Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[News] Albion fan given banning order.



Thunder Bolt

Silly old bat
Banned from one ground after incident in the stadium hardly comparable

Banned from from one ground after incident in the stadium hardly comparable.

Banned from one ground after incident in the stadium hardly comparable.

Plus rugby league fans are probably viewed on the same level as football supporters. Well done for knowing how to use google though.

Good use of the word probably.
 








JC Footy Genius

Bringer of TRUTH
Jun 9, 2015
10,568
The examples I gave were harsher ie, life bans not three year bans.

The answer is no then. Yes being banned from one ground by a private business is a lot worse than the state telling you where you can and can't go in numerous locations at specific times across the country on pain of further punishment/imprisonment ... :facepalm:
 


Herr Tubthumper

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 11, 2003
59,487
The Fatherland
A prick for throwing a pint over someone, but this seems very excessive for a first offence. Don’t give a toss about the crack.
 








Pantani

Il Pirata
Dec 3, 2008
5,445
Newcastle
Fact is this is a classic case of a football fan being treated differently from a standard citizen. Chucking a pint on someone is not even an offence in any other walk of of life. Told to **** off by bouncers? Yes. Asked to leaver the premises? Yes. Police and courts involved in any way? No.

Is Mr Taylor a dick? Almost certainly. Was he carrying crack? I very much doubt it. Are we better without this guy at the Amex? Probably. But none of this matters, a first conviction regardless of what the police suspect, is a first conviction. This stinks in my opinion, and the bed wetters on here who think otherwise want to hope they are never in the wrong place at the wrong time needing to defend themselves.
 




Wrong-Direction

Well-known member
Mar 10, 2013
13,416
Quite a few people need banning from when we got promoted..

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk
 




















studio150

Well-known member
Jul 30, 2011
29,611
On the Border
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

And some people always believe that the Police stitch people up, and everyone in Court is innocent regardless of the evidence presented.
 






Harry Wilson's tackle

Harry Wilson's Tackle
NSC Patron
Oct 8, 2003
49,927
Faversham
I’d speak up for his character in court although I couldn’t discuss the incident in question as, along with those that have posted on here, I wasn’t there.

Join date Oct 2017. Welcome to North Stand Chat. As you are the character witness for the subject of the thread, it would be useful to know from you what part of NSC's collective (albeit majority but not unanimous) impression of your mate we've got wrong (nowithstanding the fact that you were not there and therefore presumably got your information from the horse's mouth). For example, assuming the bare facts are correct (the flying beer, the previous appearances on police officers' notebooks - but not charged - and the charlie), what are the mitigating circumstances (and I accept there may be some - we can all go through dark times and lose control and judgment)? It would be a pity if somone is mocked and vilified unfairly, and it would seem that you hold the key information. Care to share?
 


So you prefer a banal comment then. Perfect for NSC

No but I am impressed that so many people have got an insight into an event they never saw perpetrated by someone thery’ve never met simply on the basis of a link to an online publication that employs the services of a regular poster on here that is often slagged off on here for talking and typing bollocks
 
Last edited:


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here