Brighton fan handed three year banning order after climbing boundary at Sincil Bank

[rippleman]

Back in the good old days at the Goldstone I used to regularly run onto the pitch at the end of games (usually straight to my favourite player Sully so he could lean on me as he went off, boots in hand). Was all part of the fun then. If I had got 3 years for each time I ran on at the Goldstone I would still be banned and with little prospect of ever seeing a Brighton game again.

Football has just got so bloody precious these days.

 

[Easy 10]

Again, you still don't know that. If I were to guess I'd say he wasn't on a banning order still FWIW - but I certainly don't know either way. It could have been reduced etc. If he was then I agree with you as he's again shown he is stupid. If he wasn't and the Spurs incident 7 years or so ago was his only offence and he's learnt from it then I don't agree with you. What I'm trying to say is, we don't know enough information for definite to know. I'm going to therefore judge it purely on the Lincoln 'incident' which isn't even an incident in my book and didn't deserve anything other than PERHAPS a quiet word in his ear from a steward. My opinion like.

Well, if we're going down the route of what we DON'T know, then maybe this is his 3rd banning order, not his 2nd ? Maybe he drowns kittens in his spare time. Perhaps he punched his mum in the tit once. Who knows ?

But going by the sentences that were recorded and published at the time, he was 5 years into a 6 year football banning order due to violent disorder, an offence serious enough for him to be given a 15 month prison sentence. For a punch-up with a bunch of like-minded neanderthals, that also seems fairly draconian - so again, maybe that was because he had previous prior to that as well ? We don't know.

I take on board that you feel he may be a reformed character who has been wronged by the system. But going by that article in the Littlehampton Gazette, on balance, I think its more likely that he's a bit of a scrote. And the reason they've thrown the book at him this time is not because he jumped that barrier at Lincoln, but because he was still under that banning order.

People under banning orders who choose to go on to flout them should certainly be harshly dealt with, IMO.

 

[Easy 10]

He got his sentence and ban for that though, I don't see this action, jumping over advertising hoardings to celebrate, as related to football violence, it happens very often.
The whole of Boro was on the pitch after they got the draw they needed last day of last season, many of them goading and abusing our fans and players, no one was prosecuted as far as I am aware.
I did not go to the game, but there was a thread on here regarding the numbers and enthusiasm of Police officers engaged in crowd control, I reckon this lead to him getting pinched, once they had him and checked his history, they got excited and made sure he went to the magistrates.
I don't want to see aggro at games, but I don't want to see people nicked and prosecuted for trivial offences with no victim and no malice intended.

Again, looking in isolation of the "offence", what he did at Lincoln was not very serious at all. I'd agree with that.

However, if he was still serving a banning order for violent disorder and therefore shouldn't even have BEEN in Lincoln, let alone at the game, then I think its fair enough, and he only has himself to blame.

 

[Sheebo]

Well, if we're going down the route of what we DON'T know, then maybe this is his 3rd banning order, not his 2nd ? Maybe he drowns kittens in his spare time. Perhaps he punched his mum in the tit once. Who knows ?

But going by the sentences that were recorded and published at the time, he was 5 years into a 6 year football banning order due to violent disorder, an offence serious enough for him to be given a 15 month prison sentence. For a punch-up with a bunch of like-minded neanderthals, that also seems fairly draconian - so again, maybe that was because he had previous prior to that as well ? We don't know.

I take on board that you feel he may be a reformed character who has been wronged by the system. But going by that article in the Littlehampton Gazette, on balance, I think its more likely that he's a bit of a scrote. And the reason they've thrown the book at him this time is not because he jumped that barrier at Lincoln, but because he was still under that banning order.

People under banning orders who choose to go on to flout them should certainly be harshly dealt with, IMO.

As I said, if you're correct about the banning order I'd agree. Just find it odd if the local Lincoln rag (that had quotes from the court) didn't mention it if it was the case...

PS - He may be working in Oxfam on Fridays just to help out

 

[Thunder Bolt]

As I said, if you're correct about the banning order I'd agree. Just find it odd if the local Lincoln rag (that had quotes from the court) didn't mention it if it was the case...

PS - He may be working in Oxfam on Fridays just to help out

If the local Lincoln paper is anything like the Argus, it wouldn't know anything, as journalists (and I use the term lightly) don't investigate details.

 

[Arthur]

But going by the sentences that were recorded and published at the time, he was 5 years into a 6 year football banning order due to violent disorder, an offence serious enough for him to be given a 15 month prison sentence.

Football banning orders are a minimum of 3 years and maximum of 5 years for non custodial offences. A minimum of 6 and a maximum 10 years for custodial. All banning orders can be appealed after 2/3rds of the term. So if he got 6 years he could have appealed and had the banning order removed after 4 years. That would have been up to the court though who would have been advised by the football banning unit, the arresting force and the force the person resides in (both Sussex in this case). I've no idea if that happened in this case but I'd suspect it did. DB doesn't have a lot do looking after our lot so I'm pretty sure he knows the faces of the handful of banning orders he has.

 

[pishhead]

It would seem that his reputation has preceded him in this case. Once you are known to the police for football related matters you will be under extra scrutiny by a certain Mr Balkham. Who can blame Mr Balkham chaps like this not being able to attend games will make his life a lot easier.

 

[skipper734]

Presumably he can visit the Swan, and listen to home matches from the bushes on the edge of Bennetts field as that's not in Brighton.

 

[Justice]

Pathetic really I remember the days when the OB used to pop into the Bell and want us to take a few lads to certain games as not to let the side down. Nowadays the game caters for families and extracting as much cash as possible out of them so not surprising but sad all the same.

 

[Easy 10]

Football banning orders are a minimum of 3 years and maximum of 5 years for non custodial offences. A minimum of 6 and a maximum 10 years for custodial. All banning orders can be appealed after 2/3rds of the term. So if he got 6 years he could have appealed and had the banning order removed after 4 years. That would have been up to the court though who would have been advised by the football banning unit, the arresting force and the force the person resides in (both Sussex in this case). I've no idea if that happened in this case but I'd suspect it did. DB doesn't have a lot do looking after our lot so I'm pretty sure he knows the faces of the handful of banning orders he has.

Well I'd be surprised at the severity of this sentence if he was no longer under a banning order. If he was though, then he's bang to rights.

Regardless though, I've been going to football for 30-odd years, and have always found it pretty easy not getting involved in organised punch-ups with other fans. Similarly, I've never felt compelled to hurdle the barriers to wildly celebrate a goal on the running track at non-league football ground. This way, I find I get to go to as many games as I like.

Works for me anyway.

 

[Giraffe]

Perhaps he punched his mum in the tit once. Who knows ?

Genuine LOL moment.

 

[Exile]

Well I'd be surprised at the severity of this sentence if he was no longer under a banning order. If he was though, then he's bang to rights.

Regardless though, I've been going to football for 30-odd years, and have always found it pretty easy not getting involved in organised punch-ups with other fans. Similarly, I've never felt compelled to hurdle the barriers to wildly celebrate a goal on the running track at non-league football ground. This way, I find I get to go to as many games as I like.

Works for me anyway.

I seem to remember celebrating a fair few late goals on the running track at a non-league (standard) football ground, in fairness.

 

[Westdene Wonder]

Well. that does put a different light on it. Sounds like he's a professional idiot who shouldn't even have been at that game in the first place.

And with that, my sympathy for him has instantly evaporated ! The blokes a 24 carat knobber who got what he deserved.

In view of his previous record he deserves no support,it also has to be taken into account that it only needs one person going onto the pitch to start a large invasion

 

[Yes Chef]

Genuine LOL moment.

Me too....

 

[Captain Sensible]

Didn't Balkham say on The Roar that Lincoln and the Stewarding style was very 'challenging' on the day? That a lot of stewards were drafted in and were not normally stewards at football. Hinting at the fact that the stewarding was over zealous and not what we are used to at football. I can see that this incident probably grew out of that.

 

[Justice]

Genuine LOL moment.

I guess, if your easily amused.

 

[Arthur]

Well I'd be surprised at the severity of this sentence if he was no longer under a banning order. If he was though, then he's bang to rights.

From my experience unless the person has been involved in additional disorder since the ban and they have complied with the conditions of the order (i.e. not entering certain areas, handing in their passport when asked) the police don't tend to contest appeals. Then it's up to the judge/magistrate who if no evidence is given why they can't overturn the ban they will.

 

[Easy 10]

Genuine LOL moment.

...if a little crude. But you get my point

 

[Easy 10]

I seem to remember celebrating a fair few late goals on the running track at a non-league (standard) football ground, in fairness.

As do I. Usually when I was being a bad fan and leaving a bit early though. That "slow stroll" along the front of the South Stand.

 

[The Kid Frankie]

Matty's FBO for the Spurs incident was lifted some time ago. If you serve two thirds of an FBO without getting into any bother then you can apply to have it withdrawn, which is what he did. So he was not breaching by being in Lincoln.

I do hope everyone handing out the standard insults for a situation like this has NEVER encroached the pitch at a football game before. Otherwise they feel the same way about the Lincoln fans who did the same at the end of that game. Or perhaps the Man City game at Withdean. Or the Swindon Playoff game game. Or the last game at The Goldstone. Do I need to offer more examples?