Blackburn Hooligans Joke!

[nottsrover]

Surely, blaming the Police is ridiculous anyway. They didn't pass the law which allowed civil banning orders, parliment did. It is the job of the Police to ensure that the this law is adhered to and the Judge's to implement it at Court.

If you are not happy with the law don't moan at the police, they merely present facts for the judge to decide upon. Don't moan at the judge either, moan at parliament. Try and find a party which opposes the law and vote them. Good luck.

[Paul]

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.

Dave, of course I'd protest my innocence but I also know I wouldn't get into the situation in the first place. Now I also realise this is a topic I should have kept out of, I'm dipping out because I know I'm at least 25 years too old to appreciate the younger view. Left to myself I'd avoid the situation, my son is 18, and I know how young people feel about that view so it's best if I just try to bow out gracefully. It's the difference between youth and experience, that's all.

OK?

[speeeeeeedie]

Looks like I missed the main event. But I'd like to recap to see if I've read everything right.

BRFCC was subject to a banning order from football stadium on the grounds that he's a known hooligan. He say's he's guilty of nothing, and the police are victimizing him because he and his mates wear expensive clothes and congregate together in pubs before football matches. He has a couple of sympathizers who blame the police for inefficient techniques, and the rest argue that all hooliganism is bad. Any more?

I have a few questions if the debate is still open.

Does BRFCC fight on matchdays with opposition fans? He says he's never organised anything but does he look to fight where there may be likeminded opposition fans?

He mentioned more than once that there is no trouble at Ewood, and is quite proud of that, but does he use the club's name as a springboard away from the ground?

How do you justify fighting in the name of the club? There are very few things in the world woth physically fighting over, entertainment is not one of them.

Why do they choose to fight? This is a greater social issue but I don't understand why they do it.

If he is completely innocent and his only guilt is having a few and wearing nice clothes to games, as he states, he's been hard done by. However we don't know the police side, we don't know what he does on match days. I'd like to see the other side. Having a go because you don't like what he does won't help with information gathering.

For the record I despise hooliganism, whether it be at the ground or elsewhere. Football matches bring out tribalsim in people, when you've just been beat 5-0 and the opposition fans are winding you up in the street it can casue some to lose it and start swinging out of anger. The organisation, looking for fights, and stupidity that these people think when they are "just having a bit of fun" is complete nonsense. There is the international reputation English fans have got because of it, forcing the government to invoke policies in order to save face diplomatically.

Saying that no innocents get hurt is naive at best. Putting people in hospital needing treatment, making authorities spend £5 million in Lancashire alone, massive police presence at games, wrecking bus stations and the like, all add up to tax money the British public have to pay for a few lads out for a jaunt. There must be something constructive to do?

[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.

Dave, of course I'd protest my innocence but I also know I wouldn't get into the situation in the first place. Now I also realise this is a topic I should have kept out of, I'm dipping out because I know I'm at least 25 years too old to appreciate the younger view. Left to myself I'd avoid the situation, my son is 18, and I know how young people feel about that view so it's best if I just try to bow out gracefully. It's the difference between youth and experience, that's all.

OK?

Fair do's.

Think people were a little harsh on BRFCC though, he started a topic for discussion and quite frankly some of the comments directed at him are pathetic and childish, not mentioning any names.

[AlanK]

I`m with you Paul. Its been an exciting few days, there is an air of optimism around and I can`t wait to see how we get on tomorrow.

I`ve given the knuckle dragging topic to much of my time already.

[BRFCC]

Thankyou for your support ozzydave

[cletus]

well! i`m glad all that`s sorted!

...now let`s all be friends

[Glenn]

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.

Arrr come one, you're teling me you're one of only 17 lads in Blackburn with a penchant for Stone Island and Aquascutum ? If that was their criteria then there'd be so many guys (and a few gals) up that the LET would have to a special pullout supplement to name everyone !

There has to be more to it than that, I know loads of lads that look the part but have never been threatened with a banning order.

As you seem to be quite game at answering everyone's questions (apart from philipl's on page one or two), regarless of how rude or insulting, can I ask have you previously be found guilty of any violence related offences ?

I'm not condeming you if I do (well, I am, but not with regard the banning order), I'm just very intrested in working out WHY the police have target you 17.

The whole "preventative" without evidence is against everything I believe in and football fans have their civil liberties infringed like no other group in this country (and whilst you can argue that this is because of the actions of hooligans, it doesn't make it right).

Can I also remind people that, in this case, none of the 17 has yet been found guilty and !inocent until proven guilty" is still a basic right in this country (well, in theory).

[Alan75]

Can I also remind people that, in this case, none of the 17 has yet been found guilty and !inocent until proven guilty" is still a basic right in this country (well, in theory).

That being, should we be discussing it, we wouldnt want to prejudice the case.

[Glenn]

That is the first sensible argument for closing this thread I've heard, although surely the LET naming then has already done that. Plus nobody has asociated board names with real names.

[blue phil]

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.

At last - on page 8 - we reach a post that is worth reading and not simply a hand wringing load of nonsense spouted by the same bunch of idiots who would normally be on the side of civil liberties if the persons involved were not "hoolies" . (I discount Longsider's sensible contributions because he's a dingle !)

I know one of these listed persons and can confirm that he is not a bloke to be messed with . In fact I know a lot of blokes who aren't to be messed with but that doesn't alter the fact that it is now years and years since I have felt in any way threatened at Ewood and that is why I have no problem taking kids to the game .

Some of our posters may argue that this is down to "police intelligence" - if those words can be used in the same sentence and still make sense - but I for one begrudge having a camera stuck in front of me every time I pass in front of the cops (outside Ewood Arms for eg) when I'm with a bunch of lads. I am absolutely convinced that the cops are taking short-cuts and using the guilt by association trick instead of going about their business in a professional manner and actually gathering evidence ( a bit risky..). So much easier to film someone who looks "dodgy" ( and their mates who happen to be with them) and present this to some judge who may or may not question them as to whether or not it actually constitutes evidence.

This leads me to the question one of our new posters posed earlier which was something along the lines of ..why can't the police catch the "knuckle draggers" without civil action ?* The obvious answer , I'm afraid is that it's the police who are the knuckle draggers and the hoolies are all too often a lot cleverer - and have proper jobs to boot (if that's the right expression !)

Maybe I'm becoming a liberal...

* In fact it was ...why are hoolies smarter these days ? ( Near enough ..)

Edited September 17, 2004 by blue phil

[colin]

The Home Office's site explains quite nicely that a Banning Order is to prevent future disturbances based on a person's history of bad behaviour.

Normal criminal law means the police have to wait until after a crime has been committed before taking action. The banning orders reverse the sequence.

They seem very similar to Anti Social Behaviour Orders which are being used quite widely here in Manchester. If the Manchester Evening News' reports are anything to beleive the recipients of these ASBOs are violent scum who make the lives of normal people a complete misery.

A few weeks ago The Guardian ran a long article on the ASBOs in Manchester. Even that paper, known for its left-wing/liberal/tolerent viewpoint, couldn't hold a balanced view after meeting the recipents of the orders and their families.

If the Banning Orders are made then the police will have to prove a case to a Magistrate, and circumstantial evidence and conjecture will not be enough. There will have to be some hard evidence of past bad behaviour, and a likelyhood that it will happen again.

[SouthAussieRover]

At last - on page 8 - we reach a post that is worth reading and not simply a hand wringing load of nonsense spouted by the same bunch of idiots who would normally be on the side of civil liberties if the persons involved were not "hoolies" . (I discount Longsider's sensible contributions because he's a dingle !)

Oh dear how remiss of me to have the audacity to attempt to construct a counter argument to BRFCC's question re the cost of the action.

As my views do not sit easily with yours and other posters on this subject then I'd best leave you to it so you can all be in complete agreement.

Will make for stimulating reading when I return from the classroom.

[Paul Mellelieu]

The police do regularly make mistakes. And if you've running a £5m operation your boss wants results. (Having said that I think the cops are improving and have made big strides forward over the last ten years.)

However.... I find the defence of these guys a bit difficult to stomach. BRFCC has chosen not to answer key questions posed to him in that irritating "clever, clever" way that teenagers (and guilty people) use. As for wearing designer clothes being his only crime, if he does wear all that hooli crap than he deserves a bit of grief, becuase it's a lumpen uniform worn by idiots. It also looks crap - anyone who needs to scream look at my desinger label is in need of help or rough justice.

Imagine if everyone wearing those irritating Burberry caps was lifted, how better the world would be.

Edited September 18, 2004 by Paul McGarry

[ABBEY]

for the record,none of the bans are for criminal offences,it's a civil case thats been brought by the police.

so in over 5 years of investigation while spending x amount the police have failed to get anybody banned for a criminal offence.

so strictly speaking none of the people up have done anything wrong.

discuss.

Strictly speaking they have done nothing wrong? That's like saying strictly speaking OJ Simpson isn't a murderer. If you want to allow these people to hide behind technicalities then fine but to me your just apologising for people that should know better and are tarring the image of the club.

If I had a pound for every time i'd heard someone say that these individuals only fight with like-minded people then i'd be a rich man. However if I had to give a pound for every innocent fan to have been hit, harrassed or just abused then i'd be bankrupt.

discuss

Is that a fact. how many innocent fans have you seen hurt by hooligans especially Blackburn one's. Have you ever seen hooligans in or around Ewood park. Have you seen Violence recently at a football match involving BRFC?.

mmm maine rd ,a couple of years ago....mmmbroke rib,battered nose ,2 black eyes...still remember it well hurt like f....no BRFC involved only me and about 20 ###### fans.

Edited September 18, 2004 by ABBEY

[Guest Ispy]

Might be able to clarify some of this cos I too know a few of these lads of old and its really starting to iritate me that they can't just hold their hands up and take their medicine.

Every one of the 17 has been arrested by the police at some point, most of them have been arrested at football matches at some time or other and all the ones I know have convictions for scrapping of some sort.

Don't let ANYONE tell you these boys aren't what passes for Blackburn's hooligan firm because they absolutely are.

The police in Lancashire have not been given £5million, that is what was made available to police in THE WHOLE COUNTRY prior to Portugal 2004 to get as many hooligans banned as possible. They may have had Portugal in mind when they dished it out, but now I'm sure theyre thinking about Germany 2006 in just the same way.

The idea that the police can have you banned for wearing a burberry cap and a stone island jacket is so laughable I can't believe one or two people on here have taken it seriously. To get one of these bans you HAVE to prove to a court that the lads have been involved in or contributed to violence. You HAVE to prove this. As 10 of these lads were banned last week it is clear that the police have proved just this for those blokes.

I know most people won't have seen trouble at Ewood for years, it doesn't happen much. But in the last 7 or 8 years there have been decent size fights with Bolton, Liverpool, Man Utd, Sunderland, Newcastle, Man City, Derby and others. There was even trouble when Chester came for the FA Cup!

The last thing I want to say is that quite a few of these 17 are otherwise decent blokes who any of us would have a pint and a laugh with. It doesn't change the fact that they are hooligans and go looking for bother. Ossy Dave and others who say you know them and they never get involved in trouble, either you don't know them as well as you think or you are telling fibs my friends.

Other people have been in trouble. They've taken their medicine and paid their dues and are ashamed of the things they've been involved in. Time these lads did the same.

End of.

[No Nay Never]

As I have mentioned on here before. i am also one of the 17, I will also be accepting the minimum ban we have been offered, due to the fact the costs for the case is liable to run into 1000's of pounds, and I havent got that kind of money spare...

The way i see it is, there hasn't been much trouble at Ewood at all compared to other places, but lancashire constabulary have to justify their presence at Ewood by making arrests and bringing the Banning orders before the magistrates, they aren't on double time or whatever at Football Matches for nothing. I also see it from their point of view at the end of the day they are doing their job, If they weren't getting paid for it i seriously doubt they would like to spend their time on all the paperwork etc which will come with these orders.

Yes i feel a little hard done by to receive an order, but thats the way it is, like somebody said earlier most of it is association, and if you drink in town every matchday, wearing designer clothes in a group of lads, sooner or later you will come to the attention of the police..

[Paul]

The way i see it is, there hasn't been much trouble at Ewood at all compared to other places, but lancashire constabulary have to justify their presence at Ewood by making arrests and bringing the Banning orders before the magistrates, they aren't on double time or whatever at Football Matches for nothing.

I could be totally wrong here but I believe it is the club that are responsible for the costs of policing a match. So it's unlikely to be the police attempting to justify their presence. I would have thougt both Rovers and the police would be working to reduce the police presence on match days?

[Yorkshire Blue]

...wearing nice clothes to games...

Nice?!

[No Nay Never]

I could be totally wrong here but I believe it is the club that are responsible for the costs of policing a match. So it's unlikely to be the police attempting to justify their presence. I would have thougt both Rovers and the police would be working to reduce the police presence on match days?

The club only have to pay for the Officers who are situated in the ground, which isn't many at all, the club aren't responsible for policing the streets of Blackburn before,during or after the match.

[waggy]

whilst i have read this thread over the last few days,i would like to ask a few question's.

what ever happened to the police officer who was in court over the incident with the taxi driver?i seem to remenber the telegraph reported on the 1st day off the trial but then it was brushed under the carpet.

secondly and most worrying was the storming off the jubilee public house,by lancashire's finest after a burnley game,were members off staff and public were assulted,this seems to have also been forgotten.

[AndyC]

Looks like I missed the main event. But I'd like to recap to see if I've read everything right.

BRFCC was subject to a banning order from football stadium on the grounds that he's a known hooligan. He say's he's guilty of nothing, and the police are victimizing him because he and his mates wear expensive clothes and congregate together in pubs before football matches. He has a couple of sympathizers who blame the police for inefficient techniques, and the rest argue that all hooliganism is bad. Any more?

I have a few questions if the debate is still open.

Does BRFCC fight on matchdays with opposition fans? He says he's never organised anything but does he look to fight where there may be likeminded opposition fans?

He mentioned more than once that there is no trouble at Ewood, and is quite proud of that, but does he use the club's name as a springboard away from the ground?

How do you justify fighting in the name of the club? There are very few things in the world woth physically fighting over, entertainment is not one of them.

Why do they choose to fight? This is a greater social issue but I don't understand why they do it.

If he is completely innocent and his only guilt is having a few and wearing nice clothes to games, as he states, he's been hard done by. However we don't know the police side, we don't know what he does on match days. I'd like to see the other side. Having a go because you don't like what he does won't help with information gathering.

For the record I despise hooliganism, whether it be at the ground or elsewhere. Football matches bring out tribalsim in people, when you've just been beat 5-0 and the opposition fans are winding you up in the street it can casue some to lose it and start swinging out of anger. The organisation, looking for fights, and stupidity that these people think when they are "just having a bit of fun" is complete nonsense. There is the international reputation English fans have got because of it, forcing the government to invoke policies in order to save face diplomatically.

Saying that no innocents get hurt is naive at best. Putting people in hospital needing treatment, making authorities spend £5 million in Lancashire alone, massive police presence at games, wrecking bus stations and the like, all add up to tax money the British public have to pay for a few lads out for a jaunt. There must be something constructive to do?

top post!

[AndyC]

As I have mentioned on here before. i am also one of the 17, I will also be accepting the minimum ban we have been offered, due to the fact the costs for the case is liable to run into 1000's of pounds, and I havent got that kind of money spare...

The way i see it is, there hasn't been much trouble at Ewood at all compared to other places, but lancashire constabulary have to justify their presence at Ewood by making arrests and bringing the Banning orders before the magistrates, they aren't on double time or whatever at Football Matches for nothing. I also see it from their point of view at the end of the day they are doing their job, If they weren't getting paid for it i seriously doubt they would like to spend their time on all the paperwork etc which will come with these orders.

Yes i feel a little hard done by to receive an order, but thats the way it is, like somebody said earlier most of it is association, and if you drink in town every matchday, wearing designer clothes in a group of lads, sooner or later you will come to the attention of the police..

most of it by association?

Do i take it that you got involved in something you later regretted?

[blackburnbrfc]

Might be able to clarify some of this cos I too know a few of these lads of old and its really starting to iritate me that they can't just hold their hands up and take their medicine.

Every one of the 17 has been arrested by the police at some point, most of them have been arrested at football matches at some time or other and all the ones I know have convictions for scrapping of some sort.

Don't let ANYONE tell you these boys aren't what passes for Blackburn's hooligan firm because they absolutely are.

The police in Lancashire have not been given £5million, that is what was made available to police in THE WHOLE COUNTRY prior to Portugal 2004 to get as many hooligans banned as possible. They may have had Portugal in mind when they dished it out, but now I'm sure theyre thinking about Germany 2006 in just the same way.

The idea that the police can have you banned for wearing a burberry cap and a stone island jacket is so laughable I can't believe one or two people on here have taken it seriously. To get one of these bans you HAVE to prove to a court that the lads have been involved in or contributed to violence. You HAVE to prove this. As 10 of these lads were banned last week it is clear that the police have proved just this for those blokes.

I know most people won't have seen trouble at Ewood for years, it doesn't happen much. But in the last 7 or 8 years there have been decent size fights with Bolton, Liverpool, Man Utd, Sunderland, Newcastle, Man City, Derby and others. There was even trouble when Chester came for the FA Cup!

The last thing I want to say is that quite a few of these 17 are otherwise decent blokes who any of us would have a pint and a laugh with. It doesn't change the fact that they are hooligans and go looking for bother. Ossy Dave and others who say you know them and they never get involved in trouble, either you don't know them as well as you think or you are telling fibs my friends.

Other people have been in trouble. They've taken their medicine and paid their dues and are ashamed of the things they've been involved in. Time these lads did the same.

End of.

Every one of the 17 has been arrested by the police at some point

Ispy or mcdermott or whatever your name is, how do you know this?

I for one know this is DEFINATELY not true, so where have you got your info from?

Maybe this whole subject should not have been raised on here, but it begs the question of how a judge will believe someone is not guilty when fellow rovers fans have already condemned them to being nailed to a floor, without seeing a shred of evidence.

Ipsy, also how do you know that 10 people were banned last week, this has not been reported in the press to my knowledge. The reason 10 of the 17 were banned last week was they accepted the orders made against them.

Some people just didnt have the time and the money to proceed to a trial whereas others just thought it would be easier and there name wouldnt be in the paper anymore.

So far noone has been found guilty by a judge the people who are still contesting the FBOs are in court in November for a proper trial with a district judge, in an attempt to clear their now sh*t names.

I don't care what southaussy rover thinks or many of the posters on here from various parts of the uk, but when people such as Ipsy are making comments that are not true than i'm pretty sure that is libelous.

Edited September 20, 2004 by blackburnbrfc

[Ste B]

Ipsy, also how do you know that 10 people were banned last week, this has not been reported in the press to my knowledge.

Saturdays Telegraph

http://www.thisislancashire.co.uk/lancashi...NEWSBBN1ZM.html