The lads who got nicked at P*mpey...

[Psycrow]

But that's kind of the point. The top two offences could be classed as anything from violent disorder (which is has been), to affray, down to something like threatening behaviour/Section 5 etc. All dependent on how much and in what way the police want to persue it - i.e because it was after a football match and not outside a pub on a Friday night for example.

 

I'm pretty sure that throwing stones at people is beyond threatening behavior. Picking up a stone and saying "I'm going to throw this at you" is threatening behaviour.

[Turkish]

I'm pretty sure none of those are actual offences. So what actual offences do you think the above acts would allow them to be charged with?

 

12.3 Section 2 - Violent Disorder

This is the more likely charge in the case of serious public disorder. In order to be liable the accused must use or threaten violence in the following circumstances:

 

a) where three or more people (including the accused) use or threaten unlawful violence and

b) the conduct of them taken together is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness to fear for their personal safety.

 

Notes on Violent Disorder

The difference from riot is as follows:

 

a) Only 3 persons who are present together are required to use or threaten violence

b) The accused person may be guilty if he merely threatens violence.

c) There is no requirement that the violence be used or threatened for a common purpose.

 

So if three people are stood together and shout across the road at someone else they are going to hit them then according to this they are guilty of violent disorder. You dont even have to do anything, just threaten to use violence. THis carries a 5 year maximum sentance. So rattling a fence or calling someone a c**t could in theory land you with a 5 year jail term. Yet there seems no difference between violent disorder where nothing happens and threatening behaviour which carries a maximum of 6 months apart from when it suits the police.

[saintjay77]

Anyone who sings "get your father's gun and shoot the p**pey scum" should be sent down. Rattle fences and you should swing.

 

Heinous crimes.

 

To be fair songs like that from every club probably go a long way to why football related crimes carry a tougher punishment.

 

Rugby fans sing songs and chants to support there team or put down the other team but there is more respect between the 2 so the songs dont carry the same message.

 

Why does todays football have to have the violent element?

[Sour Mash]

I'm pretty sure that throwing stones at people is beyond threatening behavior. Picking up a stone and saying "I'm going to throw this at you" is threatening behaviour.

 

You're missing the point completely. "Threatening behaviour" is often the charge used for this sort of offence, partly because it's much easier to prove, its more likely that the individual charged will plead guilty to it (rather than Violent Disorder or Affray) and generally is a lot easier for the police and takes up less of their resources.

[Sour Mash]

To be fair songs like that from every club probably go a long way to why football related crimes carry a tougher punishment.

 

Rugby fans sing songs and chants to support there team or put down the other team but there is more respect between the 2 so the songs dont carry the same message.

 

Why does todays football have to have the violent element?

 

Because it's a far more exciting support, that means a lot more to people, than boring old rugby? It's the same reason that you get 70k+ for a wembley final between two teams from the third tier, its the same reason that even as far down as the Conference there will be many thousands travelling all the country to follow their team. No other sport has that same level of intense support that football has.

[saintjay77]

12.3 Section 2 - Violent Disorder

This is the more likely charge in the case of serious public disorder. In order to be liable the accused must use or threaten violence in the following circumstances:

 

a) where three or more people (including the accused) use or threaten unlawful violence and

b) the conduct of them taken together is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness to fear for their personal safety.

 

Notes on Violent Disorder

The difference from riot is as follows:

 

a) Only 3 persons who are present together are required to use or threaten violence

b) The accused person may be guilty if he merely threatens violence.

c) There is no requirement that the violence be used or threatened for a common purpose.

 

So if three people are stood together and shout across the road at someone else they are going to hit them then according to this they are guilty of violent disorder. You dont even have to do anything, just threaten to use violence. THis carries a 5 year maximum sentance. So rattling a fence or calling someone a c**t could in theory land you with a 5 year jail term. Yet there seems no difference between violent disorder where nothing happens and threatening behaviour which carries a maximum of 6 months apart from when it suits the police.

 

I would have thought intent has something to do with the 2. If 3 people stand on 1 side of the road threatening someone on the other side of the road with nothing in between them then its more like threatening behaviour.

 

If the same 3 people tried to find ways past a line of police to make there point even clearer then its fair to say they intent it to be a bit more than just a threat.

 

How the law defines the differences is probably a debate to be had in court between defence and procecution.

[saintjay77]

Because it's a far more exciting support, that means a lot more to people, than boring old rugby? It's the same reason that you get 70k+ for a wembley final between two teams from the third tier, its the same reason that even as far down as the Conference there will be many thousands travelling all the country to follow their team. No other sport has that same level of intense support that football has.

 

It is to us and I would much rather go watch a footy match. But in some countrys its the main sport and has as big a following by comparrison.

 

But the whole concept of Rugby is taken differently too football. I doubt football will ever achive that level of respect to be able to have fully mixed fans and so on but it still puts some of the football support to shame.

[saintkiptanui]

To be fair songs like that from every club probably go a long way to why football related crimes carry a tougher punishment.

 

Rugby fans sing songs and chants to support there team or put down the other team but there is more respect between the 2 so the songs dont carry the same message.

 

Why does todays football have to have the violent element?

Yes because todays football is so more violent than the 70/80's:rolleyes:

[Sour Mash]

I would have thought intent has something to do with the 2. If 3 people stand on 1 side of the road threatening someone on the other side of the road with nothing in between them then its more like threatening behaviour.

 

If the same 3 people tried to find ways past a line of police to make there point even clearer then its fair to say they intent it to be a bit more than just a threat.

 

How the law defines the differences is probably a debate to be had in court between defence and procecution.

 

No. not quite correct. This is the key phrase "the conduct of them taken together is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness to fear for their personal safety" and doesn't just refer to those persons that the "threat" is aimed towards, but any person of "reasonable firmness" that may or may not be in the vicinity (even if there was no-one else there, it's judged on the basis that someone was there, if that makes any sense).

[Turkish]

I would have thought intent has something to do with the 2. If 3 people stand on 1 side of the road threatening someone on the other side of the road with nothing in between them then its more like threatening behaviour.

 

If the same 3 people tried to find ways past a line of police to make there point even clearer then its fair to say they intent it to be a bit more than just a threat.

 

How the law defines the differences is probably a debate to be had in court between defence and procecution.

 

They dont even have to use violence, just threaten to use it, there is no stipulation on if anything is in the way or the seriousness of the intent. Sour Mash is right around the person of reasonable firmness being in fear of their safety too. The person doesn't even have to be there, it is judged on IF someone was there. Although what the yardstick for this is is anyones guess. I saw the incident after the Pompey game and didn't particularly feel in fear for my safety but then i have been to 500+ football matches all over the country over the last 25 years and seen worse, even seen worse in a City Centre and outside night clubs in town. However, if a 40 year old upper class woman that had never been outside of the Cotswolds before had been there then they might have been. That is when the prosecution can manipulate the trial to their favour.

Edited 26 April, 2010 by Turkish

[Sour Mash]

It is to us and I would much rather go watch a footy match. But in some countrys its the main sport and has as big a following by comparrison.

 

But the whole concept of Rugby is taken differently too football. I doubt football will ever achive that level of respect to be able to have fully mixed fans and so on but it still puts some of the football support to shame.

 

No it doesn't. There is no sport in the world that you would get, lets say 3k fans travelling a round trip of 500 miles midweek for a game in the 5th tier.

[LA77]

It is to us and I would much rather go watch a footy match. But in some countrys its the main sport and has as big a following by comparrison.

 

But the whole concept of Rugby is taken differently too football. I doubt football will ever achive that level of respect to be able to have fully mixed fans and so on but it still puts some of the football support to shame.

 

I get annoyed when I hear "football should take a look at how it's done in Rugby" ******. They seem to forget the stampings, eye gouging, fake blood scandal etc etc. I know that's the playing side of things but the Rugby fans are no different to the high majority of football fans. I remember Reading away last season, and England were playing and Reading was packed before/after the game with Rugby fans. They were drunk, loud, singing songs the same as football fans would behave. But because they're "rugger" fans it's ok.

 

As for the fans mixing during the game, i'd fookin hate that to happen in football, and thankfully it never will.

[RedWillie]

This is really, really boring now.

 

All those who got nicked had a choice. They could have:

 

1. Chosen to go home like the vast majority of us and get on with life knowing we outplayed pimpey for 65 mins

or

 

2. Choose to stay behind, chuck stuff, goad the pimpey fans and rattle a few fences.

 

Those that chose 2 have to face up to their consequences. It's really easy to blame anyone else, blame the Police, blame the garage for having a garage there, blame the teams for being drawn against each other so trouble was inevitable blah , blah ,blah.

 

They had a choice. Simple. Now face up to it.

[Dimond Geezer]

I get annoyed when I hear "football should take a look at how it's done in Rugby" ******. They seem to forget the stampings, eye gouging, fake blood scandal etc etc. I know that's the playing side of things but the Rugby fans are no different to the high majority of football fans. I remember Reading away last season, and England were playing and Reading was packed before/after the game with Rugby fans. They were drunk, loud, singing songs the same as football fans would behave. But because they're "rugger" fans it's ok.

 

As for the fans mixing during the game, i'd fookin hate that to happen in football, and thankfully it never will.

 

They may have been drunk, loud and singing songs, but generally (and it is a generalisation, but correct none the less) rugby fans have the intelligence/morality not to want to break the law by smashing someones head in. Despite what the 'hard' :smt043 men on here may think, there is a far bigger drinking culture within rugby, but drunk rugby fans don't feel the need to fight someone else who happens to be wearing the shirt of the opposition.

Because of this you can attend a rugby match and enjoy a pint or 5, whilst sat in the stands watching the game, instead of having to leave your seat 10 minutes before half time to try & squeeze as many beers down your throat during the half time break.

[John B]

It is to us and I would much rather go watch a footy match. But in some countrys its the main sport and has as big a following by comparrison.

 

But the whole concept of Rugby is taken differently too football. I doubt football will ever achive that level of respect to be able to have fully mixed fans and so on but it still puts some of the football support to shame.

 

When I first started watching football in the 1960s there was no segregation at all even in Div 1

[saintjay77]

Yes because todays football is so more violent than the 70/80's:rolleyes:

 

Who said I was comparing it to the 70's or 80's? The violence in general that is associated with football has determined the laws that are around now but without the violence from back then the police and public can only go on what they see and hear now. You really think singing about shooting people in a mass croud goes anyway to helping change the way football is supported and therefor policed?

[saintjay77]

No. not quite correct. This is the key phrase "the conduct of them taken together is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness to fear for their personal safety" and doesn't just refer to those persons that the "threat" is aimed towards, but any person of "reasonable firmness" that may or may not be in the vicinity (even if there was no-one else there, it's judged on the basis that someone was there, if that makes any sense).

 

The 2 differences would still make the coppers decide on letting it go or doing something about it which is where I think I was trying to go.

 

Hand bags at 10 paces more often than not results in a talking to with the possability of a fine thrown in. The other is more likly to result in further charges.

[saintjay77]

They dont even have to use violence, just threaten to use it, there is no stipulation on if anything is in the way or the seriousness of the intent. Sour Mash is right around the person of reasonable firmness being in fear of their safety too. The person doesn't even have to be there, it is judged on IF someone was there. Although what the yardstick for this is is anyones guess. I saw the incident after the Pompey game and didn't particularly feel in fear for my safety but then i have been to 500+ football matches all over the country over the last 25 years and seen worse, even seen worse in a City Centre and outside night clubs in town. However, if a 40 year old upper class woman that had never been outside of the Cotswolds before had been there then they might have been. That is when the prosecution can manipulate the trial to their favour.

 

the law and its technicalities is she ite but then thats what we love solicitors so much for lol

[saintjay77]

No it doesn't. There is no sport in the world that you would get, lets say 3k fans travelling a round trip of 500 miles midweek for a game in the 5th tier.

 

By comparrison, as in the percentage of fans that follow rugby compared to the percentage that follow football. Australia is the main one I was thinking of. Football is not very followed at all yet Rugby is huge there.

 

Although there is a load of american sports that fill stadiums that make some of our prem stadiums look small week in week out and thats just at College level.

 

They manage to have non segregated stadiums with beer sold right through the game. Plenty of adverts too which no doubt calms everyone down. lol

[saintjay77]

They may have been drunk, loud and singing songs, but generally (and it is a generalisation, but correct none the less) rugby fans have the intelligence/morality not to want to break the law by smashing someones head in. Despite what the 'hard' :smt043 men on here may think, there is a far bigger drinking culture within rugby, but drunk rugby fans don't feel the need to fight someone else who happens to be wearing the shirt of the opposition.

Because of this you can attend a rugby match and enjoy a pint or 5, whilst sat in the stands watching the game, instead of having to leave your seat 10 minutes before half time to try & squeeze as many beers down your throat during the half time break.

 

Exactly.

 

There are definately some things that football could learn from rugby but it will never happen.

[LA77]

They may have been drunk, loud and singing songs, but generally (and it is a generalisation, but correct none the less) rugby fans have the intelligence/morality not to want to break the law by smashing someones head in. Despite what the 'hard' :smt043 men on here may think, there is a far bigger drinking culture within rugby, but drunk rugby fans don't feel the need to fight someone else who happens to be wearing the shirt of the opposition.

Because of this you can attend a rugby match and enjoy a pint or 5, whilst sat in the stands watching the game, instead of having to leave your seat 10 minutes before half time to try & squeeze as many beers down your throat during the half time break.

 

I'm on about football fans in general, "shirters" as some call it, not the hoolies. I understand your points, but like I said, the high majority of football fans are treated like scum just because they are football fans. What's the difference between the sports if the fans are doing the same thing, ie drinking, singing and generally being a p*ss head.

 

Like I say I know where you're coming from but it basically is double standards.

[saintjay77]

When I first started watching football in the 1960s there was no segregation at all even in Div 1

 

Never knew that. did it make it better or worse?

[saintjay77]

I'm on about football fans in general, "shirters" as some call it, not the hoolies. I understand your points, but like I said, the high majority of football fans are treated like scum just because they are football fans. What's the difference between the sports if the fans are doing the same thing, ie drinking, singing and generally being a p*ss head.

 

Like I say I know where you're coming from but it basically is double standards.

 

Thing is football fans are tarred with the same brush basically down to the violence of days gone by and then reminded of it by what happened when letting fans from a local derby out at the same time.

 

its a small percentage of people in general but that doesnt make any difference.

[LA77]

Thing is football fans are tarred with the same brush basically down to the violence of days gone by and then reminded of it by what happened when letting fans from a local derby out at the same time.

 

its a small percentage of people in general but that doesnt make any difference.

 

That's not disputed, but there's no doubt the police make a meal out of most football matches, and the heavy handed stewarding you see at some games is a joke.

[Deano6]

Good to hear paulwantsapint. I sincerely hope that these middle aged "hoodlums" are made an example of and sentenced to the maximum term. I know that that won't be very long, given the bloomin' PC nature of this country (we can't go around upsetting the criminals and pikeys can we?) but the best we can hope for is that they are badly bummed whilst inside. I hope their bumholes are really messed up by some proper criminals, teaching these wannabe hooligans a thing or two and making them live in the real world.

 

 

 

Oh, and Deano6.....I did turn up, like I said earlier in the thread. I was a little delayed because I had some household chores to do and I ended up in an arguement with some chap at the tip, but I was there. Wagon85 wasn't there, or certainly didn't make himself known to me. Maybe he changed his mind once he saw me? I'm not suggesting this man is a coward, but....

 

 

It does appear that Wagon fella bottled it. He hasn't posted on here since you took up his offer to meet him for fisticuffs.

[The9]

By comparrison, as in the percentage of fans that follow rugby compared to the percentage that follow football. Australia is the main one I was thinking of. Football is not very followed at all yet Rugby is huge there.

 

Although there is a load of american sports that fill stadiums that make some of our prem stadiums look small week in week out and thats just at College level.

 

They manage to have non segregated stadiums with beer sold right through the game. Plenty of adverts too which no doubt calms everyone down. lol

 

But American Sports generally have no travelling fans in the ground due to the distances, or if they do they're treated like tourists.

[BridgnorthSaint]

Not condoning their actions, but this all smacks of unfairness. The Police and CPS can label the day a 'success' and use that in court (I assume) as evidence but the accused can't say "The whole day was a policing **** up by Hants Constab and it's their ****ing fault for letting the skates out at the same bloody time as the Saints fans!"

 

Not the fault of the prats that started fighting then?

[Turkish]

the law and its technicalities is she ite but then thats what we love solicitors so much for lol

 

well maybe, but the whole basis of British law is that everyone gets a fair trial. Personally i think this is ********. For one, the prosection are funded by the state and usually work on behalf of the police so are hell bent on a conviction, not playing fairly with the other barristers. The defence solicitor unless you pay for it yourselves, dont really give a toss as all they are there for is to make sure the defence dont take the **** with points of law in court, they get their money via legal aid so as long as they show up every day then they are laughing all the way to the cash point. Then there are directives from the home office which influcence the sentancing given and the amount of time, effort and money put into an investigation and trial. You are convicted on the evidence too, now that i not always as cut and dried as it may seem as in a lot of cases the prosecution cant prove the whys and hows but under pressure in the dock and being interegated by someone who has been paid to do this for years they can always make you look like a ****, just by picking up on one sentance you may say during cross examination and ripping it to pieces.

Then there is the jury a little while back there was a football case where no football fans were allowed on the jury. Why? If there was a death by dangerous driving trial would the judge insist the jury were all none car drivers? Because if the jury is full of women and non football fan men then they are easier to influence than a 25 year old season ticket holder who knows most lads of that age go for a beer before and after etc.

Once you are in the system and the police want a conviction and high sentances they will get it regardless if what you actually did. The only way you have a chance is if the police **** up or you pay through the nose for your own top notch brief and not many can afford that. And before all you lefties starts screaming from the cyber roof tops that if you are guilty then you deserve everything you get i am not talking about people getting off when guilty i am talking generally about people who are innocent being found guilty or people being screwed over on trumped up charges when a lesser charge would have been more fitting.

Edited 27 April, 2010 by Turkish

[saintjay77]

But American Sports generally have no travelling fans in the ground due to the distances, or if they do they're treated like tourists.

 

Of course they have traveling fans and the distance is reduced because of the whole eastern western thingymajig. Obviously there are still some games that do cover huge distances and for those the traveling support is reduced but its still there. How many traveled to the UK for the NFL game at Wembley?

 

Football to us is huge and its the same in many countrys. It doesnt excuse the violent eliment that seems to follow it though.

[Turkish]

Not the fault of the prats that started fighting then?

 

read the above thread mate, its common sense approach. Would they let a peadophile hang around outside a school do nothing then when he abuses a kid, nick him three weeks later and say what a great job they had done. Letting home and away fans out at the same time in a local derby anywhere in the world is asking for trouble. yes you will get people looking for trouble but that is why 300 odd police were on duty!!

[Sour Mash]

By comparrison, as in the percentage of fans that follow rugby compared to the percentage that follow football. Australia is the main one I was thinking of. Football is not very followed at all yet Rugby is huge there.

 

Although there is a load of american sports that fill stadiums that make some of our prem stadiums look small week in week out and thats just at College level.

 

They manage to have non segregated stadiums with beer sold right through the game. Plenty of adverts too which no doubt calms everyone down. lol

 

I think every single one of your numerous posts on this thread has been wrong. You weren't even at the Skates game.

[Norm]

I think every single one of your numerous posts on this thread has been wrong. You weren't even at the Skates game.

 

Do you have to attended the game to have an opinion?

[Sour Mash]

[/b]

 

Do you have to attended the game to have an opinion?

 

No. But this bloke has posted endless misinformed rubbish AND didn't go to the game. Just sums up a lot of the geeks on this board.

[saintjay77]

I think every single one of your numerous posts on this thread has been wrong. You weren't even at the Skates game.

 

funny since you say that on a post that I thought is pretty straight forward.

 

Or are you saying that Football is massive in Australia and Rugby is hardly followed?

 

American football is a small sport in the USA?

 

Beer is not sold throughout Rugby matches and all fans are segregated?

 

your right in that I wasnt at the skates game but much of my family were and they all managed to get let out at the same time as the Poopy lot and still managed to get home without any trouble. No copper forced them to shake a fence or anything!

 

What does me being there have to do with anything anyway? My opinion is nothing more than that. If you dont like my opinion then hit the ignore button and you wont have to see it.

[scott_saints]

I shook the fence aswell. Go me.

[norwaysaint]

Good to hear paulwantsapint. I sincerely hope that these middle aged "hoodlums" are made an example of and sentenced to the maximum term. I know that that won't be very long, given the bloomin' PC nature of this country (we can't go around upsetting the criminals and pikeys can we?) but the best we can hope for is that they are badly bummed whilst inside. I hope their bumholes are really messed up by some proper criminals, teaching these wannabe hooligans a thing or two and making them live in the real world.

 

 

 

Oh, and Deano6.....I did turn up, like I said earlier in the thread. I was a little delayed because I had some household chores to do and I ended up in an arguement with some chap at the tip, but I was there. Wagon85 wasn't there, or certainly didn't make himself known to me. Maybe he changed his mind once he saw me? I'm not suggesting this man is a coward, but....

 

 

I understand that this Wagon bloke ran off with his tail between his legs, as I think we all expected, but my question to you is: How would you have reacted if you'd turned up for a "chat" and there had been lots of policemen there, clearly watching you and some even openly filming you?

 

-Would you have seen that it was obvious that if you misbehaved then they were going to crack down on you, then calmly have walked away, showing that as grown ups, we all have a choice over our actions?

 

-Or would you have carried on anyway and accepted anything up to the maximum penalty, knowing that it was a risk you were taking at the time, showing that you were man enough to take responsibility for your actions?

 

-Or would you have gone ahead with it, then started a thread on here crying like a little girl that it was so unfair that they were picking on you?

[wagon 84]

It does appear that Wagon fella bottled it. He hasn't posted on here since you took up his offer to meet him for fisticuffs.

 

Deano, do you really take this ***** seriously?

 

unlike you Deano i dont come on here 27/7.

[dune]

Deano, do you really take this ***** seriously?

 

unlike you Deano i dont come on here 27/7.

 

Ooops.

[saint francis]

Wagon, looks like you've been let off lightly, what with Wiltshire's troubles at the tip holding things up. If I were you I'd consider myself pretty fortunate that you haven't been owned in the Plume aswell as on the internet.

 

Wiltshire I hope you gave that bloke at the tip what for. There's nothing worse than going about your business and having some busy body interfering with your waste.

[The9]

lol@people offering each other out over an internet forum. Grow up.

 

Made me laugh.

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

I think we should arrange a big fight between members of the forum myself. That would be good. I'd pay to watch that.

[Turkish]

I think we should arrange a big fight between members of the forum myself. That would be good. I'd pay to watch that.

 

You'd have to pick sides carefully thought. TDD would choose to walk home from the fight and not get involved, Wagon84 wouldn't turn up, Romseystu would be there dressed in his stone island coat and ben Sherman shirt tooled up jumping about but not actually do anything, Sour Mash would disagree with everyone even those on his own side, Tactics would be trying to oragnise everyone and preach to them about his new, advanced method of organising fights between forum members which he learnt from teaching under 8's how to fight, Alpine would say that he hopes its a good fight but thinks its going to be crap and dont organise it for midweek as our fights are worse at midweek than on a weekend and glasgow saint would complain the fight isn't of champions league forums standard, we should never settle for second best, not even in a forum fight.

[saintjay77]

You'd have to pick sides carefully thought. TDD would choose to walk home from the fight and not get involved, Wagon84 wouldn't turn up, Romseystu would be there dressed in his stone island coat and ben Sherman shirt tooled up jumping about but not actually do anything, Sour Mash would disagree with everyone even those on his own side, Tactics would be trying to oragnise everyone and preach to them about his new, advanced method of organising fights between forum members which he learnt from teaching under 8's how to fight, Alpine would say that he hopes its a good fight but thinks its going to be crap and dont organise it for midweek as our fights are worse at midweek than on a weekend and glasgow saint would complain the fight isn't of champions league forums standard, we should never settle for second best, not even in a forum fight.

 

LOL made i laugh

[mickn]

You'd have to pick sides carefully thought. TDD would choose to walk home from the fight and not get involved, Wagon84 wouldn't turn up, Romseystu would be there dressed in his stone island coat and ben Sherman shirt tooled up jumping about but not actually do anything, Sour Mash would disagree with everyone even those on his own side, Tactics would be trying to oragnise everyone and preach to them about his new, advanced method of organising fights between forum members which he learnt from teaching under 8's how to fight, Alpine would say that he hopes its a good fight but thinks its going to be crap and dont organise it for midweek as our fights are worse at midweek than on a weekend and glasgow saint would complain the fight isn't of champions league forums standard, we should never settle for second best, not even in a forum fight.

 

Can we have a fence around it for some of us to shake please?

[SFKA South Woodford]

And before all you lefties starts screaming from the cyber roof tops that if you are guilty then you deserve everything you get i am not talking about people getting off when guilty i am talking generally about people who are innocent being found guilty or people being screwed over on trumped up charges when a lesser charge would have been more fitting.

 

I think you'll find it's all the highly morally opinionated right wing conservative types that are saying this Turkish, not the socialist leftists.

 

As for Rugby fans, after the JPT final, my dad and I were walking through the taxi rank outside Reading station which was packed with London Irish fans, we were following a couple of Saints fans who were wearing their shirts, when a group of four big p*ssed up rugger lads walked up and started chanting scummers, scummers, scummers at them trying to kick off. So please don't think all rugger fans are sooper dooper thoroughly nice chaps, there are just as many thugs at rugby matches.

 

A few years ago, Oxford and Henley were both regularly on the local Thames Valley news for their violent crime figures, which showed that the upper classes also regularly indulged in a bit of street violence, but as they say money talks, and they get off with it being called high jinx. Any anti social behaviour should carry the same penalty whether performed by a football fan or a ****ed up toff!

[scott_saints]

Can we have a fence around it for some of us to shake please?

And snowballs aswell please.

[Dan Johnson]

LMFAO

 

When you get done for doing 35mph in a 30 zone I assume you will take your 2 years imprisonment on the chin then will you??

 

If a crime is punishable by up to 2 years and you knowingly and deliberately break it right in front of a policeman you have to be a complete imbecile to complain if you get two years. No offence.

 

Norwary Saint basically answered this...

[StuRomseySaint]

Norwary Saint basically answered this...

 

No he didn't.

 

The point I was making is that the police can at any point deem you were driving dangerously, which can carry a term of imprisonment... this could be for something minor like 35mph in a 30.

 

So the point is, using English law... you can go to prison for doing 35mph in a 30, even if you caused no injury to anyone.

 

Would you accept it if you or your family were sentanced to prison for that? After all.... using yours and Norway ( lol ) Saints opinion.... you fully well know the speed limit is 30 so if you break it they should lock you up and throw away the key?

[LA77]

No he didn't.

 

The point I was making is that the police can at any point deem you were driving dangerously, which can carry a term of imprisonment... this could be for something minor like 35mph in a 30.

 

So the point is, using English law... you can go to prison for doing 35mph in a 30, even if you caused no injury to anyone.

 

Would you accept it if you or your family were sentanced to prison for that? After all.... using yours and Norway ( lol ) Saints opinion.... you fully well know the speed limit is 30 so if you break it they should lock you up and throw away the key?

 

Knowing my luck ffs, i'd slow down to 25 and get 5 years for kerb crawling

[Deppo]

You're veering away from the original point because you've basically lost the argument, Stew. Trying to insinuate norway can't have an opinion on something because he doesn't live here is lame, btw. You're clutching at straws.