Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Viking Chat => Topic started by: Filo on March 12, 2014, 02:54:59 pm
-
http://www.southyorks.police.uk/news-syp/nine-year-football-ban-disorderly-fans-doncaster
-
What I don't understand is why something that's happened two hours after a game has finished, and the best part of two miles from the ground, leads to a banning order from the football.
If these lot had been to a matinee showing down the Lakeside, then got in a ruckus in town that evening, would they have been banned from Vue for three years?
-
What I don't understand is why something that's happened two hours after a game has finished, and the best part of two miles from the ground, leads to a banning order from the football.
If these lot had been to a matinee showing down the Lakeside, then got in a ruckus in town that evening, would they have been banned from Vue for three years?
You do have a point, but the names sound familiar in connection with football related offences, according to the report the conviction followed further enquiries, so one would assume that those further enquiries led to facts being established that the incident was football related
-
If a fight breaks out in Walkabout during Man Utd v Liverpool being shown on the tv, would those responsible get football banning orders? After all it's football related.
-
If a fight breaks out in Walkabout during Man Utd v Liverpool being shown on the tv, would those responsible get football banning orders? After all it's football related.
Another good point, I don't know the answer to, I suppose anyone could be fitted up to a football related charge really, if circumstances fall into place
-
I suspect it's in the interests of the police to have as many "football-related" incidents as is possible.
-
Tetley been banned before I believe?
-
The statement from the officer investigating would indicate that these persons involved had been to the game that day, and as a result this disorder took place following the game.
I guess the rationale would be that if they were not to attend future games then this would prevent them being involved in this sort of incident in the future. Not only that but it serves as a punishment also.
I suspect also that coupled with a banning order is the requirement to submit passports to the local nick prior to england away games.
Everyone knows that violence within football grounds has all but gone thankfully with CCTV and security etc, but it does not and will not stop it happening away from grounds.
Ban these types from grounds and it goes some ways to eradicate violence of this type.
People who get involved in fights in town on a fri sat night get banned from town centres too so it is not just exclusive to football.
-
Interesting debate into where lines should be drawn here.
IMHO, and without full knowledge of the facts, I assume the banning orders here follow the relation of the incident to the football. What I mean is, the perpetrators "motives" may have been enhanced by their attendance at the game? Was the victim a supporter of the other team? Maybe during the case the relationship to the football was a factor?
I don't know the answers...
At least the football clubs are not being punished in this case for misdeeds that happen beyond the stadium boundaries.
-
The problem is that you're all trying to apply normal logic to this when, with regard to banning orders, it doesn't necessarily apply.
Firstly banning orders fall under section 14 (B) of the Football Spectators act. This is also a civil action on behalf of the police and not criminal, therefore the burden of proof is much reduced to the point where it's none existent in some cases. It's pretty much the case that you are deserving of a banning order if the Police think you are deserving of one. You don't have to be present at a game, or have to have been to one for the courts to apply one in your case.
It's a piece of legislation that if imposed on any other section of society would be hounded out, and quite rightly. Civil groups would have a field day with this piece of legislation.
It's also one area that means the FSF have a full time member of staff dealing with cases like this.
-
Out of intrest sm do u think they should of got banning orders?
-
In my experience if you don't accept one, and attempt to protest, you'll be successful.
The answer is no I don't. It's draconian in concept and practice.
-
The Tranmere supporters had not been to the game (although none of them were prosecuted).
I don't believe the Doncaster residents involved had been to the game either - at least one of them is a Leeds fan.
Therefore not football related and a complete set up by the police who elected to walk the Tranmere supporters past Paris Gate where they knew certain "risk" individuals were drinking and so an incident was likely.
-
Andy Slater appears to be getting younger. Must be that one gym session I saw him doing ;)
-
But if they are rovers fans and had been to the match and caused trouble with away fans surely banning them is the best thing for the club
-
I'm pretty sure at least 3 of the names lads were not at the game, as Muttley says sounds a bit dodgy walking away fans through the town centre & past a notorious hang out & not down Trafford Way.
No doubt a police set up, I remember in the conference days when a coach load of Hereford lads were in town the police had them surrounded in what was Doctor Browns but shortly after all 50 odd had escaped the vast police attention & managed to pitch up at wetherspoons where amazingly around 20 well known DDR were drinking, cue mayhem, broken windows, flying glasses & screaming shoppers before the police suddenly found their missing Hereford fans.
-
Now Tets old man was/is a proper meester and ironically a forest fan
-
If they were not at the match they should not be banned if they were they should if they started the trouble
-
Slater kid/man is a Leeds fan,Shrewsbury guy was born in Nottingham but claims to not care about football after his banning order, they were in Paris Gate and we all know how lovely that place is. They have got nowt to do with Drfc
-
If they were not at the match they should not be banned if they were they should if they started the trouble
You should read my post again then bpoolrover, there is no requirement with a section 14b to be at a game. That's the law as it stands.
-
Ok thanks for the reply sm
-
Shaun tetley's name rings a bell. Wasn't he once arrested watching leeds in europe, I remember watching it on the news thinking i've stood near him at Rovers matches