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 .
Banana Boy - Were Laws Really 'Bent'?
Re: Banana Boy - Were Laws Really 'Bent'?
"slipped in"...on a banana skin???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 .
-
DB10GOONER
- Posts: 62238
- Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 2:06 pm
- Location: Dublin, Ireland.
- Contact:
Re: Banana Boy - Were Laws Really 'Bent'?
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??!!Glitch33 wrote:Another joke that will end up with a football banning order.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/ ... en-1770651
-
highburyJD
- Posts: 4982
- Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 6:36 pm
- Location: Highbury
Re: Banana Boy - Were Laws Really 'Bent'?
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
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
Re: Banana Boy - Were Laws Really 'Bent'?
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.
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.
