Search results

You are talking garbage. It's football related because he was in a pub with Albion fans, exchanging words with Southampton fans and then arrested whilst getting off the train at Falmer. Are you seriously suggesting this was nothing to do with his trip to the football? As regards the scenario...

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!!!

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.

:facepalm: 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...

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...

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...

Firstly, that post was not directed at you unless you are a second account for Return of the Rev. Where did you get your information that that was how that evidence was presented as it certainly wasn't from the newspaper report? I don't get your book burning reference, seems totally...

She didn't say 'no' evidence, she said 'not enough'. Big difference.

For argument's sake, let's say the Police have video evidence of this person when he is in a gang that are having a go at opposition supporters. Might not throw a punch but might be goading some of his more dim witted colleagues to be violent. If it happened once then I would be surprised if...

The point was made in earlier posts. It is highly unlikely that the evidence presented was on the basis of this bloke being in the area of where trouble occurred but that he was actually involved. I'm sure you can get your brain around that. There are still some that hanker for the old days...

But you're interpreting what was said to suit your own anti Police agenda. Do you honestly think that the evidence presented was merely that he happened to be strolling along the same road/street when violence between others erupted?

It's probably equally troubling that some read so little into the comment from a newspaper article without having seen what evidence was presented by the Police.

Rather than hand yourself in perhaps you could engage your brain!

So you post a veiled threat and think that helps!!!

Character witness for the defence by any chance then?