Search results

Are you suggesting it was purely coincidence they were in Marseilles at the time England were playing? Of course not and no one would believe you. They might not have been going to the game but they were there because of the football.

So why play into their hands by throwing beer at them. Are you now saying they were boxed in a corner with nowhere to go? Luckily, it seems, that corner had street furniture to hand! To be honest, no one is going to be convinced one way or the other until the video evidence is released.

That would be the obvious answer but apparently not the one that suits the protagonists in this thread.

Throwing beer over a cameraman you thought was a journalist is defending yourself? Are you saying this is the only time they have ever thrown a punch at a football match or are you saying they only ever throw punches at football matches when they '****ing had to'?

I sitll don't understand why they wouldn't have got legal advice irrespective of the alleged short notice?

Or the person who first suggested it was 12 hours? However, it is irrelevant as they could still have sought advice. There is no indication that they did.

Maybe they are then, or does that possibility not compute with you? Either way, it's pretty dumb not to get advice, surely you agree with that. Also, is there any news as to whether they are going to appeal?

So they went to magistrates court, without having sought advice and pleaded guilty to the charges yet according to Frankie they knew that if they pleaded not guilty they could still face losing, getting the ban and having to incur defence/prosecution costs? I don't know whether the 12 hours...

So can you imagine the response on here if everyone was banned after their very first offence? The fact that you raise it suggests there have been more than one offence for some of those individuals suggesting a pattern of behaviour. So after an accumulation of apparent evidence of their...

Did these 5 'lads' not seek any advice before they went before the magistrates, whether that was from a solicitor, CAB or even a legal helpline?

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 idiot. Do not want to cause major damage but when someone is unconscious on the ground they are willing to continue to pummel and kick their head.