'Crawley fan' gets suspended jail sentence and fine for Man U gesture

[The Wookiee]

Apparently he has recently served time for his involvement in an edl riot, already banned from crawley for 3 years and he supports palace, he is also a total knob ! Perhaps this had a bearing on his sentence ?

 

[edna krabappel]

I dont for one second think what he did was either funny or a good idea but when did it become illegal to mock an event like this?

Section 5 Public Order Act: Using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or displaying any writing, sign or visible representation (that could be deemed threatening, abusive or insulting) within hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress.

There doesn't actually have to be a victim as such, but the fact that someone has found it sufficiently insulting or abusive to take the time to report it means that would have added weight. They used the same offence to prosecute a couple of fundamentalist Islamic types for displaying "offensive" banners on Remembrance Sunday I think.

The lad was questioned about it, evidently admitted his conduct contravened that law, and pleaded guilty in court. End of. He'll probably get banned from football matches now, though the way Palace are playing, he may consider that a bonus.

 

[Billy the Fish]

Welcome to trial by media, welcome to the modern world.

 

[The French Mistress]

How about the vid on YouTube.........load of blokes moving ever so slightly to some crap band !

 

[Walker11]

Inside Knowledge, The lad Is free and Is walking around Crawley as we speak he got a 1 year suspended sentence, life long ban from watching Crawley home and away from what I know he can still attend Palace games

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Section 5 Public Order Act: Using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or displaying any writing, sign or visible representation (that could be deemed threatening, abusive or insulting) within hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress.

There doesn't actually have to be a victim as such, but the fact that someone has found it sufficiently insulting or abusive to take the time to report it means that would have added weight. They used the same offence to prosecute a couple of fundamentalist Islamic types for displaying "offensive" banners on Remembrance Sunday I think.

The lad was questioned about it, evidently admitted his conduct contravened that law, and pleaded guilty in court. End of. He'll probably get banned from football matches now, though the way Palace are playing, he may consider that a bonus.

Being pedantic yes he clearly has broken the law. But if I went to the pub and called someone a rotter, and they turned round and said 'ooooh, I'm offended' and called the plod would you bother to come and arrest me? Would I go to court? Unlikely even if I did have previous of calling people rotters.

Being pedantic it's also illegal to smile on the tube and make jam on Sundays apparently.

 

[Gritt23]

"eight weeks in prison, suspended for 12 months"

Kiddy fiddlers get less than that.

Really? Do you have a link to any such case and sentencing?

edit: other than Catholics Priests.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

Does that mean we can all get prosecuted for making a bad remark against dead nazi's? Or suicude bombers? Or dead Al-Quieda? If you die you die, whether you are Duncan Edwards or Adolf Hitler. Does this mean anything said against the dead is now prosecutable?

Ah well prosecute me...

Fred West is in his back yard one morning , the next door neighbour comes out and shouts
"Fred, what you doing with that spade?"
"Gettin the kids up for school"

Take me to court!

 

[Lord Bracknell]

So if I said that your post had offended me, Sussex Police would have to investigate? Now lets all search for what Withdean Wanderer has posted over the years on here...........

It wouldn't be the first post on NSC that Sussex Police have "investigated". To get them moving, it helps if the complaint comes from the Chief Executive of Lewes District Council, though.

It wasn't alleged to be a Public Order Act offence, either. It was the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 that was used - with the threat of very severe penalties of imprisonment.

 

[Comedy Steve]

Sentencing always includes consideration of your previous (as it should do) - and he clearly had previous. Context is also everything; I've said worse on stage and not been done, because obviously, it was as part of a performance.

Also curious to see where 'Kiddy fiddlers get less than 8 weeks'. I think that's a Daily Mail myth.

 

[Spider]

Probably because he has previous. And it was clearly pre-meditated and done in the knowledge it would be in the public eye.

Do you have any evidence to back the claim that the reason for this sentence was because "he had previous" or are you just working on suppositon? I agree with the latter point but I think you would agree a suspended jail sentence is harsh in the extreme and trying to defame the guy on what you 'assume' he has done before (because, let's face it, he's clearly an absolute tool) is pretty below the belt without the facts to hand.

 

[philsussex]

When somebody makes a complaint that it has offended them the police have no choice but get involved I believe but Edna might correct me

the bloke is clearly a twat but so is whoever made a complaint.

Can't the police just tell the complainant to grow up and f*** off?

 

[Acker79]

So, he doesn't have to do community service, all he has to do is not break the law for a year (or else he goes to prison for 8 weeks)? Other than that he lives his life as normal and people think that was over the top?

 

[Dr. Notthenineo'clocknews]

Or far more likely to all the United fans who will sing about Hillsborough and Heysel.

Or the loveable scouser that comes into my shop that constantly refers to Man United as 'Munich bastards'

 

[edna krabappel]

Do you have any evidence to back the claim that the reason for this sentence was because "he had previous" or are you just working on suppositon? I agree with the latter point but I think you would agree a suspended jail sentence is harsh in the extreme and trying to defame the guy on what you 'assume' he has done before (because, let's face it, he's clearly an absolute tool) is pretty below the belt without the facts to hand.

As with most convicted criminals, their previous convictions are taken into account when sentencing, and published in the court reports (and thus on the news). So yes I do have evidence, I wouldn't be on here telling you he had form if it wasn't public knowledge.

Besides, he only got a suspended sentence, it's not like he'll actually do any time unless he misbehaves in the next twelve months, in which case he'd deserve all he got. Why the fuss? He's walked away with pretty much nothing, which is what most people seem to think he warranted.

 

[Dr. Notthenineo'clocknews]

the bloke is clearly a twat but so is whoever made a complaint.

Can't the police just tell the complainant to grow up and f*** off?

It seems on the surface a lot of fuss about nothing but I suspect whoever made the complaint is a United fan, People make comments about Hillsborough and no one says anything but say the same in front of a scouser and you'll get a good hiding, comments about Galatasaraay in front of Leeds fans would land you in the same hot water, Bradford, Ibrox, Burnden park etc etc. How would people on here feel if some pissed up arsehole started taking Robert Eaton's name in vain, I didn't know Robert but it would, let's say "give me the hump" to say the least.

 

[edna krabappel]

It's also the public nature of what he did isn't it, on a video designed to be seen by a wide audience, and the fact he clearly meant for his actions to be seen and knew they were likely to cause offence.

It's a bit different to two people having a conversation- or even perhaps an online chat on a messageboard where people might expect to hear a certain level of abuse.

He's an absolute idiot, can't we at least agree on that?

 

[happypig]

Previous convictions are always considered when sentencing because it's relevant to the offender. Sometimes it will be a continuation or escalation of previous offences of the same type and sometimes it will be a totally different offence, in which case the sentencer(s) are likely not to increase the punishement (ie if you were up for shoplifting and had 10 previous convictions, then your punishment is likely to be greater than a first time offender; if, however, you are up for assault, then your shoplifting convictions are less relevant).
It is worth noting that to make a judgement on whether to find someone guilty of such an offence (and I presume the police/cps take a similar view on arresting/charging) then the bench/jury has to decide whether a normal person would take offence. Clearly by posting the video on youtube (or by performing in it knowing it was to be so published), the bloke has deliberately set out to cause offence.

 

[Billy the Fish]

Besides, he only got a suspended sentence, it's not like he'll actually do any time unless he misbehaves in the next twelve months, in which case he'd deserve all he got. Why the fuss? He's walked away with pretty much nothing, which is what most people seem to think he warranted.

But it's a conviction that will stay on his record and count against him in the future. A supended sentance is still a prison sentance and that seems unnecessarily harsh in this case, why not just give a few hours CS?

I know the answer to that, it's because it's in the public eye and they want to make an example - to me that is no way to run a justice system. I don't care what he's done in the past, this is a slap on the wrist offence any day of the week. A word in the ear and a caution would've been more appropriate and less of a waste of everyones time

 

[Barrel of Fun]

... and he supports palace!

Perhaps this had a bearing on his sentence ?

Probably not. Life sentence springs to mind...