Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
Now you're just being silly.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[News] Albion fan given banning order.
- Thread starter AmexRuislip
- Start date
Now you're just being silly.
Seasidesage
New member
Flip side Drew is what if he was watching or passing by or waiting for a bus? I get that he probably wasn't but if they don't have the evidence to charge him, then they don't have evidence and that should be end of it. If he was say a Burglar you wouldn't be able to say he was seen near this house when it was robbed would you? They had the evidence of the pint throwing and the drugs so why add that?
Seasidesage
New member
But TB he isn't? Guilty beyond reasonable doubt. It's the basis of the judicial system. Yes it means that guilty people get off but it also makes it less likely that innocent people are found guilty.
drew
Drew
Do you know that the evidence was used to convict him for throwing the drink and being in possession of the crack cocaine? I doubt it because the video evidence was surely enough for the throwing the drink and the search was enough to prove he had crack cocaine. As I suggested, I don't know but suspect that the evidence that he seems to have a propensity to be in the 'vicinity' of disorder was presented as part of the sentencing aspect of the case.
You are wrong about the evidence as well. They may have evidence but which is not enough to secure a prosecution (remember beyond reasonable doubt is the criteria) but that doesn't equate to having no evidence.
Blues Rock DJ
New member
different kind of fist pumping there, no doubt !!
Hampster Gull
New member
- Dec 22, 2010
- 13,462
I just had a scary moment, imagining a jury made up of NSCs finest
I would have thought the police (in any case) would have to present some evidence to the CPS for it to be considered for a trial.
But I'm not sure this guy has been to court for these supposed occasions where he has "been in the vicinity of trouble"?
It'd be a Brexit binfest before you could utter "all rise".
Drew's main point seemed to be that I was anti PoliceIt is true I do not know the exact details of this case. However, FSF has many examples of the police banning people for association rather than actions at clubs across the country. I don't think this can be described as justice. If you throw a pint over someone I don't think you can expect anything other than a ban. However, I don't think it is right than accusations of being in the vicinity of trouble or knowing people who cause it is right. There are a lot of cases of that happening previously and by the looks of things in this case. If you cannot prove it you shouldn't be saying it in court and it certainly wouldn't admissible in a fraud case or some such would it?
No it wasn't. You are just being silly now.
As for the hearsay, read [MENTION=14365]Thunder Bolt[/MENTION]'s post. Bottom line is the court can ask for comments. If one of his neighbours popped in to say 'he's a lovely boy and always pops round to see how we are and offers to shop for my mum' and his boss says 'he's a hard worker but has ben off work with depression' he would probably have had his ST upgraded to West Upper. If he had no reliable character witnesses (apart from his drinking buds who say he's a top boy) and yet pcs 49, 50 and 51 have validated notes that record 'he was part of X Y and Z crowd in which A B and C happened, although we thought he wasn't worth charging at the time' then this can be taken into account. And, for the final time, FFS, he was NOT banned for 'association'. Au contraire, he got the tariff, and was not let off with a slap on the wrist because he failed to make a cogent case for himself (this being self evident, based on the outcome).
Hampster Gull
New member
- Dec 22, 2010
- 13,462
I suspect the judge would have to stand down the jury and start again with a new one after the predictable binfest
el punal
Well-known member
If the pint of beer was that bad why didn't he take back and ask for another? Must have been really flat if he was trying to get a head.
I suspect that both in my son's case and the present one there are things we don't know about that determined the outcome. In my son's case I suspect the OB let the yob run riot a bit longer so they could do him for something really serious - a strategy much less likely to happen today as we have become more risk averse. In the present case, we won't know until somone posts some facts, and its all to easy to gob off about it on one 'side' or another (mea culpa in that regard, albeit with a modicum of my usual restraint I hope
). All the best.
Last edited:
Seasidesage
New member
Two points. Drew called me anti police. Not the worst insult ever but he still did. I have managed to get over it. Second one is I never said he was banned for association. He was banned for chucking a pint at someone mostly and having drugs. But it was used to paint the guy in a worse light and presumably increase his ban as a result? It wouldn't be for any other criminal case so why for football related ones? Its not fact in a court of law at least if it cannot be used to gain a conviction. It may well be true but it cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt because if it could they would've charged and convicted him.
I'd like to believe that our criminal justice system should be fair and this in my opinion and clearly a few others isn't.
alfredmizen
Banned
- Mar 11, 2015
- 6,342
I suspect that both in my son's case and the present one there are things we don't know about that determined the outcome. In my son's case I suspect the OB let the yob run riot a bit longer so they could do him for something really serious - a strategy much less likely to happen today as we have become more risk averse. In the present case, we won't know until somone posts some facts, and its all to easy to gob off about it on one 'side' or another (mea culpa in that regard, albeit with a modicum of my usual restraint I hope
i bet .the poor.sod who he did something "really serious" to was over the moon with that strategy
i bet .the poor.sod who he did something "really serious" to was over the moon with that strategy
Indeed....
No. Sentence moved up or down (a bit) based on what good or bad can be said about the accused. I have experienced this having been in court last year where a fine could have ranged from around £50 to £1500. Whatever police say must have documentation. That would be set against the positive testamonials, about which (in the present case) we know nothing. Maybe there were some. In the case I know about, the defendant was polite, co-operative, contrite and unknown to the OB, so got the gentlest of fines. Still got a 12 month driving ban, though (not me I hasten to add). Bang to rights, but not subjected to the highest voltage of torture. Looks like the OB went the other way in the present case.
I believe that the criminal justice system is what it is. People don't vote for fairness unless this means 'treat me leniently when I get caught'. In all other cases people vote for 'hang any ******* who does me wrong!'. Meanwhile the laws are curated by those trained to do so. Who better? Bottom line, best not chuck beer over someone then toddle off to the footy with powders in your pocket unless you feel confident you can blag your way out of it. If you can, good luck to you. If not, especially if you have been a bit of an OB mocker and an extra in police videos passim, be more careful in future, no? None of this is the end of the world, is it?
Last edited:
Seasidesage
New member
Captain Sensible
Well-known member
I think you have to read between the lines in this case. Yes the law was used and a conviction made. Is it legal? Yes. is it right? Maybe because this individual is no loss to football. But, was he treated differently because he happened to be going to a football match that day? Yes. Is that right?? NO! If the lad threw a pint over someone and then went to a gig with some coke, would he be banned from attending gigs and have to report to the police when someone is playing at the O2? Of course not. I would rather he was treated that way for all other social gatherings but it just isn’t the case.
1 rule for football.. another for everything else. The Hillsborough verdict should have changed the draconian laws and the fact that football is used to bash someone with. Unfortunately society has not moved on. If you do something silly, you’d better no be going to a game that day.
1 rule for football.. another for everything else. The Hillsborough verdict should have changed the draconian laws and the fact that football is used to bash someone with. Unfortunately society has not moved on. If you do something silly, you’d better no be going to a game that day.