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

[darkwolf666]

I know one of these lads very well and he is a polite decent fella. I know he likes a beer and loves the albion and he is not the type to back down if faced with confrontation but he's never been one to go looking for it to my knowledge.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

The Krays were good to their dear ol' Mum and there was no trouble when they were about... Everyone that gets caught up in this sort of thing is always a paragon of virtue and never a sh1tbag... Just the way it goes!

 

[pauli cee]

Very true. Unfortunately for me I was always of the opinion that telling the truth is more important than playing their game (answering as truthfully as possible rather than "no commenting" when they are misrepresenting the truth in questions). It's not done me any favours so far though. We shall see!

Same as, once back in the day (Doncaster at the Goldstone), pleaded guilty to a nothing offence, police report afterwards was very different to mine, and narrowly escaped a custodial sentence but got a 3 yr FBO, odds really are stacked against any football fan who ends up in court

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

You are right. The police's role is not sadly to be neutral and independently and fairly judge the facts - it is instead to build a case against the suspect.

Everything that can be interpreted in a negative way and used will be.

The CPS then judge whether to go ahead if they calculate there is a greater than 50?% chance of a guilty verdict based on that police case.

Silence and 'no comment' are powerful strategies in this situation.

Police should state what they saw and let cps decide whether to press charges. Actually I assumed this is what happens . . . not the job of the police to interpret what they encounter. If this is allowed it should be stopped.

In my game (heart research) we publish our findings. My papers are put through peer review. I am allowed to interpret the data in a Discussion section. But opinion is frowned upon. Reasonable deduction and consideration of whether it is a yes or a no is acceptable. Then the readers decide. Here the readers are the CPS. In my game if we ty to put a spin on the data we get slapped down (paper rejected; send it to another journal with a more measured Discussion). Here it seems that in the case of FBOs the OB just say 'he's guilty milud' and that is enough. Travesty.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Very true. Unfortunately for me I was always of the opinion that telling the truth is more important than playing their game (answering as truthfully as possible rather than "no commenting" when they are misrepresenting the truth in questions). It's not done me any favours so far though. We shall see!

I know. The problem is if ever you are interviewed under police caution the interview is recorded, and then gone through and analysed slowly line by line to try and interpret guilt. An unfortunate turn of phrase or not really saying what you mean can, if you are unlucky, count against you. If they can highlight any inconsistency even if accidental then you can be made to look unreliable or a liar. And of course if you answer some questions, but 'no comment' others then there is automatic suspicion as to why you answered a certain question a certain way. Best advice - tell your solicitor the full story so they write it all down and it's a legal record if you need it, and then 'no comment' every single question when being interviewed under caution. Forget the warning about ' may harm your defence... ' - your solicitor already has a legal document with your side of the story for court if needed. They can't then claim you made up your story on the way to court.

 

[drew]

You are right. The police's role is not sadly to be neutral and independently and fairly judge the facts - it is instead to build a case against the suspect.

Everything that can be interpreted in a negative way and used will be.

The CPS then judge whether to go ahead if they calculate there is a greater than 50?% chance of a guilty verdict based on that police case.

Silence and 'no comment' are powerful strategies in this situation.

Do you really think the threshold is just greater than 50% when the criteria for guilt is beyond reasonable doubt, which some would put as high as over 90%. They're not going to waste money and court time if they don't think it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Police should state what they saw and let cps decide whether to press charges. Actually I assumed this is what happens . . . not the job of the police to interpret what they encounter. If this is allowed it should be stopped.

In my game (heart research) we publish our findings. My papers are put through peer review. I am allowed to interpret the data in a Discussion section. But opinion is frowned upon. Reasonable deduction and consideration of whether it is a yes or a no is acceptable. Then the readers decide. Here the readers are the CPS. In my game if we ty to put a spin on the data we get slapped down (paper rejected; send it to another journal with a more measured Discussion). Here it seems that in the case of FBOs the OB just say 'he's guilty milud' and that is enough. Travesty.

The CPS do decide whether to proceed with the case. The police build that case against the suspect, they do not build the case to defend the suspect at the same time.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Do you really think the threshold is just greater than 50% when the criteria for guilt is beyond reasonable doubt, which some would put as high as over 90%. They're not going to waste money and court time if they don't think it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

50% was my guess. But it is a judgement call by the CPS and they do not need to be 100% convinced.

 

[LlcoolJ]

I know. The problem is if ever you are interviewed under police caution the interview is recorded, and then gone through and analysed slowly line by line to try and interpret guilt. An unfortunate turn of phrase or not really saying what you mean can, if you are unlucky, count against you. If they can highlight any inconsistency even if accidental then you can be made to look unreliable or a liar. And of course if you answer some questions, but 'no comment' others then there is automatic suspicion as to why you answered a certain question a certain way. Best advice - tell your solicitor the full story so they write it all down and it's a legal record if you need it, and then 'no comment' every single question when being interviewed under caution. Forget the warning about ' may harm your defence... ' - your solicitor already has a legal document with your side of the story for court if needed. They can't then claim you made up your story on the way to court.

Mine was/is a complicated situation and my (excellent) solicitor actually advised that I answer as thoroughly and truthfully as possible (second interview) as they basically had no case.

Unfortunately the CPS is also massively underfunded, full of people who don't want to be there as they're overworked and underpaid or are worrying about their jobs, or both.

I've seen the ineptitude first hand as judges berate the CPS for failing to present basic evidence at pre trial hearings meaning the whole thing is, adjourned, pointless, and costs thousands for nothing.

The result is that the people who are supposed to evaluate the completely biased information that the police give them don't actually care and just want to get the paperwork off their desk.

And don't get me started on the legal aid agency who make HMRC look like the most competent government body ever created.

Isn't austerity brilliant.

 

[LlcoolJ]

Do you really think the threshold is just greater than 50% when the criteria for guilt is beyond reasonable doubt, which some would put as high as over 90%. They're not going to waste money and court time if they don't think it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

You clearly haven't experienced this system first hand. I hope you never have to despite the fact that it would remove those rose tinted specs. It's a horrible mess that doesn't use any such logic.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Mine was/is a complicated situation and my (excellent) solicitor actually advised that I answer as thoroughly and truthfully as possible (second interview) as they basically had no case.

Unfortunately the CPS is also massively underfunded, full of people who don't want to be there as they're overworked and underpaid or are worrying about their jobs, or both.

I've seen the ineptitude first hand as judges berate the CPS for failing to present basic evidence at pre trial hearings meaning the whole thing is, adjourned, pointless, and costs thousands for nothing.

The result is that the people who are supposed to evaluate the completely biased information that the police give them don't actually care and just want to get the paperwork off their desk.

And don't get me started on the legal aid agency who make HMRC look like the most competent government body ever created.

Isn't austerity brilliant.

That sounds a nightmare. Best of luck with the outcome.

 

[Wardy's twin]

They were filmed by undercover police officers, who they also confronted. Think if they were attacked, they would want somebody filming it to prove their innocence. The film was examined by football officers in the UK and it resulted in a ban. We dont get to see evidence of other crimes particularly. Really dont understand any reason for the evidence being put forward for public scrutiny.

Like the Russians who were filming people they were beating up so they could brag about it? There would be more trust in the police if they were much more transparent in their activities.

 

[daveinprague]

Because in any other scenario, guilt has to be proven before a punishment is imposed.

But you will, as ever, argue that black is white.

The magistrate clearly saw enough evidence from the police film to apply a banning order. I had nothing to do with their ban.
If they are innocent, its been posted here, that there are ways to get the issue looked at. It may take a while, but if innocent, they will have their bans lifted.

 

[Swillis]

Do you really think the threshold is just greater than 50% when the criteria for guilt is beyond reasonable doubt, which some would put as high as over 90%. They're not going to waste money and court time if they don't think it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Do you really think so? Sometimes I think the CPS take a chance.
I had a case where the police wanted to do me for GBH, even though I genuinely never started anything.
Solicitor said don't worry they have nothing, they sent everything to the CPS. I was charged with one GBH and one ABH. Solicitor could not believe it, but still told not to worry. At the magistrates hearing at Greenwich I was remanded in custody. My solicitor was speechless but not as much as me. I had no previous and two witness statements saying I was not the instigator of the fight. It's pretty surprising to be on the way to Belmarsh for a fight you never started, never wanted or had a chance to avoid.
Luckily a barrister appealed to the crown court and I was let out on bail three days later. I was on a curfew and had to report to the station.
Cps then offered to lower the charges so I would definitely serve no time, I told them to stick it. But it would have been the least hassle(certainly less stressful route). I went in front of a crown court judge at Belmarsh crown court and my case was dismissed within twenty minutes, the only reason it took twenty minutes is because the judge spent fifteen minutes ripping into the CPS.

 

[LlcoolJ]

That sounds a nightmare. Best of luck with the outcome.

Thanks. I do actually really appreciate support such as your comment (tiny things) as this is an ongoing two year (so far) nightmare for me and my family caused entirely by the ego of one police officer (gawd bless er, sure she luvs er mum) and the ineptitude of the CPS. So when I say thanks I mean it.

I've never luzzed a chair by the way. Or hit a Russian, or anyone really. Just so nobody gets confused.

 

[LlcoolJ]

Do you really think so? Sometimes I think the CPS take a chance.
I had a case where the police wanted to do me for GBH, even though I genuinely never started anything.
Solicitor said don't worry they have nothing, they sent everything to the CPS. I was charged with one GBH and one ABH. Solicitor could not believe it, but still told not to worry. At the magistrates hearing at Greenwich I was remanded in custody. My solicitor was speechless but not as much as me. I had no previous and two witness statements saying I was not the instigator of the fight. It's pretty surprising to be on the way to Belmarsh for a fight you never started, never wanted or had a chance to avoid.
Luckily a barrister appealed to the crown court and I was let out on bail three days later. I was on a curfew and had to report to the station.
Cps then offered to lower the charges so I would definitely serve no time, I told them to stick it. But it would have been the least hassle(certainly less stressful route). I went in front of a crown court judge at Belmarsh crown court and my case was dismissed within twenty minutes, the only reason it took twenty minutes is because the judge spent fifteen minutes ripping into the CPS.

Precisely. You are persuaded to firstly act as a criminal by "no comment" being the best defence rather than telling the truth and secondly plead guilty to get a lesser sentence (and save loads of money) despite the fact that you are innocent.

The system is not only corrupt and skewed for those with loads of money, it's not fit for purpose.

Well done for standing your ground, but you were still lucky.

 

[westsussexseagulls]

I was in Marseille and witnessed first hand the absolute carnage, no police doing anything about the Russians . For the English police to start nicking people is a total disgrace, far too much power, English fans were being attacked left right and centre. Those that were there will know


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[westsussexseagulls]

Cool. You have evidence that will discredit the film the police took, and prove they did not confront the police for filming them?

Dave - simple question - were you there ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[daveinprague]

Dave - simple question - were you there ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, I wasnt. The police were and they filmed these individuals. Further more, the magistrates who viewed the evidence, felt it right to apply a banning order.
Do you discount all police evidence?

There is also another NSC poster on this thread, who was in the square, and witnessed this incident, that was an hour or so before the main gang of Russian thugs turned up in the square. I dont think he is in the police.

 

[westsussexseagulls]

No, I wasnt. The police were and they filmed these individuals. Further more, the magistrates who viewed the evidence, felt it right to apply a banning order.
Do you discount all police evidence?

There is also another NSC poster on this thread, who was in the square, and witnessed this incident, that was an hour or so before the main gang of Russian thugs turned up in the square. I dont think he is in the police.

I was there Dave - you seem to have made your own mind up on reports you have heard. With all due respect you are relying on nsc posts for your information.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[daveinprague]

I was there Dave - you seem to have made your own mind up on reports you have heard. With all due respect you are relying on nsc posts for your information.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

...and the fact that they have received a football ban on the basis of being filmed by undercover police officers, who they then confronted for filming them. The film was sent to a UK Football Policing Unit. Then served notice to appear at the magistrates, who applied the ban, I assume following viewing the film.
I dont think the poster has anything to gain, by seeing the incident, and posting about it particularly.
Do you always discount police evidence?