5 supporters banned

[MrFrost]

Well we certainly see who would join in on here don't we. Supporting people who can not behave themselves in a civilised way is as bad as being there yourself. So it is OK for Warnock to have his players applaud the idiots at Wednesday tonight? Of course it isn't. And I hope the FA has the guts to throw a very large book at the lot of them.
DRFC have got this one right, we don't want these people as supporters. 

Didn't DRFC also ban a fan for throwing the ball in the wrong direction to the awaiting Burnley player a few years back? The law is there to provide banning orders after a thorough criminal investigation. DRFC are not judge and jury.

... agreed .... there must be justice / a hearing / etc to ensure they have the right people and then throw the book at them

I posted this earlier in this thread and stand by it now


...and as the vermin at Hillsborough tonight BAN THEM. It is an offence to enter the field of play at any time . There will be notices in the Programme and posted in the Ground and probably announced so the Leeds fans cannot plead innocent . They did wrong and should immediately be banned

Similarly the Rovers fans involved at 'pool know affray or public order offences are treated similarly and they too do not NEED a hearing if the CCTV evidence and vredible witnesses identify them as the perpetrators

Lets hope they get the wrong doers across the country and we dont end up behind KILLER FENCES again

You still haven't answered my question. Would you ban the THOUSANDS who went on the pitch after the games I mentioned? Because they have committed the same offence.

If those banned by DRFC, are found not guilty of any kind of disorder in a court, I wonder if DRFC would be as quick to relinquish the ban.

[Donnywolf]

Correct

Identify them and ban them ... although as seems to be the case the Leeds moron from tonight has been banned 3 times already for "offences" at Football matches - so we need to make bans stick

So ban every fan who entered the pitch when we won League 2? Or when we won the Conference cup at Belle Vue? Fantastic logic.

The fantastic logic I am trying to achieve here is avoiding a return to conditions that helped KILL 96 innocent people just like you and me

[hoolahoop]

As I understand it a fan (perhaps the wrong word) at Hartlepool was standing near the front and was asked to sit down, refused to do so thereby forcing someone to make him sit down whereupon the standing knobheads mates took it upon themselves to come down and confront the one person standing up to this knobhead. If the decent fella trying to get the tosser to sit down gets a ban then that is bang out of order.
I look forward to seeing exactly how this pans out ...........Frosty were you one of this tossers mates btw ?

[MrFrost]

As I understand it a fan (perhaps the wrong word) at Hartlepool was standing near the front and was asked to sit down, refused to do so thereby forcing someone to make him sit down whereupon the standing knobheads mates took it upon themselves to come down and confront the one person standing up to this knobhead. If the decent fella trying to get the tosser to sit down gets a ban then that is bang out of order.
I look forward to seeing exactly how this pans out ...........Frosty were you one of this tossers mates btw ?

From what I have been told, the person who standing up to said knobhead has been given a ban.

[MrFrost]

Correct

Identify them and ban them ... although as seems to be the case the Leeds moron from tonight has been banned 3 times already for "offences" at Football matches - so we need to make bans stick

So ban every fan who entered the pitch when we won League 2? Or when we won the Conference cup at Belle Vue? Fantastic logic.

The fantastic logic I am trying to achieve here is avoiding a return to conditions that helped KILL 96 innocent people just like you and me

Don't you think you're being a little dramatic. I don't think a scuffle in a half empty away end is going to escalate into something along those lines.

[hoolahoop]

As I understand it a fan (perhaps the wrong word) at Hartlepool was standing near the front and was asked to sit down, refused to do so thereby forcing someone to make him sit down whereupon the standing knobheads mates took it upon themselves to come down and confront the one person standing up to this knobhead. If the decent fella trying to get the tosser to sit down gets a ban then that is bang out of order.
I look forward to seeing exactly how this pans out ...........Frosty were you one of this tossers mates btw ?

From what I have been told, the person who standing up to said knobhead has been given a ban.

Then you are wrong .

[hoolahoop]

Correct

Identify them and ban them ... although as seems to be the case the Leeds moron from tonight has been banned 3 times already for "offences" at Football matches - so we need to make bans stick

So ban every fan who entered the pitch when we won League 2? Or when we won the Conference cup at Belle Vue? Fantastic logic.

The fantastic logic I am trying to achieve here is avoiding a return to conditions that helped KILL 96 innocent people just like you and me

Don't you think you're being a little dramatic. I don't think a scuffle in a half empty away end is going to escalate into something along those lines.

Is this the same 'half empty' away end that was unable to accomodate the ''standing'' fan Frosty ?

[MrFrost]

As I understand it a fan (perhaps the wrong word) at Hartlepool was standing near the front and was asked to sit down, refused to do so thereby forcing someone to make him sit down whereupon the standing knobheads mates took it upon themselves to come down and confront the one person standing up to this knobhead. If the decent fella trying to get the tosser to sit down gets a ban then that is bang out of order.
I look forward to seeing exactly how this pans out ...........Frosty were you one of this tossers mates btw ?

From what I have been told, the person who standing up to said knobhead has been given a ban.

Then you are wrong .

Like I said, it depends who you talk to, as everyone has a different version of events. The only definitive answer can be through CCTV evidence, otherwise it is he said/she said.

[Muttley]

thereby forcing someone to make him sit down

Nobody "forced" him to get involved...he did it of his own volition. What he should have done is report the situation to a steward...or just accept he's at a football match and that people will stand up now and again.

[RedArmy]

this has all got out of hand and is all pathetic, we support the same team for god sake, why dont people put as much passion into trying to create an atmosphere a they do trying to get one and other kicked out of the club, we're all rovers aren't we? YES, so why dont for once we join together instead of been against each other. 

[hoolahoop]

thereby forcing someone to make him sit down

Nobody "forced" him to get involved...he did it of his own volition. What he should have done is report the situation to a steward...or just accept he's at a football match and that people will stand up now and again.

True he should have run down the aisle reported it to a daft Steward who would then more than likely have ignored it . What would he have said then ...''please Mr. Steward there's a naughty supporter up there who keeps standing up''. You havin' a larf Muttley ?

Btw are you sure it was 'now and again' ?

[Muttley]

thereby forcing someone to make him sit down

Nobody "forced" him to get involved...he did it of his own volition. What he should have done is report the situation to a steward...or just accept he's at a football match and that people will stand up now and again.

True he should have run down the aisle reported it to a daft Steward who would then more than likely have ignored it . What would he have said then ...''please Mr. Steward there's a naughty supporter up there who keeps standing up''. You havin' a larf Muttley ?

Btw are you sure it was 'now and again' ?

I direct you to the second half of my sentence...

Whichever, it wasn't his job to get involved with the vigilante action.

[silent majority]

OK .... you may be right (probably are) but I stick to my guns .... it is against the rules / law / common decency to enter a pitch at any time

We all know and so anyone doing it should have the weight of the law thrown at them. I lived through the dark days from around '63 or '64 until after Hillsborough (ironic or what) when "trouble" between fans forced the authorities to erect fences which contributed SIGNIFICANTLY  in the deaths of 96 people just like me and you - innocent football fans - and nobody ever should have to go through that again

Lock up the criminals (or common trespassers NOW)

That's a strange use of logic, the fans are responsible for the forced use of fences which were a significant cause of 96 deaths! The criminals that day weren't the fans.

Lock up people for common trespass?? Are you sure?? Wow, there's nothing like being a football fan for coming bottom of the pile when justice is seen (or not) to be done.

[hoolahoop]

thereby forcing someone to make him sit down

Nobody "forced" him to get involved...he did it of his own volition. What he should have done is report the situation to a steward...or just accept he's at a football match and that people will stand up now and again.

True he should have run down the aisle reported it to a daft Steward who would then more than likely have ignored it . What would he have said then ...''please Mr. Steward there's a naughty supporter up there who keeps standing up''. You havin' a larf Muttley ?

Btw are you sure it was 'now and again' ?

I direct you to the second half of my sentence...

Whichever, it wasn't his job to get involved with the vigilante action.

''Vigilante action'', the fella asked the other guy to sit down and it went from there , are you suggesting that a group of our supporters deliberately targeted the the intransigent ''stander'' on masse ?

[dickos1]

Frosty for somebody who wasn't even at the incident you don't half seem to think you know a lot about it.
I know what I saw, not hearsay, not the stewards fault, the people who were thrown out deserved to be thrown out, end of story.
The guy was in the wrong to start with for not sitting down, but the abuse he received from many of his fellow supporters was disgraceful.
And if the stewards hadn't  attended he was about to get set on by half a dozen idiots who were threatening to knock his teeth out etc.
In my opinion all parties were in the wrong but the idiots who decided to start a mini riot when the stewards came to do their job were the worst offenders.

[MrFrost]

Frosty for somebody who wasn't even at the incident you don't half seem to think you know a lot about it.
I know what I saw, not hearsay, not the stewards fault, the people who were thrown out deserved to be thrown out, end of story.
The guy was in the wrong to start with for not sitting down, but the abuse he received from many of his fellow supporters was disgraceful.
And if the stewards hadn't  attended he was about to get set on by half a dozen idiots who were threatening to knock his teeth out etc.
In my opinion all parties were in the wrong but the idiots who decided to start a mini riot when the stewards came to do their job were the worst offenders.

That's your version of events. Why would yours be any more credible from other differing versions I have heard? Like I said, its hearsay.

[Glyn_Wigley]

The only definitive answer can be through CCTV evidence, otherwise it is he said/she said.

And you know the club hasn't looked at the CCTV...erm...how? And if it's the only definitive answer there's no need to ask anyone for their defence is there? ...Because that'd just be that he said/she said that you think isn't definitive..?

[Mr1Croft]

As I understand it a fan (perhaps the wrong word) at Hartlepool was standing near the front and was asked to sit down, refused to do so thereby forcing someone to make him sit down whereupon the standing knobheads mates took it upon themselves to come down and confront the one person standing up to this knobhead. If the decent fella trying to get the tosser to sit down gets a ban then that is bang out of order.
I look forward to seeing exactly how this pans out ...........Frosty were you one of this tossers mates btw ?

That is my understanding as well (although I probably wouldn't word it like that), and it is the lad who told the one standing to sit down that has been delivered a ban. The guy who was standing hasn't, and neither has the guy who interfered and grabbed the guy (who was telling the other to sit down) by the throat. That said I wasn't there so my version of events is only formed by the opinions of those who I have spoke to who were there as witness and those involved.

[Glyn_Wigley]

That's your version of events. Why would yours be any more credible from other differing versions I have heard? Like I said, its hearsay.

If it is something you personally witnessed it is NOT hearsay. That's why they have witnesses in court.

What you're telling us about what somebody else did or said IS hearsay, and would get thrown out of court as inadmissible.

[Glyn_Wigley]

I'm just wondering if anyone else has seen the big irony at the centre of this thread yet..?

[MrFrost]

That's your version of events. Why would yours be any more credible from other differing versions I have heard? Like I said, its hearsay.

If it is something you personally witnessed it is NOT hearsay. That's why they have witnesses in court.

What you're telling us about what somebody else did or said IS hearsay, and would get thrown out of court as inadmissible.

It wouldn't stand up in court if another witness had a differing version of events, as is certainly the case in this situation, as personally, I have heard about 5 different versions of what actually happened.

[Glyn_Wigley]

It wouldn't stand up in court if another witness had a differing version of events, as is certainly the case in this situation, as personally, I have heard about 5 different versions of what actually happened.

That's the point of a court - they listen to statements from witnesses, on the basis that not all of them are 100% accurate 100% of the time. If there are differeing versions of what happened, the court then decides what the most probable version of the truth is from the evidence provided by direct witnesses, not from hearsay which isn't admissible. Or do you believe that courts shouldn't listen to witnesses because you just can't believe anything they say?

[MrFrost]

It wouldn't stand up in court if another witness had a differing version of events, as is certainly the case in this situation, as personally, I have heard about 5 different versions of what actually happened.

That's the point of a court - they listen to statements from witnesses, on the basis that not all of them are 100% accurate 100% of the time. If there are differeing versions of what happened, the court then decides what the most probable version of the truth is from the evidence provided by direct witnesses, not from hearsay which isn't admissible. Or do you believe that courts shouldn't listen to witnesses because you just can't believe anything they say?

From past experience, of giving evidence for instances of this kind of event in the past, is that it would be thrown out of court. Even with CCTV evidence, it can simply be thrown out for being one word against the other.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Like your word against DRFCs?

[MrFrost]

Like your word against DRFCs?

You obviously cannot understand my point, and clearly are going round the houses to be pedantic.

[Glyn_Wigley]

I understand your point perfectly, which is why I find this thread comically ironic.

DRFC have been accused of acting on an opinion without hearing the defence of those involved...by a person who has reached his opinion without hearing the defence of DRFC.

[dickos1]

How is it hearsay when I've seen it with my own eyes? It doesn't matter one bit whether you believe me or not, but I saw it so I know. I couldn't  careless whether you want to believe me or not,

[Glyn_Wigley]

How is it hearsay when I've seen it with my own eyes? It doesn't matter one bit whether you believe me or not, but I saw it so I know. I couldn't  careless whether you want to believe me or not,

It isn't hearsay.

[MrFrost]

I understand your point perfectly, which is why I find this thread comically ironic.

DRFC have been accused of acting on an opinion without hearing the defence of those involved...by a person who has reached his opinion without hearing the defence of DRFC.

My point is how DRFC can justify banning anyone who has not yet been found guilty of a crime.

[Glyn_Wigley]

I understand your point perfectly, which is why I find this thread comically ironic.

DRFC have been accused of acting on an opinion without hearing the defence of those involved...by a person who has reached his opinion without hearing the defence of DRFC.

My point is how DRFC can justify banning anyone who has not yet been found guilty of a crime.

Since when has somebody had to be found guilty of a crime to be barred from private property? DRFC have the right to bar anybody they like for whatever reason they like and they don't have to justify it to anyone.