Robsk II Posted 26 March, 2010 Posted 26 March, 2010 Sounds very much to me like your views are not being objective. If you didn't see any fans being well out of line, you probably weren't there. And hey, if there was any police related issues, people have the right to complain to the IPCC.
BadgerBadger Posted 26 March, 2010 Posted 26 March, 2010 If you cause/join in/antagonise violence/scuffles at football matches then expect to be nicked and made an example of. It is very simple - no sympathy, tow the line or go elsewhere, no place for it.
Tom28 Posted 26 March, 2010 Posted 26 March, 2010 If we're talking speed limits; Hit me at 40mph and there's an 80% chance I'll die. Hit me at 30mph and there's an 80% chance I'll live. Promotes gambling. R. Gervais. FAME live tour.
Patrick Bateman Posted 26 March, 2010 Posted 26 March, 2010 Stu your on a losing battle here. FWIW - throwing a stone at any other time is no more than a ticking off. Throwing one anywhere near a football stadium get at least a 3 year ban plus other odds and sods. That to me is unfair but as I said that's my opinion. Totally agree, it's totally disproportionate to what happened. If you throw a stone in to the sea and it smacks a fish on the head, would you expected to be arrested? So throwing a stone (whilst daft in the circumstances) at some (human) fish at football, shouldn't carry the weight of punishment it does.
INFLUENCED.COM Posted 26 March, 2010 Posted 26 March, 2010 Are you an apprentice c*nt, RAW91? You could say that. I thought you worked at Asda ?
Rowan Gorilla 5 Posted 26 March, 2010 Posted 26 March, 2010 Totally agree, it's totally disproportionate to what happened. If you throw a stone in to the sea and it smacks a fish on the head, would you expected to be arrested? So throwing a stone (whilst daft in the circumstances) at some (human) fish at football, shouldn't carry the weight of punishment it does. That is not like for like. Next it'll be something about feeding ducks stale bread and some pointless analogy concerning Wycombe, Swansea or Norwich fans. Really? You could still kill someone by that action whether by recklessness or intent. That looks very much like GBH or attempt GBH. If nobody gets killed you are still looking at violent disorder, affray, ABH or common assault.
RedAndWhite91 Posted 26 March, 2010 Posted 26 March, 2010 Sounds very much to me like your views are not being objective. If you didn't see any fans being well out of line, you probably weren't there. And hey, if there was any police related issues, people have the right to complain to the IPCC. I saw plenty of out of line-ness, without going into detail, I didn't see any fighting or mass brawls. However, I did see heavy handedness by the police which, at times, was unnecessary.
Robsk II Posted 26 March, 2010 Posted 26 March, 2010 Totally agree, it's totally disproportionate to what happened. If you throw a stone in to the sea and it smacks a fish on the head, would you expected to be arrested? Regardless of whether harsher sentences at footie are 'fair', people all know the risks of doing it.. so they can't moan, surely? Also, fish are higher up on the merit chain than pompey, so that should carry a sentence IMO. PC gone mad, liberal leftie gays, I say.
StuRomseySaint Posted 26 March, 2010 Author Posted 26 March, 2010 The other twelve pleaded not guilty and will appear on May 7th. The one pleaded guilty to violent disorder and other charges were not proceeded with. Says on the Echo that no plea was entered and they were automatically bumped up to Crown Court. What a complete waste of tax payers money.
Robsk II Posted 26 March, 2010 Posted 26 March, 2010 However, I did see heavy handedness by the police which, at times, was unnecessary. I've seen this happen too, and I would never condone that either, as it happens. The bottom line is, fighting over football is retarded, but if people enjoy it, they should be aware of - and live with - the consequences. Also stop pretending it has anything to do with loyalty etc, and call it what it is - an excuse for a ruck, or, in some cases, to beat the **** out of someone to make yourself feel big. Sometimes the law isn't fair, and I have felt hard done by in some cases too - but I also knew I had noc ase to argue, because that's just the way it is. These guys need to accept it.
RedAndWhite91 Posted 26 March, 2010 Posted 26 March, 2010 I thought you worked at Asda ? Tesco I think he was alluding to the point that I was some sort of young wannabe ****, and one day I will learn all the skills required to be a full-time ****, not an apprentice, where I can drink 20 pints before the game and wear a fake oversized Stone Island jacket.
RedAndWhite91 Posted 26 March, 2010 Posted 26 March, 2010 I've seen this happen too, and I would never condone that either, as it happens. The bottom line is, fighting over football is retarded, but if people enjoy it, they should be aware of - and live with - the consequences. Also stop pretending it has anything to do with loyalty etc, and call it what it is - an excuse for a ruck, or, in some cases, to beat the **** out of someone to make yourself feel big. Sometimes the law isn't fair, and I have felt hard done by in some cases too - but I also knew I had noc ase to argue, because that's just the way it is. These guys need to accept it. I'm in agreement with this actually. The consequences are massive and no one should complain if they get caught. Fighting at football is ridiculous because at the end of the day with the current police tactics the chances are you will get caught, and what's the point in that. Lose your season ticket over getting your head kicked in. No point IMO. I won't condemn hooliganism, it's their choice, but at the same time I personally won't fight at the football. If you get what I mean. I enjoy supporting Saints too much to lose it over a ruck.
Robsk II Posted 26 March, 2010 Posted 26 March, 2010 That's more or less my point. The two things are seperate, and everyone who isn;t thick knows it. Also, I will condemn it. In some ways, if people want a fight, that's their perogative, but some people do end up going too far, or being unlucky, and sometimes people get hurt. This is particularly tragic when they were not participants by choice.
COMEONYOUREDS Posted 26 March, 2010 Posted 26 March, 2010 anybody who throws stones at football matches is a mong. police are making an example of said mongs to act as a deterrant to others. Yes the punishment doesn't fit the crime, but thats life, that's also why it is a deterrant. Everybody knows if you cause trouble at footy you are going to get made an example of, so to go and cause trouble knowing this, makes you a mong. as others said, there's no point acting all hard and then crying about it when you get told off. end of story
JRM Posted 26 March, 2010 Posted 26 March, 2010 Good luck to all the lads involved, fingers crossed for them the crown will kick it out as a waste of time
MorningtonCrescent Posted 26 March, 2010 Posted 26 March, 2010 What a load of nonsense, you cant sentance someone on what might happen. Otherwise everytime someone speeds they might run someone over and kill them, so therefore, by you reckoning, the 3 points and £60 fine for speeding should actually be a 5 year custodial for the new crime of driving with the potential to cause death by dangerous driving or speeding. Anyone with half an ounce of common sense sanity knows that the police and the media have blown this massively out of proportion. The cost of the investigation must be huge given the time spent in police man hours and court fees but at the end of the day are our streets going to be safer and you and I safer because a bloke who got a bit lairy outside SMS one day and threw a stone at the away fans is now mowing the lawn of of an old peoples home for 200 hours over the next few months or worst case, banged up. I'm so glad my taxes are being squandered on this. the whole thing is a farce, if it wasn't football related no one would know anything about it, let alone taking the moral high ground and giving out haughty opinions on it, lapping up every sentance in the paper and post on here. If these 13 blokes had had a bit of handbags at a concert or in town or anywhere else it'd had been dealt with by now, a £100 fine and off you go boys, none of this on bail and off to crown court nonsense. And why? Its all about the headlines. Taxes - what a good place to start! I'm pleased my taxes have to be spent employing a mass presence of the UK's finest on a football day at all..... what do you think the bill for that was? Someone pays it. Is it all down the football club(s)? Why should the taxpayer have to pay for a massive police presence to prevent violence, and then get slated for taking action against the small minority who are intent on breaking the law anyway? that is the big difference between some stone throwing oiks on a p*ssed up Friday night versus "minor" (LoL!) football violence at a sporting event And for the OP's sake - starting trouble when there is the possibility (a high probability in truth) of that "small" action (or "minor", as you like to call it) starting off something far larger. Others, who get swept up in the moment who then find themselves embroiled in a more "serious" offence.... surely that counts for more than a chance encounter between "yoofs" in any town centre on a Saturday night? These people KNEW the police presence was high. They KNEW that kicking off in any way other some verbal banter would result in cautions. They KNEW that getting caught would mean being dealt with harshly when compared to a similar offence away from football. Yet, they STILL insisted on doing it! Who was it you were calling thick, earlier in the thread?
Andy_Porter Posted 26 March, 2010 Posted 26 March, 2010 Everyone knows fighting at football carries a more severe punishment than in any other walk of life, just like getting caught with drugs at a festival etc Still wasting tax payers money to take them to crown court is a discgrace, I know a bloke who who bottled someone three times in town and got away with it because it wasn't worth the hassle for the police to push it through court after the person who ended up in hospital dropped the charges. Seems very harsh that a few lads throwing stones and misiles are treated so much worse. It's quite clear the police are just trying to get a few sever punishments so they can publish a load of stats in June about banning orders and football hooligans in prison before the world cup to make it look like they've worked hard to stop the inevitable fighting in South Africa. The police have a lot to answer for as well, why let the Pompey fans out at the same time as us? Would have saved so much hassle if they kept them in for 15-20 minutes like they do at every other game. Who ever made the decision to let them out really needs to explain that decision imo.
Robsk II Posted 26 March, 2010 Posted 26 March, 2010 That last point is a good one Andy. Turkish - the criminal justice system does reflect what could happen. Drunk driving, even if no-one gets hurt, has mandatory one year ban precisely because of what could have happened. There are flaws in this, because you could equally kill someone whilst fighting because drunk, but it isn't treated the same. But you can't argue.
View From The Top Posted 26 March, 2010 Posted 26 March, 2010 Good luck to all the lads involved, fingers crossed for them the crown will kick it out as a waste of time Not a chance of that happening.
Thedelldays Posted 26 March, 2010 Posted 26 March, 2010 not prepared to do the time..dont do the crime..simple as that
Hatch Posted 26 March, 2010 Posted 26 March, 2010 With England bidding to win 2018 World Cup , the more stats that can be brought up to show that England can deal with hooliganism the better it is for 'our' bid. Still, at least these lads, when watching the WC 2018, can look back and see that in some small way they have done their bit to back our bid.
scott_saints Posted 26 March, 2010 Posted 26 March, 2010 Here we go again. Same arguments, same replies by Stu. :smt038
speculator Posted 26 March, 2010 Posted 26 March, 2010 ... anyone know how they got on? Gotta feel sorry for the lads missing out on Wembley, all seems a bit OTT to me. Best news of the season if you ask me. Sincerely, hope that they get banned from all football grounds until they grow up and get many weeks litter picking duty on the M3 starting this Sunday morning. If they really want a proper ruck join those who have to do it for real and who can't go home to their families/mummies afterwards to sleep off their alcohol induced bravey. I don't feel one iota of sorrow for these idiots and my only regret is that I have taken the bait to your pathetic stance. If you support football hooliganism proven or otherwise then on the social ladder you are fighting for a rung with Nick Griffin.
dune Posted 26 March, 2010 Posted 26 March, 2010 Mornington Cresent logs off - Speculator logs on. hmmm.
Patrick Bateman Posted 26 March, 2010 Posted 26 March, 2010 Taxes - what a good place to start! I'm pleased my taxes have to be spent employing a mass presence of the UK's finest on a football day at all..... what do you think the bill for that was? Someone pays it. Is it all down the football club(s)? Yes, I believe the club pay for the presence of police at matches. So for that match (in simplistic terms) the policing costs get deductied from gate receipts etc., and then divided in two for Saints and Skates.
Sour Mash Posted 26 March, 2010 Posted 26 March, 2010 Bull****. They knew they'd get worse for doing it at football, and to be honest, anyone who hasn't grown up enough to understand that ultimately, being from different places isn't worth fighting over, is better off away from nthe grown up people anyway. Your mate, by the way - having an excellent service record means **** all. if anything, it means he should have matured a bit more and have a better understanding that there's more to life - and more worthy things to fight for - than a sodding football club. Let's be honest. People after aggro at football are actually just after aggro. It has nothing to do with football, and anyone who claims its out of loyalty 'to the club' or whatever needs to get a life. I struggle to think of any situation in which I would get in a fight over a football match, frankly. Thank f**k we've got your expertise on here! No one is saying that football related disorder is ok or should be encouraged or even go without punishment. The simple point, that many feel, is that the punishment is disproportionate due to it being related to going to a game of football. A crime should be judged simply for what it is, not becasue it may or may not happen to be linked to a particular sporting event.
chrisobee Posted 26 March, 2010 Posted 26 March, 2010 That is not like for like. Next it'll be something about feeding ducks stale bread and some pointless analogy concerning Wycombe, Swansea or Norwich fans. Really? You could still kill someone by that action whether by recklessness or intent. That looks very much like GBH or attempt GBH. If nobody gets killed you are still looking at violent disorder, affray, ABH or common assault. Which is why I agree with niceandfriendly that we ought to have a "kiddies playground" on here for those who are stupid/infantile enough to spout such nonsense. Actually better still I'd say those who condone the actions of the 13 and bizarrely sympathise with them should be banned if for no other reason than for not having the brains to post on here. Can I make that a suggestion please !
Thorpe-le-Saint Posted 26 March, 2010 Posted 26 March, 2010 'Poor lads'? Lol. If they were stupid enough to get caught up in all the trouble, and stupid enough to be caught, then I think they deserve all they get. Proper scum.[/quote You represent everything that is wrong with Dibden Purlieu."Proper snob" LMAO! You obviously have NEVER EVER been to Dibden!
chrisobee Posted 26 March, 2010 Posted 26 March, 2010 Thank f**k we've got your expertise on here! No one is saying that football related disorder is ok or should be encouraged or even go without punishment. The simple point, that many feel, is that the punishment is disproportionate due to it being related to going to a game of football. A crime should be judged simply for what it is, not becasue it may or may not happen to be linked to a particular sporting event. Since the majority of crimes are punished leniently even if football hooligans are treated so "unfairly" ( poor souls) then the CPS would still on the whole believe they don't get what they deserve. At least by going to the Crown Court there is a remote possibility they might get realistic punishments.
Turkish Posted 26 March, 2010 Posted 26 March, 2010 (edited) Taxes - what a good place to start! I'm pleased my taxes have to be spent employing a mass presence of the UK's finest on a football day at all..... what do you think the bill for that was? Someone pays it. Is it all down the football club(s)? Why should the taxpayer have to pay for a massive police presence to prevent violence, and then get slated for taking action against the small minority who are intent on breaking the law anyway? that is the big difference between some stone throwing oiks on a p*ssed up Friday night versus "minor" (LoL!) football violence at a sporting event And for the OP's sake - starting trouble when there is the possibility (a high probability in truth) of that "small" action (or "minor", as you like to call it) starting off something far larger. Others, who get swept up in the moment who then find themselves embroiled in a more "serious" offence.... surely that counts for more than a chance encounter between "yoofs" in any town centre on a Saturday night? These people KNEW the police presence was high. They KNEW that kicking off in any way other some verbal banter would result in cautions. They KNEW that getting caught would mean being dealt with harshly when compared to a similar offence away from football. Yet, they STILL insisted on doing it! Who was it you were calling thick, earlier in the thread? For a start, no it wasn't me calling people thick, so dont even start with that ****. I assume from your being delighted to talk about taxes that you are someway employed in that field? The club may foot some/all of the bill for the cost of the operation on the day but what about the cost of the investigation & court cases? In any case the taxes comment was a very minor point in this whole debate. Nowhere have I slated the police for taking action, as you rightly say, if people do the crime they cant moan about the time, but the simple fact is this and my point, if you care to read my comments properly. Why should someone who throws a stone, punch, whatever, be treated more harshly than someone who does exactly the same thing on a different day in a different place? If a few "drunken oiks" choose to beat the **** out of each other outside a club on a saturday night, they get nicked, night in cells, fined, maybe a bit of community service if its their 10th offence etc then its forgotten. but if someone throws a stone at a football match there is a media frenzy, front page news with pictures all over the paper of the so called violent thugs involved. The police go into overdrive, giving the investigation a ridiculous name "operation somethingorother" numerous interviews, headlines, even TV programme made about it! FFS the police even had a film crew following them around on the day of the game!!! For these henious offences the protagonist have their faces splashed across the front page of the local wrag, on websites, on TV and hung out to dry, in reality, for what? the simple fact is that the media, the police, the public, absolutely love it. they love reading about it, they love talking about it, they love investigating it,they cant get enough, it sells papers it makes great TV apparantly, this thread is it's third page in a little over 12 hours with dozens of people with numerous views of the same incident. And you might not like it but the incident was minor, was anyone hurt? No. Depsite claims people were in fear of their lives there were little kids and women near me having a look at what was going on, which i exactly what i was doing before you say i was involved, no one seemed in the least bit bothered by the battle that was apprantly going on just a few feet away. In fact the only violence that day came form the police! Compare what happened to the G20 riots last year, i dont recall an "operation bang um up" for that!!! Edited 26 March, 2010 by Turkish
Thorpe-le-Saint Posted 26 March, 2010 Posted 26 March, 2010 Sounds very much to me like your views are not being objective. If you didn't see any fans being well out of line, you probably weren't there. And hey, if there was any police related issues, people have the right to complain to the IPCC. Fat lot of good complaining to them, especially about anything football related. I complained to them regarding my treatment at the hands of the Heddlu last year at Swansea and heard **** all back.
chrisobee Posted 26 March, 2010 Posted 26 March, 2010 LMAO! You obviously have NEVER EVER been to Dibden! LOL, lucky so and so !!
speculator Posted 26 March, 2010 Posted 26 March, 2010 Everyone knows fighting at football carries a more severe punishment than in any other walk of life, just like getting caught with drugs at a festival etc Still wasting tax payers money to take them to crown court is a discgrace, I know a bloke who who bottled someone three times in town and got away with it because it wasn't worth the hassle for the police to push it through court after the person who ended up in hospital dropped the charges. Seems very harsh that a few lads throwing stones and misiles are treated so much worse. It's quite clear the police are just trying to get a few sever punishments so they can publish a load of stats in June about banning orders and football hooligans in prison before the world cup to make it look like they've worked hard to stop the inevitable fighting in South Africa. The police have a lot to answer for as well, why let the Pompey fans out at the same time as us? Would have saved so much hassle if they kept them in for 15-20 minutes like they do at every other game. Who ever made the decision to let them out really needs to explain that decision imo. I don't condone your example of the bloke getting away with it and he should have been hauled before the courts. However, the point you are missing with regards to the seriousness of football violence is that in many cases is the intent. The intent in many situations is to deliberately and in an organised way incite and commit violent acts on opposing supporters. If the authorities don't come down hard on those behind these crimes you are condoning some despicable acts bordering on anarchy. Gang warfare, racially motivated attacks are all equally seriousness because of the wider implications on society as a whole. Let it go and he go back 30 years when the dinosaurs roamed the streets and thw more they stamp on them and make them extinct the better. The bloke you mention was far from organised and his intent may have been questionable if he was mentally ill / alcoholic and in need of help not punishment or maybe he was just a single yob making trouble but usually those types act in packs. It's a bravery thing. As for drunk drivers yes they are sad and despicable individuals but even if they kill someone there is rarely if any intent on murder just sheer stupidity that they are above the law the laws of science that they are in control of their reactions despite being under the influence of alcohol. They are still punished severely and are usually full of remorse not a trait found in hooligans as we can see from this thread in places. I believe the police and the courts stamp hard on football hooligans because of the organisation behind their real intent to beat the living daylights out of someone just because they don'y like the shirt they are wearing.
Robsk II Posted 26 March, 2010 Posted 26 March, 2010 Thank f**k we've got your expertise on here! And thank christ it's tempered by your ignorance. If you'd bothered to read things I had said further down the line, you'd see that I don't always agree with the law, and that I agree there are often disparities in its implementation and theory. But in practical terms, people going to football know it gets treated more harshly so it's their own choice. It's just called not being a pr*ck. You know that speeding outside a school is often going to be considered 'worse' than on a different road, but it often weighs on a judgement. Either write to your MP, complain to the IPCC or get over it.
Robsk II Posted 26 March, 2010 Posted 26 March, 2010 Fat lot of good complaining to them, especially about anything football related. I complained to them regarding my treatment at the hands of the Heddlu last year at Swansea and heard **** all back. Fine, but the system exists. Ultimately, it's very hard to give 'justice' out fairly and fully, so the system might be flawed but if we feel that strongly about it (which most of us don't until it comes to our door) all we can do is move, complain through channels or become and MP. Nothing is ever going to be perfect, and I really don't see why people are getting so mad about this. I've seen people treated badly by the police, and I've been treated by the justice system in a way that, in pragmatic terms, given context, was a bit stupid. But it's just the way it goes.
Wiltshire Saint Posted 26 March, 2010 Posted 26 March, 2010 I hope they get life. It's not a waste of my taxes.
speculator Posted 26 March, 2010 Posted 26 March, 2010 Nowhere have I slated the police for taking action, as you rightly say, if people do the crime they cant moan about the time, but the simple fact is this and my point, if you care to read my comments properly. Why should someone who throws a stone, punch, whatever, be treated more harshly than someone who does exactly the same thing on a different day in a different place? If a few "drunken oiks" choose to beat the **** out of each other outside a club on a saturday night, they get nicked, night in cells, fined, maybe a bit of community service if its their 10th offence etc then its forgotten. but if someone throws a stone at a football match there is a media frenzy, front page news with pictures all over the paper of the so called violent thugs involved. The police go into overdrive, giving the investigation a ridiculous name "operation somethingorother" numerous interviews, headlines, even TV programme made about it! FFS the police even had a film crew following them around on the day of the game!!! For these henious offences the protagonist have their faces splashed across the front page of the local wrag, on websites, on TV and hung out to dry, in reality, for what? !! Quite simply football violence is not the same as 'drunken oiks' fighting outside a pub on a Saturday night. Football violence is deliberate , organised and malevolent intent to incite, cause or inflict bodily harm onto others whereas a few drunk yobs having a go after 10 pints is just alcohol fuelled stupidity and a night in the cells and picked up by Mum and Dad in the morning will lead to remorse. Not always, of course but have you ever met a remorseful Football Hooligan or a criminal involved in racially motivated crimes? The reason so much is made of football hooliganism is it's sheer pointlessness and that even in the 21st C we have idiots acting like they can incite fear and violence and act above the law as part of a mob rule philosophy. They can't and anyone involved should be punished and banned for life. Your comparison is irrelevant and sometimes you cannot defend the indefensible. Sometimes the real enemy is from within.
The9 Posted 26 March, 2010 Posted 26 March, 2010 Ooh, a thread with some thickies tacitly supporting football violence and we've got to page 4 without anyone calling anyone a "grass" or offering the code of the playground as some kind of alternative justive system. Is this progress ?
doddisalegend Posted 26 March, 2010 Posted 26 March, 2010 Thank f**k we've got your expertise on here! No one is saying that football related disorder is ok or should be encouraged or even go without punishment. The simple point, that many feel, is that the punishment is disproportionate due to it being related to going to a game of football. A crime should be judged simply for what it is, not becasue it may or may not happen to be linked to a particular sporting event. Quite maybe we should just be harder on other crimes. Looking at it another way maybe all acts of violence should just carry a 15 year mandatory sentence football releated or otherwise. Clearly the current laws aren't enough to make people think kicking someones head in for supporting a different football team is a bad idea.
The9 Posted 26 March, 2010 Posted 26 March, 2010 Say it to my face, The9. I'm using today's third post to say "I wouldn't be able to take my eyes off your hairy toes".
so22saint Posted 26 March, 2010 Posted 26 March, 2010 **** it, anybody moaning about it fails to understand the concept of personal responsibility. I've been involved in **** outside grounds before (a long long time ago), not through my own doing - I'm a lover, not a fighter - but when I did defend myself I knew I could get called up in front of the beak cos that's what happens. Mind you, I've not heard any of the 30 moaning about it so maybe they're not that bothered either. Who really gives a ****.
Robsk II Posted 26 March, 2010 Posted 26 March, 2010 I'm using today's third post to say "I wouldn't be able to take my eyes off your hairy toes". Great use of the 3rd post.. and I'd be wearing shoes
Sour Mash Posted 26 March, 2010 Posted 26 March, 2010 I don't condone your example of the bloke getting away with it and he should have been hauled before the courts. However, the point you are missing with regards to the seriousness of football violence is that in many cases is the intent. The intent in many situations is to deliberately and in an organised way incite and commit violent acts on opposing supporters. If the authorities don't come down hard on those behind these crimes you are condoning some despicable acts bordering on anarchy. Gang warfare, racially motivated attacks are all equally seriousness because of the wider implications on society as a whole. Let it go and he go back 30 years when the dinosaurs roamed the streets and thw more they stamp on them and make them extinct the better. The bloke you mention was far from organised and his intent may have been questionable if he was mentally ill / alcoholic and in need of help not punishment or maybe he was just a single yob making trouble but usually those types act in packs. It's a bravery thing. As for drunk drivers yes they are sad and despicable individuals but even if they kill someone there is rarely if any intent on murder just sheer stupidity that they are above the law the laws of science that they are in control of their reactions despite being under the influence of alcohol. They are still punished severely and are usually full of remorse not a trait found in hooligans as we can see from this thread in places. I believe the police and the courts stamp hard on football hooligans because of the organisation behind their real intent to beat the living daylights out of someone just because they don'y like the shirt they are wearing. The trouble at the garages after the skates game wasn't organised or pre-meditated in any way, so that automatically wipes out half of the rubbish you keep posting.
saint_stevo Posted 26 March, 2010 Posted 26 March, 2010 I'm using today's third post to say "I wouldn't be able to take my eyes off your hairy toes". Pikey registered user
hasper57saint Posted 26 March, 2010 Posted 26 March, 2010 I don't know how many of you went up to Blackpool last season. (We were in the CCC then!) We were herded into a wide open uncovered area to sit on a construction of planks and scoffold poles.(At a cost of £24 each for the priviledge) We should have rioted but didn't. However, violence erupted when several (not just one) overweight 'Pointy-Heads' threw an EIGHT YEARS OLD and his dad to the ground for LEGITIMALLY shouting at the Ref/Lino. Now that WAS violence at a Football ground whilst the game was being played.The Police Cam corders were panned along all of us (On our side of the Stadium(?)) whilst criticising the OB for their un necessary use of force. WE WERE THREATENED WITH EVICTION if we didn't shut up. Just because it happened inside a Football ground does not legitimise un necessary force by the few in blue. I also recall a bit of a 'dust up' on a Railway Station in London a few years ago. IT WAS NOWHERE NEAR A FOOTBALL GROUND but was described as football related. The Saints who were caught up in this were the victims of the then Home Secretaries obsession, and complicity of the Railway Police, with 'possible' Fan violence prior to the Euro's. Several of the Saints fans were jailed for up to two years. Had they not been wearing Saints shirts they'd have been given cautions for 'Public Disorder Offences'. There are always two sides to an argument and I'd love to hear the other side before making any judgement.I rest my case.
cadesupfront Posted 26 March, 2010 Posted 26 March, 2010 You live in Norway, therefore your opinion is irrelevent. Do only those who live in Romsey hold valid opinions then?
yorkie Posted 26 March, 2010 Posted 26 March, 2010 Can't believe this has run for 3-pages. I was more appauled at the Yeovil Stamping incident - where were the police then? What goes around comes around and yes I was "there" during the late seventies and eighties and it was 10x worse. At least now you can wear colours without being branded a hooligan. I think Stu does this to wind people up - after all if it was in Romsey and his car was being defaced he'd be the first to complain! As for the post above relating to Blackpool - that was a horrendous day. Couldn't get a drink at HT and then after queuing for ages - the players came out and the stewards got all arsey. Then OB waded in - it was the same day Stu got kicked out...! There is photgraphic evidence of the incident - was it on Crimewatch?
Recommended Posts