BHAFC Fans given banning order....................

Ernest said:

Seems a bit like a kangaroo court, they could have been defending themselves or helping the bar owner rearrange his furniture and the SNEAKY Feds didn't see the complete picture.

I would have pleaded NOT guilty and it would have been thrown out of court.

Click to expand...

The Kid Frankie said:

Typical clueless responses on here.

Can't even be arsed to delve into the facts of the case (which have strangely eluded local press), but anyone who fancies sharing the 'muppet' 'idiots' etc etc comments make yourselves known and I am sure I can help you share these comments in person instead of the safety of your computer.

Click to expand...

mejonaNO12 aka riskit said:

Gav, Shezza, Liam , Jake and Lee

All we need is a "DAZ", "GAZ" and "BAZZA" and that's a full set of generic hooligan names.




*Sits back and waits for anyone with those names to respond*

Click to expand...

The Kid Frankie said:

Can't even be arsed to delve into the facts of the case (which have strangely eluded local press), but anyone who fancies sharing the 'muppet' 'idiots' etc etc comments make yourselves known and I am sure I can help you share these comments in person instead of the safety of your computer.

Click to expand...

The Kid Frankie said:

Typical clueless responses on here.

Can't even be arsed to delve into the facts of the case (which have strangely eluded local press), but anyone who fancies sharing the 'muppet' 'idiots' etc etc comments make yourselves known and I am sure I can help you share these comments in person instead of the safety of your computer.

Click to expand...

The Kid Frankie said:

Typical clueless responses on here.

Can't even be arsed to delve into the facts of the case (which have strangely eluded local press), but anyone who fancies sharing the 'muppet' 'idiots' etc etc comments make yourselves known and I am sure I can help you share these comments in person instead of the safety of your computer.

Click to expand...

The Kid Frankie said:

Typical clueless responses on here.

Can't even be arsed to delve into the facts of the case (which have strangely eluded local press), but anyone who fancies sharing the 'muppet' 'idiots' etc etc comments make yourselves known and I am sure I can help you share these comments in person instead of the safety of your computer.

Click to expand...

The Kid Frankie said:

Ok...

If you are summoned to court on a civil complaint like these lads, you are not entitled to any legal aid. You are also presented before 3 busy wankers (sometimes known as a magistrate) who have made their decisions before anyone has even set foot in court. The tiniest shred of evidence against you basically garuntees an FBO. If you contest it and lose, you get the ban and have to foot the bill, which runs well into the thousands of pounds. In this instance the lads defended themselves against the Russians (who lets not forget inflicted some pretty major damage that day). They are good blokes who have followed BHA home and away for a long long time. However knowing the implications of fighting the ban in court and losing they had no choice but to accept it - as many have before them. This is not a criminal court where you can defend yourself properly, it is very different. In my personal opinion it is an absolute joke that the police and the courts can even hand out FBO's in these circumstances. Naturally the Arsegus will use the usual buzz words in their article to instigate the obligatory reaction from those out there not aware of how the civil football banning order works.

As I say, people not aware of the facts shouldn't be so quick to judge.

Click to expand...

Worthingite said:

So you are saying there WAS evidence against them? Case closed M'lud.

Click to expand...

The Kid Frankie said:

Ok...

If you are summoned to court on a civil complaint like these lads, you are not entitled to any legal aid. You are also presented before 3 busy wankers (sometimes known as a magistrate) who have made their decisions before anyone has even set foot in court. The tiniest shred of evidence against you basically garuntees an FBO. If you contest it and lose, you get the ban and have to foot the bill, which runs well into the thousands of pounds. In this instance the lads defended themselves against the Russians (who lets not forget inflicted some pretty major damage that day). They are good blokes who have followed BHA home and away for a long long time. However knowing the implications of fighting the ban in court and losing they had no choice but to accept it - as many have before them. This is not a criminal court where you can defend yourself properly, it is very different. In my personal opinion it is an absolute joke that the police and the courts can even hand out FBO's in these circumstances. Naturally the Arsegus will use the usual buzz words in their article to instigate the obligatory reaction from those out there not aware of how the civil football banning order works.

As I say, people not aware of the facts shouldn't be so quick to judge.

Click to expand...

Djmiles said:

What a delightful looking bunch. 5 'fans' who thankfully will never set foot at an Albion match again.

Click to expand...

Uncle Buck said:

So not found guilty of an offence in France, but convicted here for an offence that did not happen in this country. Seems questionable.

Still it will allow everyone a bit of hand-wringing on here.

See the Russians seem to have got away with it.

Click to expand...

The Kid Frankie said:

Typical clueless responses on here.

Can't even be arsed to delve into the facts of the case (which have strangely eluded local press), but anyone who fancies sharing the 'muppet' 'idiots' etc etc comments make yourselves known and I am sure I can help you share these comments in person instead of the safety of your computer.

Click to expand...

The Kid Frankie said:

Ok...

If you are summoned to court on a civil complaint like these lads, you are not entitled to any legal aid. You are also presented before 3 busy wankers (sometimes known as a magistrate) who have made their decisions before anyone has even set foot in court. The tiniest shred of evidence against you basically garuntees an FBO. If you contest it and lose, you get the ban and have to foot the bill, which runs well into the thousands of pounds. In this instance the lads defended themselves against the Russians (who lets not forget inflicted some pretty major damage that day). They are good blokes who have followed BHA home and away for a long long time. However knowing the implications of fighting the ban in court and losing they had no choice but to accept it - as many have before them. This is not a criminal court where you can defend yourself properly, it is very different. In my personal opinion it is an absolute joke that the police and the courts can even hand out FBO's in these circumstances. Naturally the Arsegus will use the usual buzz words in their article to instigate the obligatory reaction from those out there not aware of how the civil football banning order works.

As I say, people not aware of the facts shouldn't be so quick to judge.

Click to expand...

sjamesb3466 said:

So they were not filmed throwing chairs and confronting Russian fans and the undercover police as described in n the article?

I don't buy this 'defending themselves' excuse as if I found myself being charged at by a mob of hooligans I would be off faster than Usain Bolt. I can understand that sometimes you get caught in the wrong place at the wrong time but confronting other hooligans deserves a ban for me. If I was innocent I would fight the charges no matter how much it costs.

Click to expand...