Banana Boy - Were Laws Really 'Bent'?

As we're unlikely to see terraces again at football, this is the virtual equivalent where you can chat to your hearts content about all football matters and, obviously, Arsenal in particular. This forum encourages all Gooners to visit and contribute so please keep it respectful, clean and topical.
User avatar
Herd
Posts: 6386
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 9:00 am

Re: Banana Boy - Were Laws Really 'Bent'?

Post by Herd »

People who have been banned have slipped in before but the use of cctv means that he will be caught sooner or later if he does go .
There are cameras everywhere inside and outside the ground ,and they are pretty good quality . The club cant do much except throw you out unless u are on a criminal ban ,then u will have the book thrown at you .

User avatar
MK Gould
Posts: 3863
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 12:25 pm
Location: North Bucks

Re: Banana Boy - Were Laws Really 'Bent'?

Post by MK Gould »

Herd wrote:People who have been banned have slipped in before but the use of cctv means that he will be caught sooner or later if he does go .
There are cameras everywhere inside and outside the ground ,and they are pretty good quality . The club cant do much except throw you out unless u are on a criminal ban ,then u will have the book thrown at you .
"slipped in"...on a banana skin???

User avatar
DB10GOONER
Posts: 62238
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 2:06 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland.
Contact:

Re: Banana Boy - Were Laws Really 'Bent'?

Post by DB10GOONER »

Glitch33 wrote:Another joke that will end up with a football banning order.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/ ... en-1770651
The best bit about that story is the bit at the end about the retard that cuffed himself to a goalpost to protest at RyanfuckingAir not giving his daughter a job! How shit must their fucking lives be??!! :oops: :lol: :lol: :lol:

User avatar
highburyJD
Posts: 4982
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 6:36 pm
Location: Highbury

Re: Banana Boy - Were Laws Really 'Bent'?

Post by highburyJD »

he only got a 3 year ban http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/th ... ho-1826915
still harsh but not the life ban suggested

but this caught my eye, he also plead guilty to:
"using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress"
er, haven't most away fans done that EVERY SINGLE FRICKING TIME that they've gone to a match?
and that's now a crime?
what does "likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress" even mean?
sounds like the criminalisation of terrace banter to me

User avatar
Glitch33
Posts: 919
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 12:03 pm
Location: No longer Gold

Re: Banana Boy - Were Laws Really 'Bent'?

Post by Glitch33 »

He must have been charged under Section 5 of the Public Order Act which is pretty tame really. Probably a fixed penalty and no record if it hadn't been at a football match. It is just rowdy behaviour and not a charge used when violence is involved.

The harrassment, alarm and distress is just a legalise catch all. If needed Old Bill just get witness statements from people to say they were "alarmed" by the foul language, or in this case maybe a Spurs fan got distressed when he was being called a "fucking *word censored*". Under this charge it doesn't actually need a witness statement just a copper's evidence will do.

Public order gets more interesting with Affray or Violent Disorder which are commonly used in football violence cases.

With those charges even if you commit the offence behind closed doors with a mutually agreed punch up they decide whether "a person of reasonable firmness" if present would be in fear of their safety. Pretty much banged to rights if two football firms arrange a fight. Sentences are pretty draconian too.

Post Reply