Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2014 17:01:20 GMT
Perhaps But not in regard to football matches Sorry but it is in regards to football matches, I personally know of many football fans that have been dealt with harshly by the law, some even being victimised for guilt by association. You must be very unlucky in your choice of acquaintances.
|
|
|
Post by Gregory Stevens on Sept 14, 2014 17:01:42 GMT
Fair justice is a subjective term which can mean anything you like, and means something different to everyone.
I don't like hooligans. Never been one. However, you have to take into account severe provocation. Even if other crimes were properly policed, I wouldn't think it's fair for jail or a banning order for anyone not actually fighting. 6 months would only fair for gbh.
First time relegated to conference in history, jeered by rival fans deliberately provoking them. Unnecessary level of provocation. Of course, one should turn the other cheek, but you are in disagreement with fundamental human nature if you can't make allowance for that. Football is a much bigger thing to some people, usually those with less other outlets in their life. This doesn't make it right, but if it's unreasonable to react to the events at the game with some level of anger, and to respond to deliberate provocation is utterly unacceptable, we do indeed have a different moral compass. Humans are fallable.
Of course, the media, judiciary etc can't understand it. It's just a silly game and there's no need to respond. It must be dealt with severely. Deep down I would have been disappointed if we had meekly allowed the sods who burned our ground and tormented us for years laughing at us, on home turf, in our darkest hour.
I think it's reasonable to respond to this and it's perverse to expect grown men to take that without a whimper.
|
|
Bridgeman
Alfie Biggs
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,549
|
Post by Bridgeman on Sept 14, 2014 17:02:50 GMT
From OP : can someone explain to me 1) why 'normal' football fans have to put up with behaviour that only afflicts our sport and not others and therefore why we should make a 'special case' for those that contravene rules and requests? 2) why we should have any sympathy for the sentencing levels of any of the fans involved / found guilty Maybe I am the 'mad' one! Absolutely not Topman, I'm with you 100%, the rest are merely making excuses for theirs or others appalling behaviour. Why should we have to suffer the appalling behaviour of certain fans who spit, punch, head butt, scream vile language etc in front of us and then threaten us if we speak up and object to it. Keep off the pitch is the very simple instruction, expect the democratic rule of law to be applied if you don't.
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Sept 14, 2014 17:11:14 GMT
To be honest I think the police should be covertly monitoring suspected football hooligans (ie every football fan) mobile phones & internet usage to route out the really bad 'uns. I'm sure no-one could object to that.
|
|
Bridgeman
Alfie Biggs
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,549
|
Post by Bridgeman on Sept 14, 2014 17:15:54 GMT
Fair justice is a subjective term which can mean anything you like, and means something different to everyone. I don't like hooligans. Never been one. However, you have to take into account severe provocation. Even if other crimes were properly policed, I wouldn't think it's fair for jail or a banning order for anyone not actually fighting. 6 months would only fair for gbh. First time relegated to conference in history, jeered by rival fans deliberately provoking them. Unnecessary level of provocation. Of course, one should turn the other cheek, but you are in disagreement with fundamental human nature if you can't make allowance for that. Football is a much bigger thing to some people, usually those with less other outlets in their life. This doesn't make it right, but if it's unreasonable to react to the events at the game with some level of anger, and to respond to deliberate provocation is utterly unacceptable, we do indeed have a different moral compass. Humans are fallable. Of course, the media, judiciary etc can't understand it. It's just a silly game and there's no need to respond. It must be dealt with severely. Deep down I would have been disappointed if we had meekly allowed the sods who burned our ground and tormented us for years laughing at us, on home turf, in our darkest hour. I think it's reasonable to respond to this and it's perverse to expect grown men to take that without a whimper. Most of us who were there were extremely angry but thought it unreasonable to go on the pitch, that's why we didn't. Those of us who understand the emotion of the game realise their might be a temptation to invade the pitch and take our anger out on those who have caused it but there is supposed to be a difference between the human race and the rest of the species on earth, that's the ability to think about the consequences of our actions.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2014 17:21:28 GMT
Fair justice is a subjective term which can mean anything you like, and means something different to everyone. I don't like hooligans. Never been one. However, you have to take into account severe provocation. Even if other crimes were properly policed, I wouldn't think it's fair for jail or a banning order for anyone not actually fighting. 6 months would only fair for gbh. First time relegated to conference in history, jeered by rival fans deliberately provoking them. Unnecessary level of provocation. Of course, one should turn the other cheek, but you are in disagreement with fundamental human nature if you can't make allowance for that. Football is a much bigger thing to some people, usually those with less other outlets in their life. This doesn't make it right, but if it's unreasonable to react to the events at the game with some level of anger, and to respond to deliberate provocation is utterly unacceptable, we do indeed have a different moral compass. Humans are fallable. Of course, the media, judiciary etc can't understand it. It's just a silly game and there's no need to respond. It must be dealt with severely. Deep down I would have been disappointed if we had meekly allowed the sods who burned our ground and tormented us for years laughing at us, on home turf, in our darkest hour. I think it's reasonable to respond to this and it's perverse to expect grown men to take that without a whimper. Brilliantly put. Let's have running battles on the terraces, just like the good old 1970s and 80s. What can possibly go wrong? It'll be just like those films, look out for someone, anyone, wearing the wrong colour shirt and have a good old punch up, nobody gets badly hurt, then down the pub for a laugh about the day's events.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2014 17:39:11 GMT
I'm sure if you're weak of disposition you probably find it intimidating to see and hear angry men. I'm really happy that you find this behaviour so out of the ordinary that you want to see the offenders punished by ending their employment opportunities, sending them to jail for 5 years and other punishments - happy for you that you've been able to not be a little desensitised to it. After all,seeing an angry mob swearing when you are with your kids is a hugely distressing thing. It's a wonder you could ever recover, perhaps a debt should be imposed to pay for some counselling sessions? I really don't blame you for seeking revenge, you have paid a terrible price which can never really leave you, and your kids most likely will end up screaming in fear at the sight of a football in later life, eventually ending up in a spiral of drink and drugs and slovenly joblessness. If those guys had kept their mouths shut, all our lives could have been spared...... No one is arguing that this shouldn't be stopped and some punishments being administered. However, it's an extremely cowardly action to call for severe punishments for those who have caused you minor offence. Of course, the world is full of nasty so and so's. Some choose to be nasty in your face, as a hooligan. Others sit behind and call for and facilitate harsh legislation for people. Bang em up etc. If you think 5 years staring at the wall for being aggressive and scuffling in a provocative atmosphere is fair, you are sadist. People get 5 years for armed robbery, so they get life do they? Drunk drivers killing folks, death penalty. Get over your own need to see others suffer and deal with your own suffering. The comments above re the legal system prioritising minor assault before child rape on the basis of background are valid, and are part and parcel of the argument. If you've never felt anger, never lost your rag, good for you, but it's altogether nastier thing to wish them to have their lives, freedoms etc ruined because you don't like them. Its not rational to wish them this ill considering you've not been a victim to any real extent. the relentless abusive language by a section of fans at altrincham and braintree meant they were places any responsible parent wouldnt want there children or grandchildren to be,,,,, i know you will get some swearing and of course sadly some parents routinely swear in front of there own kids,,,but the scenes v mansfield and at altrincham and braintree arnt a good advert for getting children into the stadium or at matches surely?
|
|
|
Post by fishpondsgas on Sept 14, 2014 17:54:46 GMT
Sorry but I don't agree, I think that the sentences being handing out are far too harsh, paedophiles are treated with less disdain in my opinion. Who cares if these idiots feel the full force of the law? It's not difficult, don't break the law and you won't get in trouble. And from what I saw, untill morons decided to confront the people in the away section, those who just went under Box 1 to demonstrate their disguist at what Higgs, Jelf, King, Bradshaw, Ware and Dunford have done to our club were left to get on with it. Sentences for other offences may well be too leniant, but that's a different subject alltogether. What happened to the City fans in the Mansfield section? I thought their actions constituted incitment, so how many were arrested and what sentences did they receive, anyone know? Not this again ffs, there were no city. Why the hell would they have been in with Mansfield? No one thought we were going down why would they have come for a survival party? Mansfield fans said no City, I saw no City. Please let's stop embarrassing ourselves with this sh!t. Incitement ffs, maybe if you can provide evidence to the police they may do something but I don't think visiting a football match and not hitting anyone or encroaching on the girls of play is an offence? This is just getting f'ing embarrassing now.
|
|
|
Post by fishpondsgas on Sept 14, 2014 17:55:34 GMT
Field not girls!
|
|
|
Post by stig-of-the-gas on Sept 14, 2014 18:07:08 GMT
Fair justice is a subjective term which can mean anything you like, and means something different to everyone. I don't like hooligans. Never been one. However, you have to take into account severe provocation. Even if other crimes were properly policed, I wouldn't think it's fair for jail or a banning order for anyone not actually fighting. 6 months would only fair for gbh. First time relegated to conference in history, jeered by rival fans deliberately provoking them. Unnecessary level of provocation. Of course, one should turn the other cheek, but you are in disagreement with fundamental human nature if you can't make allowance for that. Football is a much bigger thing to some people, usually those with less other outlets in their life. This doesn't make it right, but if it's unreasonable to react to the events at the game with some level of anger, and to respond to deliberate provocation is utterly unacceptable, we do indeed have a different moral compass. Humans are fallable. Of course, the media, judiciary etc can't understand it. It's just a silly game and there's no need to respond. It must be dealt with severely. Deep down I would have been disappointed if we had meekly allowed the sods who burned our ground and tormented us for years laughing at us, on home turf, in our darkest hour. I think it's reasonable to respond to this and it's perverse to expect grown men to take that without a whimper. Wow - I am genuinely shocked if this is your real view. I assume you are just trying to live up to your "Controversial" username. People had every right to be angry. In a civilised society there is never any justification other than self-defence to use violence. As I said, the guy I witnessed deserved to be punished and in my view more severely than the maximum I read about.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2014 18:11:04 GMT
Fair justice is a subjective term which can mean anything you like, and means something different to everyone. I don't like hooligans. Never been one. However, you have to take into account severe provocation. Even if other crimes were properly policed, I wouldn't think it's fair for jail or a banning order for anyone not actually fighting. 6 months would only fair for gbh. First time relegated to conference in history, jeered by rival fans deliberately provoking them. Unnecessary level of provocation. Of course, one should turn the other cheek, but you are in disagreement with fundamental human nature if you can't make allowance for that. Football is a much bigger thing to some people, usually those with less other outlets in their life. This doesn't make it right, but if it's unreasonable to react to the events at the game with some level of anger, and to respond to deliberate provocation is utterly unacceptable, we do indeed have a different moral compass. Humans are fallable. Of course, the media, judiciary etc can't understand it. It's just a silly game and there's no need to respond. It must be dealt with severely. Deep down I would have been disappointed if we had meekly allowed the sods who burned our ground and tormented us for years laughing at us, on home turf, in our darkest hour. I think it's reasonable to respond to this and it's perverse to expect grown men to take that without a whimper. Brilliantly put. Let's have running battles on the terraces, just like the good old 1970s and 80s. What can possibly go wrong? It'll be just like those films, look out for someone, anyone, wearing the wrong colour shirt and have a good old punch up, nobody gets badly hurt, then down the pub for a laugh about the day's events. Exactly. I am not sure where this guy is coming from, it's right out of "This is England"
|
|
Cheshiregas
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,165
|
Post by Cheshiregas on Sept 14, 2014 18:14:11 GMT
Football is different to most other sports. At other games such as cricket and rugby I can drink watching the game, I can chat to other supporters, I can criticise their team and won't get threatened even when passions are running high. I can walk to and from the grounds without having to look over my shoulder. I can visit away grounds safely. I can talk to other supporters on public transport without being threatened.
Football is an animal all on its own and because of its history fans are treated differently. Fans are still threatened by their rivals, fans still wreck parts of grounds, fans still shout abuse at each other. Football fans cannot be trusted to be sold alcoholic drinks and sit and enjoy the sport they are watching. It is one of the few sports that wherever you go in the world there are supporters wanting to fight each other. I believe there have been more disasters caused at uncontrollable football matches than any other sport.
That's why football is usually treated and viewed differently under the law. Until that changes then I do not expect the law to change its attitude either.
And I was a Tote Ender so I have seen it first hand.
|
|
brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on Sept 14, 2014 18:17:33 GMT
Freudian slip?
|
|
bs5
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 456
|
Post by bs5 on Sept 14, 2014 18:21:04 GMT
Sorry but it is in regards to football matches, I personally know of many football fans that have been dealt with harshly by the law, some even being victimised for guilt by association. You must be very unlucky in your choice of acquaintances. ?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2014 18:51:21 GMT
You must be very unlucky in your choice of acquaintances. ? Quite straightforward really
|
|
bs5
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 456
|
Post by bs5 on Sept 14, 2014 20:23:28 GMT
Quite straightforward really Care to elaborate?
|
|
|
Post by Gregory Stevens on Sept 14, 2014 20:24:47 GMT
This will get circular. Just try to look at how harsh football fans are punished and treated compared to other crimes. I don't believe that banning fans for going on the pitch is fair, and you have to accept that fans will protest and shout. If assault has been made then it's an assault like any other. I'm not suggesting football fans are exempt, I'm saying that they are policed and law is enforced harder than on many other crimes. It's all relative.
|
|
|
Post by Gregory Stevens on Sept 14, 2014 20:31:54 GMT
To be fair, I put "I think it's reasonable to respond to this" what I mean is it's reasonable to expect some trouble. The cheering at the end is unlikely to be by a mid table side with no axe to grind.
I'm other aiming this at real nasty thugs, but the treatment of minor trespass and shouting is astonishing.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2014 20:36:58 GMT
This will get circular. Just try to look at how harsh football fans are punished and treated compared to other crimes. I don't believe that banning fans for going on the pitch is fair, and you have to accept that fans will protest and shout. If assault has been made then it's an assault like any other. I'm not suggesting football fans are exempt, I'm saying that they are policed and law is enforced harder than on many other crimes. It's all relative. You answer your own question, everybody knows the consequences, so don't get involved, quite simple really. Unless of course you are Erika Roe, in which case please invade the pitch every Saturday
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2014 20:53:05 GMT
This will get circular. Just try to look at how harsh football fans are punished and treated compared to other crimes. I don't believe that banning fans for going on the pitch is fair, and you have to accept that fans will protest and shout. If assault has been made then it's an assault like any other. I'm not suggesting football fans are exempt, I'm saying that they are policed and law is enforced harder than on many other crimes. It's all relative. You answer your own question, everybody knows the consequences, so don't get involved, quite simple really. Unless of course you are Erika Roe, in which case please invade the pitch every Saturday Not now please, she is older than me!!!!!
|
|