[News] Albion fan given banning order.

The Clamp said:

Police have been after him for a while I would have thought. Luzzing a pint over someone is clearly assault but not something the police would normally pursue into court surely? If some idiot threw a pint over me I would be mighty pissed off but I very much doubt I'd bother getting them nicked for it, which makes me think the police wer elooking for a reason to get hold of him?

Click to expand...

Guy Fawkes said:

If people reading this article or about it on here about this part of the case don't find this sort of justice disturbing, or an eye opener to the questionable sort of practices used in regard to Policing and our Courts in this Country, and which demonstrates how the Justice system as it stands is extremely flawed against individuals with little or no way to challenge this non evidence which is used to inflate sentences, then i despair. Why is it even allowed in our Courts?

The individual in this case here shows no convictions, there is no evidence offered to show that the defendant was in any way actually involved in any of that disorder being referred to, but is being judged guilty by the justice system as the coincidence of being in an area is being deemed enough to be able to be used to judge character and behaviour (wrongly imo) to help ensure a harsher sentence, and the general public seem to be accepting this.

it's like saying that you were in Marseilles during the Russian football violence, but not involved in any of the fighting, they can claim that you were present in the area (be it at the opposite end of the stadium from the trouble, or away from the street battles that occurred but by simply being near enough to the troubles in their eyes,) it's unfairly determined that it can be used as evidence in your sentencing even though ts completely unrelated to that incident and it has no bearing on the case or proof that your character is one of violence or disorder, but it appears association (like this example of Marseilles) would be enough to seemingly find someone guilty of a behaviour that they didn't commit in this information presented post verdict but prior to sentencing.

People wrongly trust and accept the Justice system we have and presume everything is moral and based on proper justice for all parties involved and not to try to influence sentences by using flimsy evidence which hasn't been scrutinized or cross examined by the defence or allowed to be challenged and potentially thrown out

Click to expand...

Guy Fawkes said:

If people reading this article or about it on here about this part of the case don't find this sort of justice disturbing, or an eye opener to the questionable sort of practices used in regard to Policing and our Courts in this Country, and which demonstrates how the Justice system as it stands is extremely flawed against individuals with little or no way to challenge this non evidence which is used to inflate sentences, then i despair. Why is it even allowed in our Courts?

The individual in this case here shows no convictions, there is no evidence offered to show that the defendant was in any way actually involved in any of that disorder being referred to, but is being judged guilty by the justice system as the coincidence of being in an area is being deemed enough to be able to be used to judge character and behaviour (wrongly imo) to help ensure a harsher sentence, and the general public seem to be accepting this.

it's like saying that you were in Marseilles during the Russian football violence, but not involved in any of the fighting, they can claim that you were present in the area (be it at the opposite end of the stadium from the trouble, or away from the street battles that occurred but by simply being near enough to the troubles in their eyes,) it's unfairly determined that it can be used as evidence in your sentencing even though ts completely unrelated to that incident and it has no bearing on the case or proof that your character is one of violence or disorder, but it appears association (like this example of Marseilles) would be enough to seemingly find someone guilty of a behaviour that they didn't commit in this information presented post verdict but prior to sentencing.

People wrongly trust and accept the Justice system we have and presume everything is moral and based on proper justice for all parties involved and not to try to influence sentences by using flimsy evidence which hasn't been scrutinized or cross examined by the defence or allowed to be challenged and potentially thrown out

Click to expand...

Horton's halftime iceberg said:

Possesion of class A drug can be up to 7 year sentance

Class A drugs include: heroin (diamorphine), cocaine (including crack), methadone, ecstasy (MDMA), LSD, and magic mushrooms.

So in that way yes, you could get up to a 7 year ban (unless you get a lot of weekend release)

Click to expand...

JC Footy Genius said:

banned from going within five miles of any football stadium

Click to expand...

Triggaaar said:

5 miles! How can that be legal? That rules out living in London, or even visiting on a Saturday.

Click to expand...

The Clamp said:

If some idiot threw a pint over me I would be mighty pissed off but I very much doubt I'd bother getting them nicked for it

Click to expand...

Triggaaar said:

Noted.

Click to expand...

JC Footy Genius said:

... 'banned from going to the Amex Stadium or parts of Brighton City Centre for three years while a match is being played at the stadium or for four hours before and after kick off. He is also banned from going within five miles of any football stadium in England and Wales for four hours before and after kick off of any match for three years.'

Click to expand...

Triggaaar said:

5 miles! How can that be legal? That rules out living in London, or even visiting on a Saturday.

Click to expand...

JC Footy Genius said:

Because we are only football supporters, therefore, second-class citizens so our freedoms/rights are of little consequence to the legal establishment?

Rupert (no convictions/criminal record) supposedly/allegedly associates with rum types and throws a pint of real ale over an oppo rugger fan, he is later arrested and found to have an illegal drug in his possession ... similar restrictions/ bannng order from every ground/area for years to come .... nope.

Click to expand...

Thunder Bolt said:

Banned for life for throwing a plastic glass at the referee.Rugby League
http://www.seriousaboutrl.com/salford-supporter-ban-8075/

Banned for life for abusing Lomo (and from Nottm Forest ground also for other offences)Rugby Union
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10363478

Rugby League thugs facing life time bans
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/6...an-violence-savage-brawl-Salford-Huddersfield

Click to expand...