Blackburn Hooligans Joke!

[BRFCC]

Well ickle likkle boy I asked you to explain to daddy the difference between a civil and criminal acion.

The nasty likkle policeman may suggest a civil action against naughty little boys like you where there is insufficient evidence to proceed with a criminal trial.

However its makes those 17 none the less guilty and if a a newspaper see fit to publish their names there must be strong evidence vs them to do so.

Naughty little boys that they are.

why, you would think they would have sufficient evidence on at least 1 of the 17 would you not. and just because names where published in the paper why does that suggest strong evidence. So then what ayour actually saying is that the police do not have strong evidence but the paper has . Oh and by the way read what you have written carefully because you are starting to contradict yourself.

I think you should go back to school mate, cant spell and you dont make no sense.

[BRFCC]

OK, I have a question for you BRFCC.

What single incident do you think contributed most to the police suspecting you enough to believe they could get a banning order against you ?

I'm a big privacy advocate and object strongly to recorded, tracked and monitored by the police. I'm tracked, not because I've done anything wrong, but because I share common details (such as where I drink, which games I attend, what I wear etc) with those that do. I'd like to know what makes the jump from just another stat to being enough of a treat to be worth trying to get a banning order for.

I would say Designer clothes because that is how pathetic the police are. That is the only way they can describe a football hooligan.

[American]

SAR, LA Lakers star Kobe Bryant's name was also published when he was charged with a crime. Does that mean he was guilty, even though they didn't have enough evidence to even go through with the prosecution?

[Paul]

I have a question for BRFCC; why are you bothering to raise this subject on here? Did you expect to find some sympathy?

[longsiders1882]

Amazing. The Police bring a civil suit because their evidence is not enough to get a conviction in a crminal court - and you lot want to condemn them all as guilty.

Now these guys may or may not be guilty but surely everybody agrees that if they are guilty the Police are required to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt? If not just what separates our police from that in totalitarian states?

[BRFCC]

I have a question for BRFCC; why are you bothering to raise this subject on here? Did you expect to find some sympathy?

What the hell are you talking about, like i have already said on this topic, why would i be looking for sympathy what is that going to achieve. no i wanted people's opinion on the case, for example have you seen violence down at Ewood? do you not understand?.

[Sydney Rovers]

OK, I have a question for you BRFCC.

What single incident do you think contributed most to the police suspecting you enough to believe they could get a banning order against you ?

I'm a big privacy advocate and object strongly to recorded, tracked and monitored by the police. I'm tracked, not because I've done anything wrong, but because I share common details (such as where I drink, which games I attend, what I wear etc) with those that do. I'd like to know what makes the jump from just another stat to being enough of a treat to be worth trying to get a banning order for.

I would say Designer clothes because that is how pathetic the police are. That is the only way they can describe a football hooligan.

So simple way to fix it, dress like this guy

Oh, and BTW when you say this;

I think you should go back to school mate, cant spell and you dont make no sense.

You might not want to post this

[longsiders1882]

What the hell are you talking about, like i have already said on this topic, why would i be looking for sympathy what is that going to achieve. no i wanted people's opinion on the case, for example have you seen violence down at Ewood? do you not understand?.

In fairness I never see violence at the hallowed Turf yet i cn assure you we do have more than our fair share of hooligans.

You don't see it at the turf - and I would guess your part of the M65 corridor because Lancs Police have controlling it down to an art around the grounds

[Ossydave]

Amazing. The Police bring a civil suit because their evidence is not enough to get a conviction in a crminal court - and you lot want to condemn them all as guilty.

Now these guys may or may not be guilty but surely everybody agrees that if they are guilty the Police are required to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt? If not just what separates our police from that in totalitarian states?

[broadsword]

What the hell are you talking about, like i have already said on this topic, why would i be looking for sympathy what is that going to achieve. no i wanted people's opinion on the case, for example have you seen violence down at Ewood? do you not understand?.

Sounds more like you came on here for a bit of a ruck.

And to answer your question, I haven't been to many games, other than seeing some bum-kicking at QPR a few years back, I can't help.

[Paul]

Yep I understand. You're on the list, presumably the police have a reason, if you get banned tough. The police have a job to do, the type of individual who acts in a manner to be brought to court for a banning order at club or international level has the potential to disgrace club or country. In my view that makes you unwelcome at any football match.

All my life I've heard people complain about how innocent there actions are. The problem being those same people don't understand or do not wish to understand the impact their actions have on society. Consequently the police will look to ban such individuals if they can. There's a simple solution - behave in a reasonable manner.

[American]

Paul, the police accuse and charge MANY innocent people.

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

'I can assure you we do have more than our fair share of hooligans.'

No need to assure anyone Longsider..it's well known!

[BRFCC]

Amazing. The Police bring a civil suit because their evidence is not enough to get a conviction in a crminal court - and you lot want to condemn them all as guilty.

Now these guys may or may not be guilty but surely everybody agrees that if they are guilty the Police are required to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt? If not just what separates our police from that in totalitarian states?

!!!!PAUL!!!! Read THE ABOVE Carefully, before you type rubbish !!!!PAUL!!!!

Edited September 17, 2004 by BRFCC

[Ste B]

Amazing. The Police bring a civil suit because their evidence is not enough to get a conviction in a crminal court - and you lot want to condemn them all as guilty.

Now these guys may or may not be guilty but surely everybody agrees that if they are guilty the Police are required to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt? If not just what separates our police from that in totalitarian states?

Of course these things need to be proven.

Which is why the police have to spend a few quid gathering evidence and letting the courts decide. Which BRFCC appeared to have a problem with at the start of this thread.

[Paul]

Yes that's very true American, both those wrongly arrested and those prosecuted and shown to be innocent. In this case it seesm to me BRFCC protests too much, simple as that and gives me the impression he may not be entirely innocent.

[Ste B]

Paul, the police accuse and charge MANY innocent people.

like OJ Simpson.

[Ossydave]

There's a simple solution - behave in a reasonable manner.

What constitues 'reasonable'?!?

Wearing a replica shirt and staying away from alcohol, maybe even taking a rattle and a scarf with you?

So Paul what if YOU were wrongly accused? Would you just sit back and take it on the chin? Or would you protest your innocence? Especially when the accusation means you can't watch the team you support.

[American]

Hey, the killer roams free on a golf course somewhere, and OJ keeps up his search!!

[T4E]

No, he said innocent people.

[Ste B]

For more info on the football banning orders

<<< CLICK HERE >>>

The important thing being that these are all CIVIL matters not criminal (although courts can impose them as penalties)

The orders are civil and preventative rather than a penalty for past misbehaviour. Their purpose is to prevent known football hooligans from causing further trouble at home and abroad.

Seems fair to me.

[BRFCC]

For more info on the football banning orders

<<< CLICK HERE >>>

The important thing being that these are all CIVIL matters not criminal (although courts can impose them as penalties)

The orders are civil and preventative rather than a penalty for past misbehaviour. Their purpose is to prevent known football hooligans from causing further trouble at home and abroad.

Seems fair to me.

Thanks for the info Ste, Im sure people are thankfull.

[Paul]

!!!!PAUL!!!! Read THE ABOVE Carefully, before you type rubbish !!!!PAUL!!!!

Yes I read it and I agree that every individual is entitled to justice. It seems neither right or wrong that the police are using the civil court rather than the criminal court. Do I care? For a bunch of football hooligans, who are innocent until proven guilty, it doesn't worry me one way or the other.

This is a circular arguement with a 17 year old. I don't need one of those, I know how they end up, so I'm backing out.

cheers

[AndyR]

As I understand it from speaking to some lads at the end of last season the Blackburn Police had taken some stick from the judges because the banning orders they were seeking were not down to concrete evidence but tenuous links (Mr x was seen out drinking in the Aquaduct with Mr Y - a known hooligan) the judge critisised this during the court case and they were thrown out.

I know some hooligans and one or two of the names in that article but I'm not a hooligan but if talking to these people (who are far from the gap toothed brainless bumpkins people on here are insisting they are) means I am due a banning order then that is not justice - nor effective policing.

No-one wants a return to the 70s style violence and thankfully mobile phones now mean gangs can meet up well away from ground and beat each other senseless leaving the rest of to enjoy our beer in peace.

[Ninjathunder]

I think you should go back to school mate, cant spell and you dont make no sense.

Err....."cant spell" (sic) needs an apostrophe and if he "dont* (sic) make no sense", what sense does he make?

* should be don't

Edited September 17, 2004 by Tooting Rover