5 supporters banned

[Wellred]

Yawn

[dumbroofer]

one of the young lads banned is no more a football hooligan/ thug than all you lot posting on here.

[Mr1Croft]

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.


Look at the Hillsborough disaster, it was that tarring of the same brush that not only meant innocent folk died, but they were blamed for their own death as well. 23 years on and while this attitude exists where has football come since then?


By all means assess the evidence, let them be tried in a court of law and await the outcome of the decision, but until then we cannot condone fans are banned for the sake of the club making an example, whether innocent or not.

[DonnyBazR0ver]

I'm sure I would be peeved is I was banned if innocent. On the other hand I've managed to go 40 years without being collared by stewards or the law. I guess I must be lucky!

The club had to act and couldn't pussyfoot about. 

[Mr1Croft]

I'm not disputing that the club had to act, and I don't blame them. My point was/is that these bans should only stand if those in question are guilty of what they have been accused of. I wasn't there and neither is it my judgement to make, but I still believe that innocent until proven guilty is what we are lead to believe is a principle in society and this scenario is no different for that principle to be upheld.

[Standanista]

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.

I'm all for justice, and I'm also all for being able to go to a match and not have mouthy drunken idiots causing grief around me while I'm trying to watch the game, ditto being able to have a dump without someone having wiped shit on the wall next to me.  If any of these lads (I bet they all are, and not lasses) has a genuine cause for grievance then they need to take it up with club.  Maybe they're right, go for it, but I bet the majority will have been banned for good reason, call me old fashioned.

[The Red Baron]

SM will know the score on this one much better than me, but as I understand it four people have been arrested for alleged affray and have been bailed to appear in court next month. As part of the conditions of their bail they may have had to agree not to attend football matches. In which case DRFC are only following something that the legal process has put in place anyway.

As to the fifth person, I'm guessing that was the pitch invader who may have accepted a police caution (effectively an admission of guilt) and whose name will have been passed on to DRFC.

[silent majority]

SM will know the score on this one much better than me, but as I understand it four people have been arrested for alleged affray and have been bailed to appear in court next month. As part of the conditions of their bail they may have had to agree not to attend football matches. In which case DRFC are only following something that the legal process has put in place anyway.

As to the fifth person, I'm guessing that was the pitch invader who may have accepted a police caution (effectively an admission of guilt) and whose name will have been passed on to DRFC.

That's pretty much right RB.

What some people may not realise though is that the charge of affray is a very serious crime. If you get involved in handbags with someone in the centre of town you get charged with breach of the peace or common assault then you get a slap on the wrists, do it at a football ground and you get charged with affray. This is much more serious and carries a prison sentence. The stewards involved in this fracas though get nothing but a pat on the back. If these young lads do go to prison I hope that those who have been demanding tough and quick action remember that. Innocents shouldn't be faced with that possibility, so again I say be careful what you wish for.

In this case I understand a civil banning application has also been applied for just to compound the issue.

[dickos1]

I'm not disputing that the club had to act, and I don't blame them. My point was/is that these bans should only stand if those in question are guilty of what they have been accused of. I wasn't there and neither is it my judgement to make, but I still believe that innocent until proven guilty is what we are lead to believe is a principle in society and this scenario is no different for that principle to be upheld.

It is different though, if they are found not guilty in a court of law of affray then the club can still find them guilty of bringing the club into disrepute,
Like has been mentioned before John terry was found not guilty in a court of law but found guilty by the people governing football and now his employers.

[MrFrost]

The Joh Terry situation is completely different.
He was found not guilty of racial abuse. As far as I know he has been fined for saying a racial word. Big difference.

[Glyn_Wigley]

The Joh Terry situation is completely different.
He was found not guilty of racial abuse. As far as I know he has been fined for saying a racial word. Big difference.

And that big difference would also be a factor in our case. If the DRFC bans are for a different criteria than any subsequent court case, the outcome of said court case should have no affect on the DRFC bans, in exactly the same way the court case did not affect the FA decision with regards to Terry.

Still can't find any reference to any Sunderland supporter having their ban overturned due to the result of a court case...

[Beerseller]

The reason for apparently contradictory findings on matters like the John Terry case is explained by the difference in standards of proof in different situations.   

In a criminal matter the standard of proof is “beyond reasonable doubt”.  The burden is therefore on the prosecutor to show there is no reasonable doubt and all the defence have to show is some element of doubt to obtain a not guilty verdict.  That is not the same as saying that the defendant didn’t commit the offence but simply that there is insufficient evidence to show that he/she did it beyond any reasonable doubt.

In a civil matter, the burden of proof is only “on the balance of probability”.  This effectively comes down to being that one side of the story is simply more believable than the other.  This could be by as little as 51% to 49% in favour. 

On that basis, even if the criminal courts find people not guilty, that does not prevent them being found liable or culpable before a civil court, tribunal or other forum.  This gives rise to instances like the John Terry case where he was found not guilty on a criminal charge but was fined for the matter before a civil forum. 

Simplistically, this indicates John Terry was from 51% to around 85% likely to have done the wrong.

On the other hand, where a criminal court finds someone guilty, a civil forum can rely on that finding to also find a wrongdoing in any civil action as the criminal finding is bound to reach the civil standard of proof.

I hope that makes sense.

[Glyn_Wigley]

The reason for apparently contradictory findings on matters like the John Terry case is explained by the difference in standards of proof in different situations.   

In a criminal matter the standard of proof is “beyond reasonable doubt”.  The burden is therefore on the prosecutor to show there is no reasonable doubt and all the defence have to show is some element of doubt to obtain a not guilty verdict.  That is not the same as saying that the defendant didn’t commit the offence but simply that there is insufficient evidence to show that he/she did it beyond any reasonable doubt.

In a civil matter, the burden of proof is only “on the balance of probability”.  This effectively comes down to being that one side of the story is simply more believable than the other.  This could be by as little as 51% to 49% in favour. 

On that basis, even if the criminal courts find people not guilty, that does not prevent them being found liable or culpable before a civil court, tribunal or other forum.  This gives rise to instances like the John Terry case where he was found not guilty on a criminal charge but was fined for the matter before a civil forum. 

Simplistically, this indicates John Terry was from 51% to around 85% likely to have done the wrong.

On the other hand, where a criminal court finds someone guilty, a civil forum can rely on that finding to also find a wrongdoing in any civil action as the criminal finding is bound to reach the civil standard of proof.

I hope that makes sense.

Actually, that's not the crucial point in the Terry case - the charges in the two procedures were different.

In the FA procedure, the charge was merely that Terry uttered the words - which he didn't deny hence the guilty verdict.

In the court case, the charge wasn't just about the words being uttered, but the intent behind them being racial abuse, which Terry did contest, and being acquitted of due to insufficient evidence that he had said the words in an abusive context.

[MrFrost]

The Joh Terry situation is completely different.
He was found not guilty of racial abuse. As far as I know he has been fined for saying a racial word. Big difference.

And that big difference would also be a factor in our case. If the DRFC bans are for a different criteria than any subsequent court case, the outcome of said court case should have no affect on the DRFC bans, in exactly the same way the court case did not affect the FA decision with regards to Terry.

Still can't find any reference to any Sunderland supporter having their ban overturned due to the result of a court case...

You're not looking hard enough then. Was around ten years ago if that helps.

[MrFrost]

The reason for apparently contradictory findings on matters like the John Terry case is explained by the difference in standards of proof in different situations.   

In a criminal matter the standard of proof is “beyond reasonable doubt”.  The burden is therefore on the prosecutor to show there is no reasonable doubt and all the defence have to show is some element of doubt to obtain a not guilty verdict.  That is not the same as saying that the defendant didn’t commit the offence but simply that there is insufficient evidence to show that he/she did it beyond any reasonable doubt.

In a civil matter, the burden of proof is only “on the balance of probability”.  This effectively comes down to being that one side of the story is simply more believable than the other.  This could be by as little as 51% to 49% in favour. 

On that basis, even if the criminal courts find people not guilty, that does not prevent them being found liable or culpable before a civil court, tribunal or other forum.  This gives rise to instances like the John Terry case where he was found not guilty on a criminal charge but was fined for the matter before a civil forum. 

Simplistically, this indicates John Terry was from 51% to around 85% likely to have done the wrong.

On the other hand, where a criminal court finds someone guilty, a civil forum can rely on that finding to also find a wrongdoing in any civil action as the criminal finding is bound to reach the civil standard of proof.

I hope that makes sense.

Actually, that's not the crucial point in the Terry case - the charges in the two procedures were different.

In the FA procedure, the charge was merely that Terry uttered the words - which he didn't deny hence the guilty verdict.

In the court case, the charge wasn't just about the words being uttered, but the intent behind them being racial abuse, which Terry did contest, and being acquitted of due to insufficient evidence that he had said the words in an abusive context.

Correct

[Glyn_Wigley]

You're not looking hard enough then. Was around ten years ago if that helps.

Not looking hard enough? Care to suggest something useful I could put in Google then? I've put Sunderland/ban/abuse/overturn and all sorts of other variations...nothing.

[Beerseller]

Glyn, yes sorry I should have made the distinction but didnt want to get involved in a further discourse on criminal intent.  My post still applies in that a criminal court, even accepting the words were used, could not find the necessary intent beyond reasonable doubt. 

I was hoping in general to raise the burden of proof point as it hadnt been brought up before.

[Glyn_Wigley]

I appreciate the effort, but burden of proof doesn't come into it anyway - a football club can ban anyone they want on as little or no evidence as they like. How many journalists have certain clubs banned just because they didn't like what they wrote about them, for instance?

[dickos1]

Correct frosty, so you understand now that just because they're found not guilty in a court that the club can still find them guilty of another offence?

[Dagenham Rover]

I appreciate the effort, but burden of proof doesn't come into it anyway - a football club can ban anyone they want on as little or no evidence as they like. How many journalists have certain clubs banned just because they didn't like what they wrote about them, for instance?

and that appears to be where Frosty is missing the point.

It doesn't have to be a football club your local pub/social club can ban who they like for whatever reason they like providing its not on racial etc etc grounds, you might utter one swear word in 10 years and the pub could if they so wished ban you

[MrFrost]

I appreciate the effort, but burden of proof doesn't come into it anyway - a football club can ban anyone they want on as little or no evidence as they like. How many journalists have certain clubs banned just because they didn't like what they wrote about them, for instance?

and that appears to be where Frosty is missing the point.

It doesn't have to be a football club your local pub/social club can ban who they like for whatever reason they like providing its not on racial etc etc grounds, you might utter one swear word in 10 years and the pub could if they so wished ban you

I'm aware of this. However those banned can appeal, and get it over turned as history has proved.

[dickos1]

How can they appeal being banned from private property? Who do they appeal to?

[Not Now Kato]

How can they appeal being banned from private property? Who do they appeal to?

The club.  They're the only ones who can overturn their own ruling.

[dickos1]

That's not going to happen though is it.

[Not Now Kato]

Just depends if any of them are truly innocent and how strongly they feel about it.

The can appeal, but there is no requirement on the club to hear it.

[MrFrost]

That's not going to happen though is it.

Like I said it has happened before.

[dickos1]

That's just hear say though frosty

[Not Now Kato]

That's not going to happen though is it.

Like I said it has happened before.

So you keep saying.  But you haven't posted any proof, until you do it never happened.

[MrFrost]

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

[dickos1]

What's your favourite saying frosty???
"Just because you say it's true why should I believe you"