solo1bc Posted September 6, 2006 Report Share Posted September 6, 2006 Indeed - but then they are not drunken thugs or spoilt brats. Alcohol is not the problem, it's the single brain cell drinkers that consume it.Well what a priviliged existence you have had England.Unfortunately alcohol abuse is part of growing up in British society. At least where I'm from it is. So is having a scrap or two and a snog behind the bike sheds.Unless you're a silver spooner? Or just a spooner?None of them would fight in town now past their early twenties but back in the day it was a bit unavoidable. Not deliberate I'll add but when things get a litle boistrous and the piss taking goes to far then shit happens.That early twenties thing contradicts my original post though I guess? How old are Brooks & Bradley? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerry Gows' Tash Posted September 6, 2006 Report Share Posted September 6, 2006 Did the individuals concerned have previous, robins72?Yes Brooker - fight by a kebab van in Milton KeynesOrr - Pushing some takeaway food in a womans face That is why they went down, even for ABH, prison is unusual for a first offence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milo Posted September 6, 2006 Report Share Posted September 6, 2006 Yes Brooker - fight by a kebab van in Milton KeynesOrr - Pushing some takeaway food in a womans face That is why they went down, even for ABH, prison is unusual for a first offenceOrj was referring to the Swansea yobs in robins72's post rather than Brooker and Orr.Only Partridge went down for ABH (it was Partridge's first offence). Orr's and Brooker's imprisonment was for the lesser charge of affray. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerry Gows' Tash Posted September 6, 2006 Report Share Posted September 6, 2006 Orj was referring to the Swansea yobs in robins72's post rather than Brooker and Orr.Only Partridge went down for ABH (it was Partridge's first offence). Orr's and Brooker's imprisonment was for the lesser charge of affray.ABH is a serious charge (one below manslaughter), so a custodial sentence for Partridge is unsuprising, particularly as the fight was witnessed by police and caught on film. Any conviction, even a caution, for a violent offence gives a high chance of a custodial sentence for another violent offence, so Brooker and Orr shouldn't have been that surprised either. But pardon me you are obviously the in house expert and self appointed spokesmen on all matters legal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milo Posted September 6, 2006 Report Share Posted September 6, 2006 ABH is a serious charge (one below manslaughter), so a custodial sentence for Partridge is unsuprising, particularly as the fight was witnessed by police and caught on film. Any conviction, even a caution, for a violent offence gives a high chance of a custodial sentence for another violent offence, so Brooker and Orr shouldn't have been that surprised either. But pardon me you are obviously the in house expert and self appointed spokesmen on all matters legal.Please read my comments earlier where I have agreed that Partridge will have gone in for sentencing knowing that there was a high risk of a jail sentence.I disagree that Brooker and Orr would have been expecting a jail sentence, but that's just my opinion. I'm not a legal expert and I'm sorry you interpreted my comments as such. You incorrectly stated (or implied) that Brooker and Orr were sentenced for ABH rather than affray and in the interest of balance I wanted to correct it for other readers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brianred Posted September 6, 2006 Report Share Posted September 6, 2006 Is it ?Where does GBH fit in then ?On the end of my old doc martins when we played the Welsh! (sorry) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerry Gows' Tash Posted September 6, 2006 Report Share Posted September 6, 2006 Please read my comments earlier where I have agreed that Partridge will have gone in for sentencing knowing that there was a high risk of a jail sentence.I disagree that Brooker and Orr would have been expecting a jail sentence, but that's just my opinion. I'm not a legal expert and I'm sorry you interpreted my comments as such. You incorrectly stated (or implied) that Brooker and Orr were sentenced for ABH rather than affray and in the interest of balance I wanted to correct it for other readers. Gee thanks a lot Mr editor, have a gold star, I didn't realise your were on a mission to ensure "balance", have you ever considered working for the labour party ?Is it ?Where does GBH fit in then ?GBH is one below ABH, I'm not a lawyer (or a criminal) though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StapleHillPhil Posted September 6, 2006 Report Share Posted September 6, 2006 GBH is one below ABH, I'm not a lawyer (or a criminal) though It wasn't when I studied law. I seem to recall you could in theory get life for GBH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cambridge Red Posted September 6, 2006 Report Share Posted September 6, 2006 It wasn't when I studied law. I seem to recall you could in theory get life for GBH.Indeed you are correct. GBH is a more serious offence than ABH - that's why I was resident at Leyhill as stated in another thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
numbeast Posted September 6, 2006 Report Share Posted September 6, 2006 Personally I believe the justice system in this country is a lottery. I'm not defending what those 4 players did or the sentances given but what I will say is sentancing in this country is in consistant. Several years ago I wittness a very nasty fight caused by a Blackthorn overload which left 5 people in hospital, these people were inocent bystanders and one was partially sighted and had his head beaten against a juke box repeatedly. My mate who was stood by the bar was hit in the face with a bar stool which fractured his eye socket leaving him unable to work for 9 months and involving surgery. I offered to give evidence but was told the police had more than enough evidence to "put them away" When it came to the trial they all pleaded guilty and despite the horrific injuies caused not one of them spent a night in prison and as with Brooker and Orr after the verdict was announced their criminal records came to light and all four had previous for violent assults (and not just the one either). The maximun any of them got was 150 community service. So yes when you look at things in this light the players were unfortunate, I just hope they learn their lesson and keep their kicking confined to the football! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cambridge Red Posted September 6, 2006 Report Share Posted September 6, 2006 Personally I believe the justice system in this country is a lottery. I'm not defending what those 4 players did or the sentances given but what I will say is sentancing in this country is in consistant. Several years ago I wittness a very nasty fight caused by a Blackthorn overload which left 5 people in hospital, these people were inocent bystanders and one was partially sighted and had his head beaten against a juke box repeatedly. My mate who was stood by the bar was hit in the face with a bar stool which fractured his eye socket leaving him unable to work for 9 months and involving surgery. I offered to give evidence but was told the police had more than enough evidence to "put them away" When it came to the trial they all pleaded guilty and despite the horrific injuies caused not one of them spent a night in prison and as with Brooker and Orr after the verdict was announced their criminal records came to light and all four had previous for violent assults (and not just the one either). The maximun any of them got was 150 community service. So yes when you look at things in this light the players were unfortunate, I just hope they learn their lesson and keep their kicking confined to the football!Totally agree mate. Was my first offence and nowhere near as bad as what you just described - I got 6 weeks - all depends what mood the judge is in and how much you are prepared/can afford to spend on your Barrister Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
England Posted September 6, 2006 Report Share Posted September 6, 2006 Well what a priviliged existence you have had England.Unfortunately alcohol abuse is part of growing up in British society. At least where I'm from it is. So is having a scrap or two and a snog behind the bike sheds.Unless you're a silver spooner? Or just a spooner?None of them would fight in town now past their early twenties but back in the day it was a bit unavoidable. Not deliberate I'll add but when things get a litle boistrous and the piss taking goes to far then shit happens.That early twenties thing contradicts my original post though I guess? How old are Brooks & Bradley?I have not had, nor do have a privileged existence - mores the pity.Alcohol abuse is only a small part of brainless Britain - scraps are for those who cannot confer.Spooner - sorry, you've lost me, never heard of it, is that part of your foreign poofter society?Who are Brooks & Bradley? - you are talking in riddles petal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cider head Posted September 6, 2006 Report Share Posted September 6, 2006 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Mosquito Posted September 6, 2006 Report Share Posted September 6, 2006 Totally agree mate. Was my first offence and nowhere near as bad as what you just described - I got 6 weeks - all depends what mood the judge is in and how much you are prepared/can afford to spend on your BarristerReminds me of the OJ Simpson case in America. OJ Simpson was as guilty as hell. OJ Simpson could afford the best barristers and they got him off the murder charge. OJ Simpson was later fined for the murder of his wife in a private prosecution brought by his deceased wife's family. Same applies to this country as if you can afford to pay for a smart arse barrister you'll literally get away with murder as was the case with Kenneth Noye when he forked to death an undercover Scotland Yard detective investigating the Brinks Mat robbery in the grounds of Noye's West Kingsdown home.Seems to me that the BCFC 3 did not invest enough money in a decent legal team or else they could have all been cleared of the affray. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheshire_red Posted September 6, 2006 Author Report Share Posted September 6, 2006 Careful RG or City's legal team might just prove to you how good or not so good they really are! And I reckon they might be a mite better at the Civil as compared to the Criminal Stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedM Posted September 6, 2006 Report Share Posted September 6, 2006 Seems to me that the BCFC 3 did not invest enough money in a decent legal team or else they could have all been cleared of the affray.It was reported that all except Orr were represented by the Club's legal team? Orr paid his own legal fees of £2,500, which made it a pretty expensive week for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Mosquito Posted September 6, 2006 Report Share Posted September 6, 2006 Careful RG or City's legal team might just prove to you how good or not so good they really are! And I reckon they might be a mite better at the Civil as compared to the Criminal Stuff. Was the BCFC legal team responsible for not getting Liam Rosenior's contract in the post on time? And/or not putting a sell on clause in Bridges' contract when he left for Carlisle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheshire_red Posted September 6, 2006 Author Report Share Posted September 6, 2006 Was the BCFC legal team responsible for not getting Liam Rosenior's contract in the post on time? And/or not putting a sell on clause in Bridges' contract when he left for Carlisle? Negative on both counts. Had they been instructed to do either they would have. Whether they should have advised to the positive is another matter. However, one can only advise on what has been asked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Mosquito Posted September 6, 2006 Report Share Posted September 6, 2006 Negative on both counts. Had they been instructed to do either they would have. Whether they should have advised to the positive is another matter. However, one can only advise on what has been asked.Are you now telling us that you're part of the BCFC legal team? You seem to know an awful lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheshire_red Posted September 6, 2006 Author Report Share Posted September 6, 2006 However, most of us would do a darn sight better at the PR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Mosquito Posted September 6, 2006 Report Share Posted September 6, 2006 However, most of us would do a darn sight better at the PR.cheshire_red, you being an ex Cotham Grammar School lad like myself does the case of the BCFC 3 remind you of the dour view of HMP Horfield while playing football for our old school at Kellaway Avenue? Strange how old memories of school football come flooding back when prompted by our football players getting jailed at her majesty's royalist prison camp in Whorefield. Quote from the Bristol Evening Post 02 September 2006........"Mr Partridge ended up on the ground and at one point he was kicked to the head on the ground by a bouncer. The bouncer was charged with common assault but it was dropped before this case, and another bouncer was charged with assault but that was dropped."I'm not sure whether the bouncers belong to the same Masonic lodge as the judge and Bristol Crown Prosecution Service or not but this case stinks of serious corruption. Free the 3 BCFC political prisoners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorset_Cider Posted September 6, 2006 Report Share Posted September 6, 2006 My best mates husband is a dog handler and he hates going into Bristol on a weekend. He has to deal with stabbings fights drunks etc week in week out. I'm sure Miles didnt mean any harm by what he said wherever it was. People can get misquoted and when interviewed things can sometimes be misundersood?I remember a presenter on itv say something derogatory about Princess Diana after she died and he got a warning for it for going on live tv. These things happen.Now there you go....... I guess despite everything I'd probably agreed with that presenter....... but whether they meant the comment as it was perceived by the viewers and TV station I don't know.Pro-footballers a target.... well, yes maybe...... could it happen to any of us .... well, yes in certain circumstances........ but do people often think they are far more important than they really are after a load of drink or similar...... well yes often...... does it make violence right.... well, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spectator Posted September 6, 2006 Report Share Posted September 6, 2006 I realise that the A& E dept in Bristol is a busy one, but I bet you don't see too many teams of "Bouncers" sitting in the ranks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Mosquito Posted September 7, 2006 Report Share Posted September 7, 2006 I realise that the A& E dept in Bristol is a busy one, but I bet you don't see too many teams of "Bouncers" sitting in the ranks.Exactly right Sir, it always seems to be the punter at the boot end (literally) of the bouncers. Even if the bouncers are guilty as hell of some provocation/assault, as with the BCFC footballer case, they're hardly ever prosecuted. Personally, I've never had any problems with any bouncers in Bristol. In Hereford in September 2001 however I was grabbed around the neck for, so say, looking at a bouncer's girlfriend. The bouncer wanted a fight and he got one - by the neck I was swung into a table and the prat looked a bit surprised that I didn't go down. I recovered my balance and smacked him around the pub. I had 4 friends with me that gave statements to the effect that I was provoked - the bouncer had reported ME to the West Mercia Police for assaulting HIM !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That bouncer was heavy and he did injure my neck - anyone else could have suffered a broken neck from the neck hold or broken arm from being flung into the tables. Of course I put in a complaint to the corrupt West Mercia Police as well about the dangerous behaviour of the bouncer that I was told was high on Testosterone supplements and body building steroids. And, of course, the corrupt West Mercia Police and their toff/snob Crown Prosecution Service puppet masters dropped the case for lack of impartial evidence even though I had 4 witnesses to state that I was the one initially assaulted.I'll again repeat myself for the benefit of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) that dropped the charges against the bouncers.........Quote from the Bristol Evening Post 02 September 2006........"Mr Partridge ended up on the ground and at one point he was kicked to the head on the ground by a bouncer. The bouncer was charged with common assault but it was dropped before this case, and another bouncer was charged with assault but that was dropped."I'm not sure whether the bouncers belong to the same Masonic lodge as the judge and Bristol Crown Prosecution Service or not but this case stinks of serious corruption. Free the 3 BCFC political prisoners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.