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

Worthingite · Jul 8, 2016

The Kid Frankie said:
Wow I do hope you are never on jury duty mate... EVIDENCE doesn't = GUILT

If it's all the same to you, I'll politely disregard any legal advice from someone who's styles themselves on a low rent Danny Dyer role. I'm a big believer in the fact that if there is cold hard evidence against someone, then 99% of the time they get what they're given.

alfredmizen · Jul 8, 2016

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.

well said.

martin tyler · Jul 8, 2016

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.

The legal aid aspect is correct but they should have taken some advice as these cases are winnable. In addition they have the right to appeal to a crown court even if it is a civil banning order if they feel they have been wrongfully treated. legal aid would be available for this via the normal appeals procesure. If they were defending themselves and sometimes there is a very fine line between self defence and not then the football banning order should be up held. Case law around the subject is clear but as I said the margins are fine. It's not self defence to charge and throw a table at someone no matter what but it is self defence if they had No other choice. I'd be intereste in assisting d if you wanted to PM any finer details of what has happened.

Eeyore · Jul 8, 2016

I condemn violence. But there's something here that makes me feel uncomfortable. Was this self defence, or retaliation under great duress ? Were the five allowed to present their case ? The only answer I have is that to contest the banning orders they would have needed to go to great cost.

The Clamp · Jul 8, 2016

The Kid Frankie said:
Not everyone deals with similar situations the same.

Obviously I've not seen the footage in question but you are correct. People act in different ways.Some of the footage I've seen of similar incidents shows Russians throwing furniture at people who were sitting outside a restaurant. Some of the people sitting outside the restaurant got up and moved well away. Some of the people sitting outside the restaurant stood up and started throwing furniture back at the russians. The people outside the restaurant who stood up and walked well away were not arrested, they were not injured and they injured nobody else. They got on with their evening. The people who started throwing furniture back at the Russians went to jail.

Arthur · Jul 8, 2016

sjamesb3466 said:
So they were not filmed throwing chairs and confronting Russian fans and the undercover police as described in n the article?

Yes they were.....having been attacked by them in the first place.

sjamesb3466 said:
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.

Well that says more about you being a shitehouse than anything.

sjamesb3466 said:
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.

So lets say you were having a pint in your local tonight and some mush walks in and lumps you for no reason other than he didn't like the look of you. You hit him back and it's on CCTV. Should you be done for assault? And if so would it then be fair for the Argus to splash your name and photograph all over their rag?

Doc Lynam · Jul 8, 2016

The Argus seems very quick to name, picture and put addresses!

Norman Baker suck my lozenge · Jul 8, 2016

alfredmizen said:
Spot on , this is a board that was prepared to believe people were on ''computer courses'' in Afghanistan yet is cock a hoop at people being given banning orders on the say so of Policemen despite not being convicted of any offence.

Sounds about right,
You can go "butterfly catching" on the Tora Bora and come home to unlimited compo and a ticker tape reception from the trendy pub quizzers of North Laine,luzz a couple of deck chairs at a French copper and they want to throw away the key.
I'm off for a hemp and nettle smoothie.

alfredmizen · Jul 8, 2016

Arthur said:
Yes they were.....having been attacked by them in the first place.

Well that says more about you being a shitehouse than anything.

So lets say you were having a pint in your local tonight and some mush walks in and lumps you for no reason other than he didn't like the look of you. You hit him back and it's on CCTV. Should you be done for assault? And if so would it then be fair for the Argus to splash your name and photograph all over their rag?

Hear,Hear.

alfredmizen · Jul 8, 2016

Norman Baker suck my lozenge said:
Sounds about right,
You can go "butterfly catching" on the Tora Bora and come home to unlimited compo and a tikka tape reception from the trendy pub quizzers of North Laine,luzz a couple of deck chairs at a French copper and they want to throw away the key.
I'm off for a hemp and nettle smoothie.

The Clamp · Jul 8, 2016

Norman Baker suck my lozenge said:
Sounds about right,
You can go "butterfly catching" on the Tora Bora and come home to unlimited compo and a tikka tape reception from the trendy pub quizzers of North Laine,luzz a couple of deck chairs at a French copper and they want to throw away the key.
I'm off for a hemp and nettle smoothie.

Does it have to be Tikka tape, I'm a Balti man if that's okay?

The Kid Frankie · Jul 8, 2016

Worthingite said:
If it's all the same to you, I'll politely disregard any legal advice from someone who's styles themselves on a low rent Danny Dyer role. I'm a big believer in the fact that if there is cold hard evidence against someone, then 99% of the time they get what they're given.

Ok bud.

If you want to have such naive faith in the justice system that is up to you. I hope you never to have to find yourself in a situation where you have to question it like some others have.

Billy the Fish · Jul 8, 2016

The Clamp said:
Obviously I've not seen the footage in question but you are correct. People act in different ways.Some of the footage I've seen of similar incidents shows Russians throwing furniture at people who were sitting outside a restaurant. Some of the people sitting outside the restaurant got up and moved well away. Some of the people sitting outside the restaurant stood up and started throwing furniture back at the russians. The people outside the restaurant who stood up and walked well away were not arrested, they were not injured and they injured nobody else. They got on with their evening. The people who started throwing furniture back at the Russians went to jail.

Not everyone was that lucky. One bloke has only just woken from a coma. Plenty of others took a beating from the Russians while trying to get away from them.

The Clamp · Jul 8, 2016

Billy the Fish said:
Not everyone was that lucky. One bloke has only just woken from a coma. Plenty of others took a beating from the Russians while trying to get away from them.

Fair point.

Guinness Boy · Jul 8, 2016

My mum used to say two wrongs don't make a right. Whatever you think these blokes have done, the way FBOs are handed out is disgraceful, with the assumption that you are guilty rather than innocent until proven guilty. It's not really different to those control orders that had to be rebadged due to the widespread concern over their use.

Peteinblack · Jul 8, 2016

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.

LOL! I thought exactly the same - they really are a cliché.

mejonaNO12 aka riskit · Jul 8, 2016

If I had stuff being LOBBED at me I would RUN AWAY, not LOB stuff back.

Apparently that makes me "pathetic" or a "wimp" but this pathetic wimp wouldn't be in jail or banned from going to watch the football.

Marshy · Jul 8, 2016

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.

So you are threatening violence and dont want to be called an idiot....

chairman · Jul 8, 2016

It's seems to be all about how you react, for instance when two players confront each other their team mates wade in and confront the opposition instead of pulling their team mate away which would stop confrontation. But is that seen as a sign of weekness. Is this how they behaved, if they were provoked there is still no excuse for replying with violence.

sjamesb3466 · Jul 8, 2016

Arthur said:
Yes they were.....having been attacked by them in the first place.

Well that says more about you being a shitehouse than anything.

So lets say you were having a pint in your local tonight and some mush walks in and lumps you for no reason other than he didn't like the look of you. You hit him back and it's on CCTV. Should you be done for assault? And if so would it then be fair for the Argus to splash your name and photograph all over their rag?

If it makes me a shithouse as you so eloquently put it to make a rational decision to potentially preserve my own life by running instead of taking on skilled and practised fighters then I am guilty as charged. I am not so scared of being perceived as being weak for making that decision in public so I would personally say that it is you that have the issues rather than me if you would feel the need to be seen as the big man who 'stands his ground'.

The article states that they confronted the Russians and the police. Even if this was after being attacked, any right minded individual would let the authorities deal with the thugs and get out, not start throwing chairs cos someone else started it. That is a child's excuse.

Finally, if someone smacked me in a pub and I hit them back then I would never be done for assault if I used reasonable force to defend myself. If I was attacked and I then followed my attacker out the pub and hit him with a chair, we would both quite rightly be charged with assault. Your scenario doesn't hold water I'm afraid

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

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

Sexy Pete... :D

Banned

Well-known member

Colonel Hee-Haw of Queen's Park

Well-known member

Well-known member

I hate the Daily Mail

New member

Banned

Banned

Well-known member

New member

Technocrat

Well-known member

Tofu eating wokerati

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Share this page