5 supporters banned

[Mr1Croft]

http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/s/2114245_yobs_have_west_ham_match_ban_overturned
This article shows that in some cases the banning orders can be overturned, but this is banning orders served through the courts as opposed to the club. In the context of the situation we currently have DRFC have banned individuals from home matches (they can still go to away games) untill a court date where a civil banning order has been appplied for.

[dickos1]

Exactly crofty, it's a different matter if the club ban them from home games its their decision, private property

[MrFrost]

Exactly crofty, it's a different matter if the club ban them from home games its their decision, private property

So does that mean, because it is the clubs decision it cannot be changed? Complete rubbish.

[dickos1]

Who said that??
The discussion is whether or not the club can ban players even if they're cleared at court.
Don't change the arguement because your losing the original one.

[Not Now Kato]

I've given an example. If you don't believe it, frankly I don't care.

No you haven't.  You simply said that a court had overturned a ban Sunderland AFC imposed on a fan.

And if that actually happened, (which it didn't), and it was so easy to go to court then their fans wouldn't have gone to the trouble of running a petition to get a more recent ban on a number of their fans lifted....
 
http://www.fsf.org.uk/petitions/sunderland-ban-quinn-petition.php
 
I'd stop digging if I were you Frosty.

[Mr1Croft]

Exactly crofty, it's a different matter if the club ban them from home games its their decision, private property

Agreed, and there is little you can do. My guess is you can appeal, given you have access to evidence that proves your innocence, the club may listen and admit it has made the wrong decision. However what happens when the court dates arrive for the civil banning orders and the banning orders are refused by the courts? Will the club allow them back to the KM or will it just ban them again?
 
I don't know what happened with Sunderland, but I do know the FSF launched a petition which attracted many signatures to have several banning orders overturned. I'm not sure what came of it.

[MrFrost]

I've given an example. If you don't believe it, frankly I don't care.

No you haven't.  You simply said that a court had overturned a ban Sunderland AFC imposed on a fan.

And if that actually happened, (which it didn't), and it was so easy to go to court then their fans wouldn't have gone to the trouble of running a petition to get a more recent ban on a number of their fans lifted....
 
http://www.fsf.org.uk/petitions/sunderland-ban-quinn-petition.php
 
I'd stop digging if I were you Frosty.

Yes, it did happen, was around 2002 if I remember correctly.

[dickos1]

Must have happened then

[wilts rover]

Excuse me chaps, mind if I help? If you want some historical research done always good to ask a professional (ermm).

I dont belive that Frosty is talking about either of these two episodes:

2001
www.sunderlandecho.com/news/local/all-news/ground-ban-for-fan-1-1082164

2003
www.sunderlandecho.com/news/local/all-news/three-year-ban-for-football-fan-1-1113800

where Sunderland fans were ejected from the stadium and subsequently banned, mainly due to the people in these particular incidents admitting it - and the bans running their full course (I presume).

What I believe he is referring to is the case of Chris Sumby. In March 2002 Mr Sumby was ejected from the SoL about 20 minutes into a match due to allegations that he had been involved in racist chanting at a previous match. This of course is a criminal offence and hence it became a police investigation. Mr Sumby had his season ticket taken away and was banned from the SoL whilst the investigation went on. In April Mr Sumby was cleared (or at least no evidence was found that he had done this), so the club gave him back his ticket and he was allowed back into the stadium.

www.sunderlandecho.com/news/local/all-news/i-m-not-a-racist-1-1083446
www.sunderlandecho.com/news/local/all-news/fan-wins-fight-to-clear-name-1-1079173

[Simple]

Thumbs up to the club. If one or two 'innocent' folk are banned by association then so be it. The message is quite straightforward.

Not sure I'm comfortable with that Baz, ban those who are guilty by all means, but to go as far as to support the collective responsibility that football fans are forced upon by the authorities so that those who may have been in the wrong place at the wrong time ended up banned is throwing away any dignity we have as a fan-base.

Totally agree with Mr1Croft here, what a stupid statement by Baz.  To get banned by association potentially could happen to anyone.  The club should only be banning people they are certain were involved in the trouble.

[MrFrost]

Excuse me chaps, mind if I help? If you want some historical research done always good to ask a professional (ermm).

I dont belive that Frosty is talking about either of these two episodes:

2001
www.sunderlandecho.com/news/local/all-news/ground-ban-for-fan-1-1082164

2003
www.sunderlandecho.com/news/local/all-news/three-year-ban-for-football-fan-1-1113800

where Sunderland fans were ejected from the stadium and subsequently banned, mainly due to the people in these particular incidents admitting it - and the bans running their full course (I presume).

What I believe he is referring to is the case of Chris Sumby. In March 2002 Mr Sumby was ejected from the SoL about 20 minutes into a match due to allegations that he had been involved in racist chanting at a previous match. This of course is a criminal offence and hence it became a police investigation. Mr Sumby had his season ticket taken away and was banned from the SoL whilst the investigation went on. In April Mr Sumby was cleared (or at least no evidence was found that he had done this), so the club gave him back his ticket and he was allowed back into the stadium.

www.sunderlandecho.com/news/local/all-news/i-m-not-a-racist-1-1083446
www.sunderlandecho.com/news/local/all-news/fan-wins-fight-to-clear-name-1-1079173

That is the case I was talking about. I just couldn't be bothered to post a link to the evidence after basically being told I was talking out of my rectum. I may have got the particulars wrong regarding how he was allowed back into the stadium, but it certainly happened.

[wilts rover]

Excuse me chaps, mind if I help? If you want some historical research done always good to ask a professional (ermm).

I dont belive that Frosty is talking about either of these two episodes:

2001
www.sunderlandecho.com/news/local/all-news/ground-ban-for-fan-1-1082164

2003
www.sunderlandecho.com/news/local/all-news/three-year-ban-for-football-fan-1-1113800

where Sunderland fans were ejected from the stadium and subsequently banned, mainly due to the people in these particular incidents admitting it - and the bans running their full course (I presume).

What I believe he is referring to is the case of Chris Sumby. In March 2002 Mr Sumby was ejected from the SoL about 20 minutes into a match due to allegations that he had been involved in racist chanting at a previous match. This of course is a criminal offence and hence it became a police investigation. Mr Sumby had his season ticket taken away and was banned from the SoL whilst the investigation went on. In April Mr Sumby was cleared (or at least no evidence was found that he had done this), so the club gave him back his ticket and he was allowed back into the stadium.

www.sunderlandecho.com/news/local/all-news/i-m-not-a-racist-1-1083446
www.sunderlandecho.com/news/local/all-news/fan-wins-fight-to-clear-name-1-1079173

That is the case I was talking about. I just couldn't be bothered to post a link to the evidence after basically being told I was talking out of my rectum. I may have got the particulars wrong regarding how he was allowed back into the stadium, but it certainly happened.

Well yes, you did get the particulars wrong - in fact what you described is nothing like what actually happened. Your description:

In the eye's of the law he is innocent. Ultimately, that is all that matters. I'll refer you to an incident, several years ago, where a Sunderland fan was banned by Sunderland FC for "racial abuse". He was found not guilty in court, however Sunderland still imposed the ban, because a steward had heard it. He took legal action and his ban was revoked

Sunderland banned the bloke whilst a police investigation was undergoing. As soon as he was found innocent (or no evidence) then he was given his ticket back. There was no court case, nor did he take legal action.

Very different I suggest to the incident at Hartlepool, Mr Sumby was a potential criminal and judged as such. The Hartlepool 5 are a potential embarrasment and judged as such.

[Not Now Kato]

Excuse me chaps, mind if I help? If you want some historical research done always good to ask a professional (ermm).

I dont belive that Frosty is talking about either of these two episodes:

2001
www.sunderlandecho.com/news/local/all-news/ground-ban-for-fan-1-1082164

2003
www.sunderlandecho.com/news/local/all-news/three-year-ban-for-football-fan-1-1113800

where Sunderland fans were ejected from the stadium and subsequently banned, mainly due to the people in these particular incidents admitting it - and the bans running their full course (I presume).

What I believe he is referring to is the case of Chris Sumby. In March 2002 Mr Sumby was ejected from the SoL about 20 minutes into a match due to allegations that he had been involved in racist chanting at a previous match. This of course is a criminal offence and hence it became a police investigation. Mr Sumby had his season ticket taken away and was banned from the SoL whilst the investigation went on. In April Mr Sumby was cleared (or at least no evidence was found that he had done this), so the club gave him back his ticket and he was allowed back into the stadium.

www.sunderlandecho.com/news/local/all-news/i-m-not-a-racist-1-1083446
www.sunderlandecho.com/news/local/all-news/fan-wins-fight-to-clear-name-1-1079173

That is the case I was talking about. I just couldn't be bothered to post a link to the evidence after basically being told I was talking out of my rectum. I may have got the particulars wrong regarding how he was allowed back into the stadium, but it certainly happened.

But you were talking out of your rectum....
 
Your words -  "In the eye's of the law he is innocent. Ultimately, that is all that matters. I'll refer you to an incident, several years ago, where a Sunderland fan was banned by Sunderland FC for "racial abuse". He was found not guilty in court, however Sunderland still imposed the ban, because a steward had heard it. He took legal action and his ban was revoked."
 
He didn't take any legal action, the club, (not the courts), simply gave him his season ticket back.  They didn't have to, they simply chose to.

[dickos1]

Excuse me chaps, mind if I help? If you want some historical research done always good to ask a professional (ermm).

I dont belive that Frosty is talking about either of these two episodes:

2001
www.sunderlandecho.com/news/local/all-news/ground-ban-for-fan-1-1082164

2003
www.sunderlandecho.com/news/local/all-news/three-year-ban-for-football-fan-1-1113800

where Sunderland fans were ejected from the stadium and subsequently banned, mainly due to the people in these particular incidents admitting it - and the bans running their full course (I presume).

What I believe he is referring to is the case of Chris Sumby. In March 2002 Mr Sumby was ejected from the SoL about 20 minutes into a match due to allegations that he had been involved in racist chanting at a previous match. This of course is a criminal offence and hence it became a police investigation. Mr Sumby had his season ticket taken away and was banned from the SoL whilst the investigation went on. In April Mr Sumby was cleared (or at least no evidence was found that he had done this), so the club gave him back his ticket and he was allowed back into the stadium.

www.sunderlandecho.com/news/local/all-news/i-m-not-a-racist-1-1083446
www.sunderlandecho.com/news/local/all-news/fan-wins-fight-to-clear-name-1-1079173

That is the case I was talking about. I just couldn't be bothered to post a link to the evidence after basically being told I was talking out of my rectum. I may have got the particulars wrong regarding how he was allowed back into the stadium, but it certainly happened.

Well yes, you did get the particulars wrong - in fact what you described is nothing like what actually happened. Your description:

In the eye's of the law he is innocent. Ultimately, that is all that matters. I'll refer you to an incident, several years ago, where a Sunderland fan was banned by Sunderland FC for "racial abuse". He was found not guilty in court, however Sunderland still imposed the ban, because a steward had heard it. He took legal action and his ban was revoked

Sunderland banned the bloke whilst a police investigation was undergoing. As soon as he was found innocent (or no evidence) then he was given his ticket back. There was no court case, nor did he take legal action.

Very different I suggest to the incident at Hartlepool, Mr Sumby was a potential criminal and judged as such. The Hartlepool 5 are a potential embarrasment and judged as such.

Correct wilts, it's not a precedent at all

[MrFrost]

Excuse me chaps, mind if I help? If you want some historical research done always good to ask a professional (ermm).

I dont belive that Frosty is talking about either of these two episodes:

2001
www.sunderlandecho.com/news/local/all-news/ground-ban-for-fan-1-1082164

2003
www.sunderlandecho.com/news/local/all-news/three-year-ban-for-football-fan-1-1113800

where Sunderland fans were ejected from the stadium and subsequently banned, mainly due to the people in these particular incidents admitting it - and the bans running their full course (I presume).

What I believe he is referring to is the case of Chris Sumby. In March 2002 Mr Sumby was ejected from the SoL about 20 minutes into a match due to allegations that he had been involved in racist chanting at a previous match. This of course is a criminal offence and hence it became a police investigation. Mr Sumby had his season ticket taken away and was banned from the SoL whilst the investigation went on. In April Mr Sumby was cleared (or at least no evidence was found that he had done this), so the club gave him back his ticket and he was allowed back into the stadium.

www.sunderlandecho.com/news/local/all-news/i-m-not-a-racist-1-1083446
www.sunderlandecho.com/news/local/all-news/fan-wins-fight-to-clear-name-1-1079173

That is the case I was talking about. I just couldn't be bothered to post a link to the evidence after basically being told I was talking out of my rectum. I may have got the particulars wrong regarding how he was allowed back into the stadium, but it certainly happened.

But you were talking out of your rectum....
 
Your words -  "In the eye's of the law he is innocent. Ultimately, that is all that matters. I'll refer you to an incident, several years ago, where a Sunderland fan was banned by Sunderland FC for "racial abuse". He was found not guilty in court, however Sunderland still imposed the ban, because a steward had heard it. He took legal action and his ban was revoked."
 
He didn't take any legal action, the club, (not the courts), simply gave him his season ticket back.  They didn't have to, they simply chose to.

Which was my point all along. If these people charged with offences are found not guilty - would the club let them back? Like I said in many times, it depends who's version of events you listen to as what happened. And indeed, it seems at least one person banned by DRFC was actually trying to calm the situation down and ended up defending himself.

[dickos1]

Just because they aren't found guilty of affray? That doesn't mean they didn't do anything wrong does it

[MrFrost]

Just because they aren't found guilty of affray? That doesn't mean they didn't do anything wrong does it

In your opinion. I have spoke to plenty of others who have said the events were nothing like as you described.

[dickos1]

Like you said earlier I couldn't care less of whether you believe me or not, I saw what I saw and in my opinion the ones that got thrown out deserved to be thrown out. Other people may have their own opinions maybe because they know the offenders or whatever, but just because you question whether I'm telling the truth that isn't going to change what I saw is it?

[Alickismyhero]

Come on Frosty,

 are you a close friend of any of the "increadably stupid five"?

[hoolahoop]

Come on Frosty,

 are you a close friend of any of the "increadably stupid five"?

Ahem no of course he's not

[Glyn_Wigley]

Just because they aren't found guilty of affray? That doesn't mean they didn't do anything wrong does it

In your opinion. I have spoke to plenty of others who have said the events were nothing like as you described.

Does anything make their version more reliable than dickos?

[Alickismyhero]

Anybody seen Frosty?

[CJK]

Yet another case of the middle ground being lost entirely. It's either his way or my way, United or City, boiled or chipped.

[Filo]

Just a thought, has any of the ""Hartlepool Five" actually contacted the club to put their case forward, or are the just all whining on Twitter and Facebook?

[Alickismyhero]

Frosty,
I respect the right to free speech and the way you have represented "The incredibly stupid 5"
why not put their views on show? At the moment they look to be sinking fast. I am a great believer in listening to both sides of an argument so let them, through you, put their own views on show.
I get the impression that your aim is damage limitation for your friends, so
don't hide, lets hear what they have to say.

[MrFrost]

Frosty,
I respect the right to free speech and the way you have represented "The incredibly stupid 5"
why not put their views on show? At the moment they look to be sinking fast. I am a great believer in listening to both sides of an argument so let them, through you, put their own views on show.
I get the impression that your aim is damage limitation for your friends, so
don't hide, lets hear what they have to say.

You presume I know them all. I don't tend to hang around with people nearly half my age.
My point was the differing version of events depending on who you speak to, and that it seems at least one person involved was defending themselves.

[Alickismyhero]

I am not sure what you are saying?

I  accept that you don't know all of the The Incredible Stupid Five but is there an inference that you may know 1 or 2?
you seem to know their age,
I just thought it would be very interesting to hear their point of view directly from them.

As you can see I have jumped to the conclusion that they are The Incredible Stupid Five.

My apology if I picked up on the wrong angle of what you were saying.

[silent majority]

I have just been listening to yesterdays House of Commons debate with regard to the release of the Hillsborough Independent Panel Report, brings you to tears to listen to the injustice suffered by those football supporters.

Why oh why would any football fan, possibly faced with a prison sentence want to come on here and give their point of view? They have enough issues dealing with the authorities who are still bent on making all football supporters lives as difficult as possible.

Maybe we should reflect on the first when considering the second.

[dumbroofer]

well said sir

[Alickismyhero]

SM,

Wait, wasn't the problem with the Liverpool supporters that they could not get their point of view across? The establishment which encompass the police, press and coroners court failed those supporters with lies?
What I was suggesting was that if Frosty did have contact with this group they could make their point of view available on this site.
So far these supporters have been slated on here and quite clearly I was giving them the opportunity to put their side of the story without censorship.

Why oh why would they want to come on here and give their point of view faced with a possible prison sentence?

To make sure they get their side of the story over and help avoid what happened to the Liverpool supporters and the injustice they suffered.