5 supporters banned

[dickos1]

Just because the trial isn't until later this year it doesn't mean the club can't look at the same evidence and reach their own conclusions. Why do they need to wait?

[MrFrost]

Just because the trial isn't until later this year it doesn't mean the club can't look at the same evidence and reach their own conclusions. Why do they need to wait?

And if they are found not guilty or the case is thrown out will DRFC be revoking their bans?

[dickos1]

No, because they've looked at the evidence and made their own decision.

[Glyn_Wigley]

And if they are found not guilty or the case is thrown out will DRFC be revoking their bans?

What happens in court has nothing to do with whatever decision DRFC has made. DRFC are still entitled to bar whoever they want to.

[MrFrost]

No, because they've looked at the evidence and made their own decision.

Which, quite frankly would be ridiculous.
Still, those banned from the KMS and still quite freely attend away games, which is where the problems seem to take place.

[dickos1]

How do you know they won't receive banning orders from away grounds, it maybe just the case that drfc have acted effectively and sorted it out quickly.
Not arguing anymore about it they deserve everything they get.

[MrFrost]

How do you know they won't receive banning orders from away grounds, it maybe just the case that drfc have acted effectively and sorted it out quickly.
Not arguing anymore about it they deserve everything they get.

You say they deserve what they get, however, others say differently. That is your opinion. DRFC cannot enforce bans at other stadia, only a football banning order issued by the courts could do this, and it could take many months before one is issued, if at all.

[Glyn_Wigley]

No, because they've looked at the evidence and made their own decision.

Which, quite frankly would be ridiculous.

Making a decision based on evidence is ridiculous? Best one yet.

[MrFrost]

No, because they've looked at the evidence and made their own decision.

Which, quite frankly would be ridiculous.

Making a decision based on evidence is ridiculous? Best one yet.

If you read (which you clearly are not capable of doing) you will see, that I stated if those banned are found not guilty by law - therefore they haven't done anything wrong - then it would be ridiculous to not to revoke the ban.
Is your sole purpose here just to try and argue your point? Because every post you make is in the same context.

[dickos1]

I never suggested drfc could enforce away banning orders. The police can, but drfc have acted effecectively and done what they can themselves.
It is my opinion yes, an opinion I gained through watching the events unfold myself. You have no evidence at all and are arguing for arguings sake about something you know very little if anything about.

[dickos1]

No, because they've looked at the evidence and made their own decision.

Which, quite frankly would be ridiculous.

Making a decision based on evidence is ridiculous? Best one yet.

If you read (which you clearly are not capable of doing) you will see, that I stated if those banned are found not guilty by law - therefore they haven't done anything wrong - then it would be ridiculous to not to revoke the ban.
Is your sole purpose here just to try and argue your point? Because every post you make is in the same context.

That is nonsense. And if true why has terry been banned for 4 matches and fined 200k.
He was found not guilty by law, please explain frosty I'm intrigued.

[MrFrost]

I never suggested drfc could enforce away banning orders. The police can, but drfc have acted effecectively and done what they can themselves.
It is my opinion yes, an opinion I gained through watching the events unfold myself. You have no evidence at all and are arguing for arguings sake about something you know very little if anything about.

And others have seen the incident also, and have told a very different story to what you have, so why is your word any more credible than theirs? The Police cannot enforce a banning order, only a court. And, I reckon it will be 6 months at least before any of those involved appear in court, if at all, as cases like this are usually thrown out before they get that far.

[MrFrost]

No, because they've looked at the evidence and made their own decision.

Which, quite frankly would be ridiculous.

Making a decision based on evidence is ridiculous? Best one yet.

If you read (which you clearly are not capable of doing) you will see, that I stated if those banned are found not guilty by law - therefore they haven't done anything wrong - then it would be ridiculous to not to revoke the ban.
Is your sole purpose here just to try and argue your point? Because every post you make is in the same context.

That is nonsense. And if true why has terry been banned for 4 matches and fined 200k.
He was found not guilty by law, please explain frosty I'm intrigued.

I'll let you work out the difference between innocent and guilty. If you get stuck, I know a good solicitor. Good night.

[Glyn_Wigley]

No, because they've looked at the evidence and made their own decision.

Which, quite frankly would be ridiculous.

Making a decision based on evidence is ridiculous? Best one yet.

If you read (which you clearly are not capable of doing) you will see, that I stated if those banned are found not guilty by law - therefore they haven't done anything wrong - then it would be ridiculous to not to revoke the ban.
Is your sole purpose here just to try and argue your point? Because every post you make is in the same context.

Seeing as the point I'm arguing is that neither of us know the circumcstances and reasoning behind the bans (and that they are not necessarily connected to just this one incident), nor the level of evidence the bans have been based on, then of course the context will remain the same. Why you have this fixation that any bans are somehow tied to the outcome of a trial I don't know, because they aren't. Just because a court isn't convinced by whatever evidence there is doesn't mean that DRFC should stop being convinced by it.

[dickos1]

Frosty, John terry was found not guilty by the courts, so by your reckoning that means he didn't do anything wrong.
Yet he's been fined by the fa and banned for 4 matches and is also about to be fined by his employers.
Therefore your point is nonsense, just because they get let off at court it doesn't mean we have to lift the ban, why does it???
You tottle off to bed cause you know you can't answer that.

[Glyn_Wigley]

That is nonsense. And if true why has terry been banned for 4 matches and fined 200k.
He was found not guilty by law, please explain frosty I'm intrigued.

I'll let you work out the difference between innocent and guilty. If you get stuck, I know a good solicitor. Good night.

That reads to me like 'I don't know how to answer that one, so I'm going to infer you're stupid for not knowing the answer while pretending I do.'

[MrFrost]

Frosty, John terry was found not guilty by the courts, so by your reckoning that means he didn't do anything wrong.
Yet he's been fined by the fa and banned for 4 matches and is also about to be fined by his employers.
Therefore your point is nonsense, just because they get let off at court it doesn't mean we have to lift the ban, why does it???
You tottle off to bed cause you know you can't answer that.

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.

As for John Terry, it is the context of his comment that is important, and how it was intended. His charge in court was racial abuse was it not? I don't think he ever denied making the comment.

[dickos1]

Exactly and these guys will be charged with affray in court but drfc won't be banning them because they assaulted someone, they'll be taking action because they've brought the club into disrepute, probably got us a fine, and behaved like idiots.
The charges at court are unlikely to cover all the things that should get you banned from attending football matches, so just because they get off with affray they shouldn't then be let off with all the other offences they committed.

[MrFrost]

What offences have they committed exactly? Raised voices? High testosterone levels?
Like others have said it ha been blown out of proportion.

[Glyn_Wigley]

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.

I'd like a link to that because I bet it wasn't as simple as you're portraying it, if indeed it actually happened for the reason you're stating. Any football club can ban anyone they like from their ground for whatever reason they like whether or not someone has been to court. KMS is private property, nobody has a right to entry but the owners do have the right to refuse entry and no court in this land can alter that.

[DonnyBazR0ver]

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

We follow DRFC because we are strong, not because we are weak. Leave that trait to fans of other clubs who are unable to stand loud and proud without resorting to unruly conduct.

Despite the incidents at Orient and Hartlepool, I'm still proud of our conduct since we got back in to the league as 99% of our travelling fans have raised our profile in a positive way rather than a negative way.

I was speaking to a Cardiff fan today who commented how good we are..because we're not confrontational and it's refreshing.

Cast your mind back to Southend semi at the Keepmoat at the end of the game. That's the sort of behaviour that makes me proud.

[Standanista]

Back in the old days we all used to walk across the pitch from the Pop Side at the end of the match.  Times have changed, stay off the pitch or expect to bring trouble on yourself, full stop.

I don't want idiots at a footy game when I'm there with my nine year old niece, full stop.  I never again want to get caught up, as an innocent bystander, in some of the incidents I remember from the late '70s and '80s.  Incidents provoked/organised in many cases by idiots like these.

Fair play to the club for kicking these people out, and I hope they're not long in rooting out a few more who feel within their rights to spoil other folk's day out once they've had a sniff of the apron.  If any of them feel hard done by and that there's been some miscarriage of justice then let them take their cases, with witnesses and CCTV footage and a good lawyer, to the club or anybody else they think will listen.  I bet they don't.

Now we need to find the shit-smearer from Orient, if he isn't already one of the aforementioned.

[Donnywolf]

Back in the old days we all used to walk across the pitch from the Pop Side at the end of the match.  Times have changed, stay off the pitch or expect to bring trouble on yourself, full stop.

I don't want idiots at a footy game when I'm there with my nine year old niece, full stop.  I never again want to get caught up, as an innocent bystander, in some of the incidents I remember from the late '70s and '80s.  Incidents provoked/organised in many cases by idiots like these.

Fair play to the club for kicking these people out, and I hope they're not long in rooting out a few more who feel within their rights to spoil other folk's day out once they've had a sniff of the apron.  If any of them feel hard done by and that there's been some miscarriage of justice then let them take their cases, with witnesses and CCTV footage and a good lawyer, to the club or anybody else they think will listen.  I bet they don't.

Now we need to find the shit-smearer from Orient, if he isn't already one of the aforementioned.

Exactly what I tried to post several times above AND I tried tp include the invasion of the Pitch by Leeds last night as a further "reason" NOT to go back to the bad old days and  possible return to Fences

[Donnywolf]

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.

SM

I agree totally

What I was trying to get across was that use of Fences at Hillsborough and elsewhare was a result of crowd troubles down the years. This kelped kill the 96 innocents and is to be avoided at al costs

Then without any sense of irony at the very End of the Ground where those deaths happened we have an incident the sort of which brought the fences first time round

My point was ban the Leeds fans who can be identified as encroaching and any fans (after "trial" not summarily as you will see I said above too) who misbehave in the crowd a la Hartlepool.

Unfortunately Frosty can type more quickly than I can so a few of our threads got "crossed" earlier on and read oddly (as I did not use quotes either)

My post immediately before this also sums up my point of view i.e. BAN convicted pitch invaders BAN crowd troublemakers whichever Club they are from

[Rios]

Three pages of arguing the toss and only one person points out that it's a private club (property).  Like all private clubs they state in the T&C's of whichever ticket you buy that they can deny you future entry for any reason they pretty much please.  There's no trial, jury or appeal to the European courts.  I've seen people banned from private Working Mens clubs for far, far less than what occurred at Hartlepool.

[Alickismyhero]

Frosty,
In the past I have defended your views in the area of democracy and the right of reply. On this issue I can't go along with your opinion. You are on your own on this one I am with the majority but I do respect the views you have put forward and the right to express them.

[Filo]

No, because they've looked at the evidence and made their own decision.

Which, quite frankly would be ridiculous.

Making a decision based on evidence is ridiculous? Best one yet.

If you read (which you clearly are not capable of doing) you will see, that I stated if those banned are found not guilty by law - therefore they haven't done anything wrong - then it would be ridiculous to not to revoke the ban.
Is your sole purpose here just to try and argue your point? Because every post you make is in the same context.

Quality!

In that one sentence you`ve summed yourself up nicely!

[dickos1]

What offences have they committed exactly? Raised voices? High testosterone levels?
Like others have said it ha been blown out of proportion.

Raised voices high testosterone levels, give it a rest frosty your making yourself look daft now.

[DearneValleyRover]

Without getting into 3 pages of argument, the Club are being pro-active by banning these people and sending a clear message to all that behavior like that will not be tolerated.

[silent majority]

I think your all being a bit hard on Frosty, he might not be making his point very well but he does have a valid point.

As I've said previously we're all entitled to justice, just because we're football fans then that shouldn't stop or detract any of us from being able to defend ourselves and have our story told. Comments about innocents getting caught up in this and that's OK doesn't sit well with me at all.

I have no argument with the club banning individuals who they feel have committed acts of violence or similar, after all its private property and a club, they can impose whatever restrictions they like, (as most football clubs do) but the courts are there for a reason and all individuals should get their day. Unfortunately in my experience that very rarely happens for football supporters.

And before I attract a storm of criticism, lets remember the storm we kicked up when innocent DRFC supporters suffered at the hands of stewards at Norwich and Tranmere and other travels we've been on. I'm suggesting that justice should be seen to be carried out, not just talked about.