oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 4,332
|
Post by oldie on May 25, 2022 12:36:18 GMT
Richard Hathaway, 19 and of Southmead, was convicted of using words or behaving in a way likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress and entering the playing area. He was handed a five-year football banning order by magistrates. Lee Wells, 38 and of Oldland Common, was handed a three-year football banning order and ordered to carry out 100 hours of community service. He entered the pitch, was found to be in possession of a firework, flare or pyrotechnic item and was convicted of using words or behaving in a way likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress. It seems they got the banning orders mixed up, as surely the second defendant's crimes warranted the longer banning order? Not really, because 'using words or behaving in a way likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress' is so broad as to be virtually meaningless. For example, it could easily apply to some of the stuff that has thrown in my direction. Really??
|
|
bloogas
Joined: July 2016
Posts: 1,095
|
Post by bloogas on May 25, 2022 12:39:33 GMT
Richard Hathaway, 19 and of Southmead, was convicted of using words or behaving in a way likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress and entering the playing area. He was handed a five-year football banning order by magistrates. Lee Wells, 38 and of Oldland Common, was handed a three-year football banning order and ordered to carry out 100 hours of community service. He entered the pitch, was found to be in possession of a firework, flare or pyrotechnic item and was convicted of using words or behaving in a way likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress. It seems they got the banning orders mixed up, as surely the second defendant's crimes warranted the longer banning order? Not really, because 'using words or behaving in a way likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress' is so broad as to be virtually meaningless. For example, it could easily apply to some of the stuff that has thrown in my direction. It could obviously apply to someone rushing towards another person shouting "get out, get out, there's a fire and it's spreading fast." This would cause alarm and distress.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2022 12:51:48 GMT
Richard Hathaway, 19 and of Southmead, was convicted of using words or behaving in a way likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress and entering the playing area. He was handed a five-year football banning order by magistrates. Lee Wells, 38 and of Oldland Common, was handed a three-year football banning order and ordered to carry out 100 hours of community service. He entered the pitch, was found to be in possession of a firework, flare or pyrotechnic item and was convicted of using words or behaving in a way likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress. It seems they got the banning orders mixed up, as surely the second defendant's crimes warranted the longer banning order? Not really, because 'using words or behaving in a way likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress' is so broad as to be virtually meaningless. For example, it could easily apply to some of the stuff that has thrown in my direction. 😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁 Poor Duke
|
|
|
Post by rideintothesun on May 25, 2022 12:57:00 GMT
Not really, because 'using words or behaving in a way likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress' is so broad as to be virtually meaningless. For example, it could easily apply to some of the stuff that has thrown in my direction. Really?? I'm not saying it is any of these things, I'm saying that if you take this definition as your benchmark, then it could conceivably be interpreted in any of these ways. I'm actually saying the opposite - it isn't, but it could be.
|
|
|
Post by rideintothesun on May 25, 2022 13:00:13 GMT
Not really, because 'using words or behaving in a way likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress' is so broad as to be virtually meaningless. For example, it could easily apply to some of the stuff that has thrown in my direction. It could obviously apply to someone rushing towards another person shouting "get out, get out, there's a fire and it's spreading fast." This would cause alarm and distress. And it would also apply to telling somebody they need to lose weight or telling a city fan they should find a proper team to support.
|
|
bloogas
Joined: July 2016
Posts: 1,095
|
Post by bloogas on May 25, 2022 14:44:15 GMT
It could obviously apply to someone rushing towards another person shouting "get out, get out, there's a fire and it's spreading fast." This would cause alarm and distress. And it would also apply to telling somebody they need to lose weight or telling a city fan they should find a proper team to support. It could indeed. The permutations are almost limitless.
|
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 4,332
|
Post by oldie on May 25, 2022 14:51:59 GMT
And it would also apply to telling somebody they need to lose weight or telling a city fan they should find a proper team to support. It could indeed. The permutations are almost limitless. This divergence is bordering on the ridiculous 🤭
|
|
|
Post by Bath Gas on May 25, 2022 15:54:39 GMT
To be fair to the Club after the "victimless crime" statement was left to fester on the web-site for 3 or 4 days (after comments by the Court were wilfully mis-represented by Bristol Rovers FC), it was removed and Wael Al-Qadi did come out with a strongly worded statement. Well done Wael. Reminder. Wael Al-Qadi: "Firstly, I think it is really important to confirm that as a club we stand firmly against any form of violence. Any individual that is found guilty of any such offences will be dismissed immediately. I understand the concerns expressed by a number of you." So I am waiting for a similarly worded statement to come about the pitch invasion and intimidation of opposing players by violent thugs. Well then presumably Wael is about to sack Paul Coutts for grabbing an opposition player by the throat in the penultimate game of the season? Or perhaps this is just meaningless bilge vomited out by the club's PR machine? I'll leave you to decide. The 16 year old invaded somebody's place of work, and hit them for no reason, other than he could. . You may have missed it, but Rovers were able to present video evidence to show what actually happened, and a Rochdale player also submitted a statement in support of Coutts, however, the FA decided to give their backing to the word of the ref.
|
|
warehamgas
Predictions League
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,442
|
Post by warehamgas on May 25, 2022 16:07:59 GMT
Life ban. That will sort it. It would sort it. Im not sure about some of the positions being taken by some on this. I’ve always known it’s wrong to invade the pitch, I’m sure others know that too. What they are doing is pushing the limits to see what they can get away with. Fans, supporters, spectators need to know you can’t do it. Whilst they think they can get away with it, it will continue and it will get worse. I’m sure Wembley will be prepared so perhaps the worst matches are now over but we’ll see. Over the past few weeks we’ve seen an increasing escalation in pitch invasions and violence towards opposition players. The police and courts have dealt with it to an extent but what are the footballing authorities waiting for? I hate to say it but will a career threatening injury to a player or even worse be the thing that makes the difference. At the weekend we saw a parent at the Man C match watch as his daughter sat on the cross bar and was trying to break it and taking photographs!! What ... was happening there? It defies any logic that a parent thought that was appropriate. With face ace recognition technology and cameras everywhere watching what we do if the will to solve it is there then no reason why these people can’t be recognised and dealt with. Some very clear, even tough, punishments need to be given and it is for the clubs to support the police and courts and vice versa. So yes, if a player has been hurt and attacked I see no reason not to give a lengthy ban, even a life ban if it’s warranted. UTG!
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,179
Member is Online
|
Post by eppinggas on May 26, 2022 9:13:34 GMT
To be fair to the Club after the "victimless crime" statement was left to fester on the web-site for 3 or 4 days (after comments by the Court were wilfully mis-represented by Bristol Rovers FC), it was removed and Wael Al-Qadi did come out with a strongly worded statement. Well done Wael. Reminder. Wael Al-Qadi: "Firstly, I think it is really important to confirm that as a club we stand firmly against any form of violence. Any individual that is found guilty of any such offences will be dismissed immediately. I understand the concerns expressed by a number of you." So I am waiting for a similarly worded statement to come about the pitch invasion and intimidation of opposing players by violent thugs. Well then presumably Wael is about to sack Paul Coutts for grabbing an opposition player by the throat in the penultimate game of the season? Or perhaps this is just meaningless bilge vomited out by the club's PR machine? I'll leave you to decide. It would have to be an extreme act of violence on the football pitch to lead to a criminal conviction. eg. the assault on Sean Rigg by James Cotterill at Barrow. If any Rovers player behaved like James Cotterill then I would expect Wael Al-Qadi to sack him immediately.
|
|
|
Post by rideintothesun on May 26, 2022 10:41:04 GMT
'Any form of violence' suggests a much higher threshold.
Was James Cotterill's assault on Sean Rigg worse than Roy Keane's notorious tackle on Haaland?
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,179
Member is Online
|
Post by eppinggas on May 26, 2022 11:51:40 GMT
'Any form of violence' suggests a much higher threshold. Was James Cotterill's assault on Sean Rigg worse than Roy Keane's notorious tackle on Haaland? The threshold would appear to be a criminal conviction. Otherwise you have a very wide grey area, a veritable can of worms. You could argue that every late challenge is a form of violence. Haaland probably should have prosecuted by Keane. It was a deliberate pre-meditated assault. Oddly enough the damage to his right leg that day did not prevent Haaland playing again. It was a pre-existing injury to his left leg that was causing him trouble and required surgery. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfie_Haaland
|
|
bloogas
Joined: July 2016
Posts: 1,095
|
Post by bloogas on May 26, 2022 12:38:03 GMT
'Any form of violence' suggests a much higher threshold. Was James Cotterill's assault on Sean Rigg worse than Roy Keane's notorious tackle on Haaland? The threshold would appear to be a criminal conviction. Otherwise you have a very wide grey area, a veritable can of worms. You could argue that every late challenge is a form of violence. Haaland probably should have prosecuted by Keane. It was a deliberate pre-meditated assault. Oddly enough the damage to his right leg that day did not prevent Haaland playing again. It was a pre-existing injury to his left leg that was causing him trouble and required surgery. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfie_HaalandPlaying Devil's Advocate (my cop out), at what point do you no longer have a contact sport? I read an article only yesterday claiming that Guardiola regards English refs as too lenient. Maybe they are, but is that maybe why the English game is shown around the world? The hope is that VAR would minimise it, whenever it gets fully implemented.
|
|
harrybuckle
Always look on the bright side
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 5,428
|
Post by harrybuckle on May 26, 2022 16:02:57 GMT
I was condemned for pointing out the attack on the Scunthorpe goalkeeper and told I was making it all up.. Glad I was correct doubt those who criticised me will apologise mind you. Not sure you'd class being pushed as an attack? If it was not too serious then why has the teenager had a stadium ban .. You a criminal lawyer or what?
|
|