even be arsed to delve into the facts of the case (which have strangely eluded local press), but anyone who fancies sharing the 'muppet' 'idiots' etc etc comments make yourselves known and I am sure I can help you share these comments in person instead of the safety of your computer.

 

[pb21]

Typical clueless responses on here.

Can't even be arsed to delve into the facts of the case (which have strangely eluded local press), but anyone who fancies sharing the 'muppet' 'idiots' etc etc comments make yourselves known and I am sure I can help you share these comments in person instead of the safety of your computer.

Would it involve street furniture in person too?

No thanks I will just label them all as idiotic muppets from the safety of my computer, don't fancy a trip to hospital TBH!

 

[Coldeanseagull]

Gav, Shezza, Liam , Jake and Lee

All we need is a "DAZ", "GAZ" and "BAZZA" and that's a full set of generic hooligan names.




*Sits back and waits for anyone with those names to respond*

I resent the implication that everyone named 'gaz' is in anyway, shape or form, a generic hoodlum.....a guttersnipe no less. I now feel compelled to find some decorative art nouveau cafe seating arrangements and provocatively rearrange them with menaces

 

[Gazwag]

Can't even be arsed to delve into the facts of the case (which have strangely eluded local press), but anyone who fancies sharing the 'muppet' 'idiots' etc etc comments make yourselves known and I am sure I can help you share these comments in person instead of the safety of your computer.

So you start the sentence suggesting they were innocent bystanders defending themselves and finish it with a threat of violence from those innocent bystanders to anybody who dares to believe the courts

 

[Albumen]

Typical clueless responses on here.

Can't even be arsed to delve into the facts of the case (which have strangely eluded local press), but anyone who fancies sharing the 'muppet' 'idiots' etc etc comments make yourselves known and I am sure I can help you share these comments in person instead of the safety of your computer.

If you can't be arsed to defend them why get annoyed?

 

[Chinman3000]

Typical clueless responses on here.

Can't even be arsed to delve into the facts of the case (which have strangely eluded local press), but anyone who fancies sharing the 'muppet' 'idiots' etc etc comments make yourselves known and I am sure I can help you share these comments in person instead of the safety of your computer.

Go on then, what really happened

 

[Titanic]

Typical clueless responses on here.

Can't even be arsed to delve into the facts of the case (which have strangely eluded local press), but anyone who fancies sharing the 'muppet' 'idiots' etc etc comments make yourselves known and I am sure I can help you share these comments in person instead of the safety of your computer.

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/14607789.Sussex_hooligans_banned_following_violence_at_Euro_2016/

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

"fing is guv, my missus was over the other side of the square right, and all the Russians had taken her seat right, and she is well PREGGERS at the moment right, so I woz like 'she needs a seat mate' so GAZ and DAZ were all like 'we will chuck her a chair mate' so yeah, that's all it was. I didn't do nuffin".

 

[The Guvnor]

Hi all

 

[The Kid Frankie]

Ok...

If you are summoned to court on a civil complaint like these lads, you are not entitled to any legal aid. You are also presented before 3 busy wankers (sometimes known as a magistrate) who have made their decisions before anyone has even set foot in court. The tiniest shred of evidence against you basically garuntees an FBO. If you contest it and lose, you get the ban and have to foot the bill, which runs well into the thousands of pounds. In this instance the lads defended themselves against the Russians (who lets not forget inflicted some pretty major damage that day). They are good blokes who have followed BHA home and away for a long long time. However knowing the implications of fighting the ban in court and losing they had no choice but to accept it - as many have before them. This is not a criminal court where you can defend yourself properly, it is very different. In my personal opinion it is an absolute joke that the police and the courts can even hand out FBO's in these circumstances. Naturally the Arsegus will use the usual buzz words in their article to instigate the obligatory reaction from those out there not aware of how the civil football banning order works.

As I say, people not aware of the facts shouldn't be so quick to judge.

 

[wellquickwoody]

Let us all just hope that no one on here is 'part of a group' or likely to 'confront' anyone. In other news........

 

[Worthingite]

Ok...

If you are summoned to court on a civil complaint like these lads, you are not entitled to any legal aid. You are also presented before 3 busy wankers (sometimes known as a magistrate) who have made their decisions before anyone has even set foot in court. The tiniest shred of evidence against you basically garuntees an FBO. If you contest it and lose, you get the ban and have to foot the bill, which runs well into the thousands of pounds. In this instance the lads defended themselves against the Russians (who lets not forget inflicted some pretty major damage that day). They are good blokes who have followed BHA home and away for a long long time. However knowing the implications of fighting the ban in court and losing they had no choice but to accept it - as many have before them. This is not a criminal court where you can defend yourself properly, it is very different. In my personal opinion it is an absolute joke that the police and the courts can even hand out FBO's in these circumstances. Naturally the Arsegus will use the usual buzz words in their article to instigate the obligatory reaction from those out there not aware of how the civil football banning order works.

As I say, people not aware of the facts shouldn't be so quick to judge.

So you are saying there WAS evidence against them? Case closed M'lud.

 

[The Kid Frankie]

So you are saying there WAS evidence against them? Case closed M'lud.

Wow I do hope you are never on jury duty mate... EVIDENCE doesn't = GUILT

 

[sjamesb3466]

Ok...

If you are summoned to court on a civil complaint like these lads, you are not entitled to any legal aid. You are also presented before 3 busy wankers (sometimes known as a magistrate) who have made their decisions before anyone has even set foot in court. The tiniest shred of evidence against you basically garuntees an FBO. If you contest it and lose, you get the ban and have to foot the bill, which runs well into the thousands of pounds. In this instance the lads defended themselves against the Russians (who lets not forget inflicted some pretty major damage that day). They are good blokes who have followed BHA home and away for a long long time. However knowing the implications of fighting the ban in court and losing they had no choice but to accept it - as many have before them. This is not a criminal court where you can defend yourself properly, it is very different. In my personal opinion it is an absolute joke that the police and the courts can even hand out FBO's in these circumstances. Naturally the Arsegus will use the usual buzz words in their article to instigate the obligatory reaction from those out there not aware of how the civil football banning order works.

As I say, people not aware of the facts shouldn't be so quick to judge.

So they were not filmed throwing chairs and confronting Russian fans and the undercover police as described in n the article?

I don't buy this 'defending themselves' excuse as if I found myself being charged at by a mob of hooligans I would be off faster than Usain Bolt. I can understand that sometimes you get caught in the wrong place at the wrong time but confronting other hooligans deserves a ban for me. If I was innocent I would fight the charges no matter how much it costs.

 

[The Guvnor]

What a delightful looking bunch. 5 'fans' who thankfully will never set foot at an Albion match again.

Should see some of the birds i rump

 

[alfredmizen]

So not found guilty of an offence in France, but convicted here for an offence that did not happen in this country. Seems questionable.

Still it will allow everyone a bit of hand-wringing on here.

See the Russians seem to have got away with it.

Spot on , this is a board that was prepared to believe people were on ''computer courses'' in Afghanistan yet is cock a hoop at people being given banning orders on the say so of Policemen despite not being convicted of any offence.

 

[alfredmizen]

Typical clueless responses on here.

Can't even be arsed to delve into the facts of the case (which have strangely eluded local press), but anyone who fancies sharing the 'muppet' 'idiots' etc etc comments make yourselves known and I am sure I can help you share these comments in person instead of the safety of your computer.

Good luck with that mate.

 

[Fred Oliver - Legend]

Ok...

If you are summoned to court on a civil complaint like these lads, you are not entitled to any legal aid. You are also presented before 3 busy wankers (sometimes known as a magistrate) who have made their decisions before anyone has even set foot in court. The tiniest shred of evidence against you basically garuntees an FBO. If you contest it and lose, you get the ban and have to foot the bill, which runs well into the thousands of pounds. In this instance the lads defended themselves against the Russians (who lets not forget inflicted some pretty major damage that day). They are good blokes who have followed BHA home and away for a long long time. However knowing the implications of fighting the ban in court and losing they had no choice but to accept it - as many have before them. This is not a criminal court where you can defend yourself properly, it is very different. In my personal opinion it is an absolute joke that the police and the courts can even hand out FBO's in these circumstances. Naturally the Arsegus will use the usual buzz words in their article to instigate the obligatory reaction from those out there not aware of how the civil football banning order works.

As I say, people not aware of the facts shouldn't be so quick to judge.

so what are the facts then? sound like a bunch of idiotic muppets to me.

 

[The Kid Frankie]

So they were not filmed throwing chairs and confronting Russian fans and the undercover police as described in n the article?

I don't buy this 'defending themselves' excuse as if I found myself being charged at by a mob of hooligans I would be off faster than Usain Bolt. I can understand that sometimes you get caught in the wrong place at the wrong time but confronting other hooligans deserves a ban for me. If I was innocent I would fight the charges no matter how much it costs.

Not everyone deals with similar situations the same.