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

[daveinprague]

are we now talking about the 5 brighton lads or the england fans in general.....??

The Brighton fans.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Is it fair to say that this group were marked out as 'trouble' when one of them threw a beer over an undercover police officer because they thought the officer was a journalist ?

From that point it was unlikely to end well I suppose, given the fact that pretty much no evidence is needed for a magistrate to approve the banning application.

 

[daveinprague]

I have recently come to the conclusion that he is nothing but a troll, will argue that black is white until the cows come home, but in reality his opinions are worthless.

My opinion doesnt matter. Neither does yours.
The police film of the incident seems to.
If you are able to prove some extenuating circumstances that will make the video incorrect, you need to contact somebody.

 

[daveinprague]

russian and polish thuggery in particular has reached new heights over the last 4 or 5 years.......it is for those who know their shit to admit that we no longer are a player on the hoolie stage and for those such as dave to wring his cardigan sleeves at then terrible smudge upon the reputation of our once great nation ....of whom he is a relentless defender......and custodian.....

I wouldnt wear a cardigan.
Im not wringing my hands. The people 'wringing' their hands are the people who, despite the police filming them....confronting...not defending...and then confronting the police for filming them are the ones wringing their hands. My only opinion other than that, is that BHA is a bit harsh giviing them an indefinite ban.

 

[The Kid Frankie]

The ones with the numerous football violence links on their social media?
The Russians were clearly the aggressors for most of the day. Thats clear, and no argument, but to argue that nobody else was guilty is a bit daft. Im sure these blokes are probably decent, although, a couple are known to other members of the board, and seem to have a bit of a history.

I personally think the FBO is probably right, but BHA were wrong giving them an indefinite ban.

****s sake I'm annoying myself by trying to harmonise with you Dave.

Look at it this way. In a CIVIL not CRIMINAL court application like this you only need circumstantial evidence to impose an FBO. Circumstantial evidence like being present during the disorder, like being dressed in clothing associated with fv, or having 'liked' Facebook pages linked to hooliganism. These are all facts no one can deny, but they do NOT conclusively prove these lads are guilty of ANYTHING. This is also a fact. These FBO's have been given based purely on hearsay and circumstantial evidence, otherwise they would have been arrested and convicted no? That sits very uncomfortably with me and should do with anyone who wants to feel protected and not opressed by our justice system.

One of the lads has spoken out in The Argus today, which I can only give him massive credit for. If it were me I would want to keep out of the media spotlight as much as possible, but he has had the minerals to give his version of events (even though The Argus headline shows complete biase with 'banned football hooligan tells...')

If you want to believe exactly what the police say then that is down to you. I personally have seen things I 100% KNOW to be completely fabricated written in black and white about me by Sussex Police officers. So if it comes down to the word of the police vs the words of five lads I know very well I know which I consider to be the truth. You don't know them, so you don't have that luxury, which I understand.

 

[daveinprague]

****s sake I'm annoying myself by trying to harmonise with you Dave.

Look at it this way. In a CIVIL not CRIMINAL court application like this you only need circumstantial evidence to impose an FBO. Circumstantial evidence like being present during the disorder, like being dressed in clothing associated with fv, or having 'liked' Facebook pages linked to hooliganism. These are all facts no one can deny, but they do NOT conclusively prove these lads are guilty of ANYTHING. This is also a fact. These FBO's have been given based purely on hearsay and circumstantial evidence, otherwise they would have been arrested and convicted no? That sits very uncomfortably with me and should do with anyone who wants to feel protected and not opressed by our justice system.

One of the lads has spoken out in The Argus today, which I can only give him massive credit for. If it were me I would want to keep out of the media spotlight as much as possible, but he has had the minerals to give his version of events (even though The Argus headline shows complete biase with 'banned football hooligan tells...')

If you want to believe exactly what the police say then that is down to you. I personally have seen things I 100% KNOW to be completely fabricated written in black and white about me by Sussex Police officers. So if it comes down to the word of the police vs the words of five lads I know very well I know which I consider to be the truth. You don't know them, so you don't have that luxury, which I understand.

Trust me. I have no love of some police. I discovered in the 80's that I was a 'known person' despite never being convicted of anything. Seemed to eminate from the **** Beard. Generally though, they do a difficult job. Ive seen things fabricated. It happens. If you would like to disband the police force, then you would be mad. Generally, I will take their word for it, and not let isolated incidents colour that view.
Is it true that they threw beer at a police officer, believing he was a journalist? If thats the case, well.. what can you say really.

'These FBO's have been given based purely on hearsay and circumstantial evidence' ... and a police video filming them confronting the Russians, and then the officers for filming them.

 

[The Kid Frankie]

Trust me. I have no love of some police. I discovered in the 80's that I was a 'known person' despite never being convicted of anything. Generally though, they do a difficult job. Ive seen things fabricated. It happens. If you would like to disband the police force, then you would be mad.
Is it true that they threw beer at a police officer, believing he was a journalist? If thats the case, well.. what can you say really.

I give up. **** it.

 

[daveinprague]

I give up. **** it.

Im not the person to be speaking to. You need to explain all this to the football intelligence unit, and the magistrate who applied the ban.
Is it true they threw beer at a police officer believing him to be a journalist?

'These FBO's have been given based purely on hearsay and circumstantial evidence'... and the video.

 

[The Kid Frankie]

Im not the person to be speaking to. You need to explain all this to the football intelligence unit, and the magistrate who applied the ban.
Is it true they threw beer at a police officer believing him to be a journalist?

I don't need to speak to anyone. I'm talking to you because we disagree about about something on a forum. My bottom line is don't believe everything the police say...

With regards the journalist/undercover police officer yes I understand they did get a drink thrown over them.

 

[daveinprague]

I don't need to speak to anyone. I'm talking to you because we disagree about about something on a forum. My bottom line is don't believe everything the police say...

With regards the journalist/undercover police officer yes I understand they did get a drink thrown over them.

Well, thats the sort of anti social behaviour that the police said they would target.
I dont believe everything the police say. I know there a wrong uns.. but I dont believe all are. I will trust the police, especially when they have video evidence, over friends opinions of the blokes. Get some concrete evidence to disprove it, otherwise, they have an FBO. Like I said. I think BHA was harsh about it.

 

[The Kid Frankie]

Well, thats sort of anti social behaviour that the police said they would target.
I dont believe everything the police say. I know there a wrong uns.. but I dont believe all are. I will trust the police, especially when they have video evidence.

Ok Dave. Video evidence isn't completely infallible but I know there is no budging your stance so I will leave it there.

 

[daveinprague]

Ok Dave. Video evidence isn't completely infallible but I know there is no budging your stance so I will leave it there.

If there was some proof of their innocence, I would budge my stance. At the moment, the evidence is a police video, that doesnt look good, and anti social behaviour by throwing beer at a police officer believing him to be a jouralist.
But, fair enough.

 

[The Kid Frankie]

If there was some proof of their innocence, I would budge my stance. At the moment, the evidence is a police video, that doesnt look good, and anti social behaviour by throwing beer at a police officer believing him to be a jouralist.
But, fair enough.

You are aware in this country (and most democratic nations) it is innocent until proven GUILTY. Not the other way around.

 

[daveinprague]

You are aware in this country (and most democratic nations) it is innocent until proven GUILTY. Not the other way around.

So, maybe they can take that up with the authorities?

 

[The Kid Frankie]

So, maybe they can take that up with the authorities?

How many times does it have to be said?

. In a civil court you don't need conclusive evidence. Only circumstantial. So there is no element of proof needed.
. The Magistrates take the word of the police as gospel.
. You are effectively threatened with footing the bill of the complainant if you fight it and lose. Which is usually in excess of about £5,000. In puts you in a situation where your only option is to accept it (unless you have a casual £5k knocking about).

The whole process is a complete breach of civil liberties.

 

[daveinprague]

How many times does it have to be said?

. In a civil court you don't need conclusive evidence. Only circumstantial. So there is no element of proof needed.
. The Magistrates take the word of the police as gospel.
. You are effectively threatened with footing the bill of the complainant if you fight it and lose. Which is usually in excess of about £5,000. In puts you in a situation where your only option is to accept it (unless you have a casual £5k knocking about).

The whole process is a complete breach of civil liberties.

They take the word..for sure, but in this case, there is a video. We will never see it, but its hard to move away from.
Didnt somebody post something about this earlier in the thread, regardiing the Coventry fan? There are avenues I think.

 

[Grombleton]

. In a civil court you don't need conclusive evidence. Only circumstantial. So there is no element of proof needed.

It's not a civil case though, it's a criminal case.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

It's not a civil case though, it's a criminal case.

There isn't a criminal charge.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

How many times does it have to be said?

. In a civil court you don't need conclusive evidence. Only circumstantial. So there is no element of proof needed.
. The Magistrates take the word of the police as gospel.
. You are effectively threatened with footing the bill of the complainant if you fight it and lose. Which is usually in excess of about £5,000. In puts you in a situation where your only option is to accept it (unless you have a casual £5k knocking about).

The whole process is a complete breach of civil liberties.

I have posted this twice already. The Football Supporters Federation fight banning orders free of charge.

 

[The Kid Frankie]

I have posted this twice already. The Football Supporters Federation fight banning orders free of charge.

In that case the chaps will have to be told.