I agree with nearly all of that!
Which goes to show, our making an effort to communicate is what makes us human
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[News] Albion fan given banning order.
- Thread starter AmexRuislip
- Start date
Which goes to show, our making an effort to communicate is what makes us human
I actually agree with all that. But as I and others have intimated elsewhere, one needs to have a bit of sense. At 49 years old you must know that going a bit
in front of the OB a football environment may result in your being stopped and searched, so .... what you keep in your pocket at the time may or may not qualify you for a Darwin award . . . .anyway, this has been done to death now.
drew
Drew
The problem is that football had a very poor record for attracting the worst elements whereas concerts/gigs didn't hence the different sentencing options that were introduced.
Most of us have moved on or, more likely, were never into it in the first place but we still see ageing hoolies looking to rekindle their past.
Captain Sensible
Well-known member
I actually agree with all that. But as I and others have intimated elsewhere, one needs to have a bit of sense. At 49 years old you must know that going a bit
Yes and I think everyone agrees that it should make no difference as to what Sporting or entertainment event you may be attending later that day. The rules and punishment should be the same regardless. If the Albion had banned him for bringing illegal drugs into the Amex, fair enough. Also if the OB did him for possession.
But I am sick of football being different, different rules, different treatment. The sport that is the most wealthy, fans pay the most, the poor have been forced out. Yet those that attend are still brandished with the same brush as a 1980’s Millwall fan.
I honestly think this guy was an arse, and I only wish all those arses were treated like this, but football is the exception. I’ve been at rugby 7’s when pints of piss are thrown and believe me, a lot of those public schoolboys are coked up. I only wish they got the same treatment. Something is wrong.
Captain Sensible
Well-known member
HAD a very poor record. Your argument is defunct 6 words into your first sentence. You are talking 30 years ago.
darkwolf666
Well-known member
For fecks sake, cocaine, crack cocaine - what does it matter, he was an arse taking either to a football match (or or that matter at all)...
drew
Drew
You're right, the worst of it was 30 years ago but we all have to live with the legacy of that and when morons like the subject of this thread keep demonstrating that bad side we'll will all be forever tarred with the same brush. This sort of thing plays into the hands of those that don't want to reintroduce terracing, or allow people to take their pints to their seats or any number of other things we are currently restricted from doing so.
But it's not just a 1980s Millwall fan we get compared to now, it's also those that are still getting convicted of football related disorder!
Captain Sensible
Well-known member
You're right, the worst of it was 30 years ago but we all have to live with the legacy of that and when morons like the subject of this thread keep demonstrating that bad side we'll will all be forever tarred with the same brush. This sort of thing plays into the hands of those that don't want to reintroduce terracing, or allow people to take their pints to their seats or any number of other things we are currently restricted from doing so.
But it's not just a 1980s Millwall fan we get compared to now, it's also those that are still getting convicted of football related disorder!
Drew, we all know the reasons of why football had a different image amongst the establishment, but those reasons are now irrelevant. It’s over, it should no longer matter what public event you may or may not attend. The time for stereotyping someone with a football season ticket is over.
You mention current football related convictions, but this chaps misdemeanours, were not football related. Also I‘m gonna stick my neck out and say that most convictions that are labelled ‘football related’ are nothing of the sort. How many hours before or after an incident does a football match need to occur of which someone may attend to be deemed football related. Next day? Next week? No that’s daft isn’t it? What about 5 Hours before? 4 hours after? What if the OB find a season ticket in your wallet but you did not attend the game? Still football related? No it’s not and you know it! Along with everyone else.
Last edited:
drew
Drew
Sorry but I'm afraid I think you are living in cloud cuckoo land. It would be great if you were right but cast your mind back to the Euros last year. Do you think the trouble would have been better/worse/ the same if all those football and travel bans were lifted.
darkwolf666
Well-known member
Sorry, you are wrong. Not enough evidence to secure a conviction is completely difference to having no evidence.
The CPS will want "enough" evidence before pushhing ahead - this does not constitute no evidence.
Captain Sensible
Well-known member
You are living in cuckoo land I’m afraid. A bunch of neo nazi Russian thugs backed by their government has nothing to do with this or any other ’football related‘ (very loose terms) incidents. And if you do believe they are at all related then you are blinded by the same bigotry as those that choose to treat the football attending public as somehow different to all others in the U.K.
darkwolf666
Well-known member
Unfortunately, you only have to read the comments of a couple of knuckle draggers on here that there some that hanker after "the good ol' days"...
drew
Drew
You didn't answer the question. If there were no banning orders or travel bans, do you think those covered by such orders would have been involved last year. Would they still be involved in seeking out trouble in this country? Dark Wolf makes a very good point!!!
Or a Southampton season ticket...
Publius Ovidius
Well-known member
So, was he arrested for pouring beer over someone and being on cocaine?
Was he charged?
Was he sent to court?
Was he found guilty?
If the last of those questions is no, then football has flown in the face of our legal system and natural justice.
Was he charged?
Was he sent to court?
Was he found guilty?
If the last of those questions is no, then football has flown in the face of our legal system and natural justice.
Publius Ovidius
Well-known member
Therefore he is not guilty...if you don't accept that there needs to be clear and ambiguous guilt, then our society breaks down to guilt by association or " well he looks guilty". The jailing and manufactured charges against Irish people in the 70's and things like Hillsborough has shown us that evidence based policing rather than hysterical public and press clamour for someone to blame.
As I said, I do not know this case inside out, but it appears that football has suddenly become above the law of natural justice.
darkwolf666
Well-known member
I think this thread is now going round in circles. The gentleman in question was caught bang to rights on two counts, the police have then asked for other evidence to be considered when sentencing!
And while the sentence seems Draconian it is down to the past reputation of football fans and that of those I alluded to earlier who still try to defend thuggery that has meant things haven't changed for football fans.
Publius Ovidius
Well-known member
To be fair, that is the last thing I would do having lived through and witnessed first hand extreme violence at almost every match I followed albion in the 70's and some of the 80's. I M just uncomfortable with the idea that if he is acquitted he is still punished in some other way outside the law. That was all.
McTavish
Well-known member
- Nov 5, 2014
- 1,562
Yes to all three - see post #1