Red Ass Posted June 11, 2010 Report Share Posted June 11, 2010 Absolutely shocking, and the knob jockey should be locked up. But it has absolutely nothing to do with football, I just can't get my head around this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith_Lemon Posted June 11, 2010 Report Share Posted June 11, 2010 4 and a half pints? blimey either thats just a bad excuse or he is a larry lightweight Any way to the subject banned from football? No Perhaps paying a hefty fine and community service would of done the trick. Why football has come into it, I have no idea But on the other hand you can understand why Rovers did ban him, no club wants a racist fan now do they. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralphindevon Posted June 11, 2010 Report Share Posted June 11, 2010 Football clubs have a duty to protect the local community from being caught up in football related unsavoury incidents. Quite right he should be banned from all football.Knob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted June 11, 2010 Report Share Posted June 11, 2010 i'm sure you'll find that this is not a punishment dreamt up by the courts, I am almost certain that the banning order was because of Rovers asking the court to impose an order in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InCider Posted June 11, 2010 Report Share Posted June 11, 2010 This does set a worrying precedent. Putting aside what this idiot did - where does it end? Does this mean that any criminal activity that someone gets involved in away from football could result in a banning order? I think they have got this one massively wrong. Worrying precedent? I think it would set a worrying precedent, if people 'were' allowed to racially abuse people at games. FFS, what do you think would be a suitable punishment? A slap on the wrist and promise not to do it again? No-one is suggesting for one minute that if you do break the law, that you would get a banning order. If you're caught shoplifting, I would doubt that you would be banned from watching football games. However, this c*** has racially abused people after a match (it is not acceptable to be able to do so after the game, if that's what you're suggesting) and he has rightfully been banned. I assume that you're one of these libertarians who think that not being able to shout racist abuse is an infringement of your liberties, yet being on the receiving end is perfectly fine. Please go back to the 50's where you belong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Red Posted June 11, 2010 Report Share Posted June 11, 2010 Personally I'd have sent him to Soweto, alone, and seen if he was as brave there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Posted June 11, 2010 Report Share Posted June 11, 2010 banning him from football makes as much as banning him from tesco or ikea? totally random, not sure what it's got to do with football Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slartibartfast Posted June 12, 2010 Report Share Posted June 12, 2010 banning him from football makes as much as banning him from tesco or ikea? totally random, not sure what it's got to do with football I find it strange that on the gash forum they were 100% in condeming him .,quite rightly. Have they taken the "moral high ground"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robins72 Posted June 12, 2010 Report Share Posted June 12, 2010 Didn't it say in the article he had a previous caution for racist comments?if so I'm wondering if this was at a football match and why he's been band. Whatever the reason his behaviour was very wrong and maybe a ban will make him think about his behaviour towards others in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRock Posted June 12, 2010 Report Share Posted June 12, 2010 Can't understand it myself, bully some kids and get rewarded with being banned from the Gash Ground. Lummydaze, there's going to be thousands queuing to throw abuse at them now! This country has gone to the dogs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slartibartfast Posted June 12, 2010 Report Share Posted June 12, 2010 Can't understand it myself, bully some kids and get rewarded with being banned from the Gash Ground. Lummydaze, there's going to be thousands queuing to throw abuse at them now! This country has gone to the dogs. yes, reward indeed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CotswoldRed Posted June 13, 2010 Report Share Posted June 13, 2010 He does not deserve to be breathing let alone have the luxury of watching a football match...... Also, have you not heard of the kick racism out of football campaign...? or is that just for show? At the end of the day, football is now a multi racial communtiy and there is no place for vile people like him. I'm not aware that the Kick Racism out of Football campaign is embedded within the courts/justice system? Maybe wrong. I thought it was just a footballing initiative, rather than being anything to do with any legal statutes? It does smack of a Labour approach to justice akin to ..."lets punish before something happens". For me its a little worrying, simply because if you extrapolate this ideology in relation other offences we are in a sticky mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kee mao Posted June 13, 2010 Report Share Posted June 13, 2010 This does set a worrying precedent. Putting aside what this idiot did - where does it end? Does this mean that any criminal activity that someone gets involved in away from football could result in a banning order? I think they have got this one massively wrong. Although I am a gashead and dont really want baffooons like this around the mem, I must agree with Mr Tit.. Im really unsure how they can hand out a banning order for this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Colby-Tit Posted June 13, 2010 Report Share Posted June 13, 2010 Worrying precedent? I think it would set a worrying precedent, if people 'were' allowed to racially abuse people at games. He wasn't at the game - that's the whole point of this thread. Who's suggesting that racial abuse be allowed at games? FFS, what do you think would be a suitable punishment? A slap on the wrist and promise not to do it again? A spell inside, a fine, a community order, a lobotomy? I just don't believe that a football banning order is appropriate in this instance. No-one is suggesting for one minute that if you do break the law, that you would get a banning order. If you're caught shoplifting, I would doubt that you would be banned from watching football games. However, this c*** has racially abused people after a match After a match - exactly. (it is not acceptable to be able to do so after the game, if that's what you're suggesting) No, I'm not I assume that you're one of these libertarians who think that not being able to shout racist abuse is an infringement of your liberties, yet being on the receiving end is perfectly fine. Wrong again Please go back to the 50's where you belong. I wouldn't want to do that, I think it would upset my Asian girlfriend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beaverface Posted June 13, 2010 Author Report Share Posted June 13, 2010 <quote> No-one is suggesting for one minute that if you do break the law, that you would get a banning order. If you're caught shoplifting, I would doubt that you would be banned from watching football games. However, this c*** has racially abused people after a match After a match - exactly. </quote> Exactly, what constitutes after a match? 1 hour, 3 hours, a day, three days? Also, why shouldn't he be banned from Tesco's where he bought his milk on the way home or from Esso where he filled up his car earlier, or from the pub where he had a beer??? I can completely understand if the Gash banned him from their ground, that's their perogative - they want to be seen to be doing the right thing and rightly so, but for the courts to ban him from football when it wasn't a football related incident doesn't seem right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted June 13, 2010 Report Share Posted June 13, 2010 <quote> No-one is suggesting for one minute that if you do break the law, that you would get a banning order. If you're caught shoplifting, I would doubt that you would be banned from watching football games. However, this c*** has racially abused people after a match After a match - exactly. </quote> Exactly, what constitutes after a match? 1 hour, 3 hours, a day, three days? Also, why shouldn't he be banned from Tesco's where he bought his milk on the way home or from Esso where he filled up his car earlier, or from the pub where he had a beer??? I can completely understand if the Gash banned him from their ground, that's their perogative - they want to be seen to be doing the right thing and rightly so, but for the courts to ban him from football when it wasn't a football related incident doesn't seem right. OK, Just once more and I will type this slower this time. The banning order can only come from a request from the club in instances such as this and because of the nature of this offence, The club would have been made aware of the circumstances and requested the banning order, especially as this moron had already been warned for a similar incident by the club. The gas are correct and so are the courts in carrying out the will of the gas request in this instance, I sometimes wonder if the defence of thugs like this is a little bit of there but for the grace of............................ But hey ho, i'm sure that the good old human rights act will overturn this, give him a free season ticket, free curry for life, £250,000 from public funds and OBE in next birthday honours list, My god he deserves it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinmabbuttshair Posted June 13, 2010 Report Share Posted June 13, 2010 OK, Just once more and I will type this slower this time. The banning order can only from a request from the club in instances such as this and because of the nature of this offence, The club would have been made aware of the circumstances and requested the banning order, especially as this moron had already been warned for a similar incident by the club. The gas are correct and so are the courts in carrying out the will of the gas request in this instance, I sometimes wonder if the defence of thugs like this is a little bit of there but for the grace of............................ But hey ho, i'm sure that the good old human rights act will overturn this, give him a free season ticket, free curry for life, £250,000 from public funds and OBE in next birthday honours list, My god he deserves it. Surely a lovely chap such as this wouldn't dream of eating curry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmissionImpossible Posted June 13, 2010 Report Share Posted June 13, 2010 this posts still going! ye gods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dafarms Posted June 13, 2010 Report Share Posted June 13, 2010 This does set a worrying precedent. Putting aside what this idiot did - where does it end? Does this mean that any criminal activity that someone gets involved in away from football could result in a banning order? I think they have got this one massively wrong. This has happened to my closest friend, who was banned from football for three years. He has never been arrested at a football match, but because he was arrested 3 times in a year, and found NOT guilty each time, they said because he watches City, he MIGHT cause trouble at football matches. I thought you are innocent untill proven guilty, not any more. What will they do next, ban anyone who has had a car accident from driving, because they MIGHT cause another accident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted June 13, 2010 Report Share Posted June 13, 2010 This has happened to my closest friend, who was banned from football for three years. He has never been arrested at a football match, but because he was arrested 3 times in a year, and found NOT guilty each time, they said because he watches City, he MIGHT cause trouble at football matches. I thought you are innocent untill proven guilty, not any more. What will they do next, ban anyone who has had a car accident from driving, because they MIGHT cause another accident. I repeat, Again in this instance only the club can impose such a ban, The courts cannot especially if your mate has been found not guilty, There is no legal precedent whatsoever that allows for this. FFS it is the club and not the court that has imposed this ban in the case of your mate and in the gasheads case it's the club that has asked the court to impose the ban, END OF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dafarms Posted June 13, 2010 Report Share Posted June 13, 2010 I repeat, Again in this instance only the club can impose such a ban, The courts cannot especially if your mate has been found not guilty, There is no legal precedent whatsoever that allows for this. FFS it is the club and not the court that has imposed this ban in the case of your mate and in the gasheads case it's the club that has asked the court to impose the ban, END OF. This was nothing to do with the club, if he hasn't been in trouble for football, how would the club even know his name, this was the police. If you would have seen the Sun newspaper on Saturday, two other lads were stopped going to South Africa, because they had previous convictions for violence, but not at football. This is down to the police trying to ban anyone who associates with known football hooligans. The point is, these people have not been arrested for football related incidents, and should not be banned because they might cause trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted June 13, 2010 Report Share Posted June 13, 2010 This was nothing to do with the club, if he hasn't been in trouble for football, how would the club even know his name, this was the police. If you would have seen the Sun newspaper on Saturday, two other lads were stopped going to South Africa, because they had previous convictions for violence, but not at football. This is down to the police trying to ban anyone who associates with known football hooligans. The point is, these people have not been arrested for football related incidents, and should not be banned because they might cause trouble. Well violence is violence and I for one can understand why some people have been stopped from traveling. As we know most so called hooligans have no interest in football whatsoever. However you are implying that your mate has no convictions at all for violence or is it just football related violence?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Colby-Tit Posted June 13, 2010 Report Share Posted June 13, 2010 I repeat, Again in this instance only the club can impose such a ban, The courts cannot especially if your mate has been found not guilty, There is no legal precedent whatsoever that allows for this. FFS it is the club and not the court that has imposed this ban in the case of your mate and in the gasheads case it's the club that has asked the court to impose the ban, END OF. This is exactly what I have a problem with. I couldn't give a flying one about Rovers banning him from it's ground. It's their ground and they can ban who they like. But why should a football club have any influence in a criminal trial, for an offence that is not football related, and happened after the game and away from the ground? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kee mao Posted June 13, 2010 Report Share Posted June 13, 2010 Well violence is violence and I for one can understand why some people have been stopped from traveling. As we know most so called hooligans have no interest in football whatsoever. However you are implying that your mate has no convictions at all for violence or is it just football related violence?. Every football hooligan I know or have come across over the years have been huge football fans to the extent of taking it that far IMO.. Your comment is ridiculous... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted June 13, 2010 Report Share Posted June 13, 2010 Every football hooligan I know or have come across over the years have been huge football fans to the extent of taking it that far IMO.. Your comment is ridiculous... I bow to your intimate knowledge of football hooligans, We obviously move in different circles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dafarms Posted June 13, 2010 Report Share Posted June 13, 2010 Well violence is violence and I for one can understand why some people have been stopped from traveling. As we know most so called hooligans have no interest in football whatsoever. However you are implying that your mate has no convictions at all for violence or is it just football related violence?. He does have a conviction for violence, years ago but this was not at football, so all i'm saying is, they should not give him a football ban, that had nothing to do with football, This is just plain wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kee mao Posted June 13, 2010 Report Share Posted June 13, 2010 I bow to your intimate knowledge of football hooligans, We obviously move in different circles. Maybe we do and maybe we dont?? I dont know you.. But now you are pretty much saying that you dont know any football hooligans when earlier in the thread you said "As we know most so called hooligans have no interest in football whatsoever.... I dont understand im afraid..It Doesnt make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ison Posted June 13, 2010 Report Share Posted June 13, 2010 <quote> I can completely understand if the Gash banned him from their ground, that's their perogative - they want to be seen to be doing the right thing and rightly so, but for the courts to ban him from football when it wasn't a football related incident doesn't seem right. This. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rednready Posted June 14, 2010 Report Share Posted June 14, 2010 Every football hooligan I know or have come across over the years have been huge football fans to the extent of taking it that far IMO.. Your comment is ridiculous. Stay away from topics on Politics, religion and race..... you can never win ! I will not try and win , as I know I cannot, however I will offer an opinion. There are posters taking a very moral high ground , holier than though, politically correct, etc etc, the usual chest thumpers and some who actually think what they say. My family is of mixed blood, in the 40's and early 50's there were 2 Italian kids and one black Jamaican. They grew up with plenty of racial taunts, my cousin, brother and I had a likewise experience with rings of kids circling me saying " adopted, adopted ". The point most of you miss is that kids will use any percieved inadequacies to belittle other kids at school. this goes back for centuries. Braces, glasses, mixed blood, lack of intelligence, cant kick a ball. This cub/scout group have I'me sure had worse days in other scenarios. I was kicked out of the scouts, when others would have been allowed to stay........ I was Innocent ! Well almost ! The whole country is very soft and ultra sensative. I dont care if you dont want to hear that. We have not been in danger at home since the 1940's, and we have a very different multi cultural population. As much as we have to bend to the new Immigrants, they need to bend to us, adapt and understand. Multi culturalism is a two edged sword. It has not worked here, the USA or other countries with major success, Look at major population areas like China, India and Japan, they dont promote multi culturism or mixed marriages. However its what we are stuck with following a different succession of Governments. I have never agreed with the Commonwealth Immigration policies. 60+ Million in such a tiny Island..... BANG !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke_bristol Posted June 14, 2010 Report Share Posted June 14, 2010 Very odd, I suppose no-one would object to someone speeding on the way back from the game and getting a driving ban to include a ban from the Gate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.