|
Post by essexyellows on Oct 4, 2016 7:29:24 GMT
If you read the legislation and how easy it could be to get a civil football banning order, s14b, you will probably see that an ABC is a proportionate way of dealing with the matter. The burden of proof in civil courts and criminal courts is very different. I would be very surprised if there was enough evidence to charge a person for a football related offence that there wouldn't be enough evidence for a s14b. www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/football_related_offences/This will help you sleep. Never realised how draconian it is............... "Where the offence is alleged to have occurred on a rail or underground network and/or some distance from the ground it is necessary to ensure there is sufficient evidence to prove the disorder or violence is football related. Evidence in support may include a match ticket, programme, fanzine, season ticket, train tickets, football related paraphernalia (i.e. pin badges, 'calling cards', tattoos showing team / group allegiances) and ideally a photograph of the person wearing team colours." So if I get in a scrap in Leicester train station on a Friday night then my tatt could get me a banning order? Jeez....1994 & all that.
|
|
|
Post by robie on Oct 4, 2016 9:47:45 GMT
I think you mean 1984.
Also, disorder includes:
stirring up hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins, or against an individual as a member of such a group, using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour, displaying any writing or other thing which is threatening, abusive or insulting.
|
|
|
Post by manorlounger on Oct 4, 2016 12:31:49 GMT
I think you mean 1984. Also, disorder includes: stirring up hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins, or against an individual as a member of such a group, using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour, displaying any writing or other thing which is threatening, abusive or insulting. If you think about that, then you soon come to realise that any, or at least most of the usual references to anybody from up the A420, would be enough to get you an ABC. Fun isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by robie on Oct 5, 2016 18:07:02 GMT
The above is a quote from the Football Banning Order legislation to highlight how easy it is to get a ban and therefore how ABC's are actually not a bad alternative.
|
|
|
Post by cowleyox on Oct 5, 2016 20:46:48 GMT
if TVP wish to avoid trouble after games please ask them why they don't keep away fans in more often when the match finishes?
|
|
|
Post by Colin B on Oct 6, 2016 6:49:22 GMT
The above is a quote from the Football Banning Order legislation to highlight how easy it is to get a ban and therefore how ABC's are actually not a bad alternative. No, no, no, no, no! There is no such thing as a good alternative if you have been found NOT GUILTY!
|
|
|
Post by myles on Oct 6, 2016 7:01:43 GMT
To use a non-football analogy, if you were in some way involved in a pub fight, arrested and charged, but found not guilty of the specific offence, would it be unreasonable for the landlord to bar you from the pub? Or put you on some sort of "probation" where if you step out of line again you are then barred?
And if that's acceptable, why is it unacceptable in a football situation?
|
|
|
Post by Colin B on Oct 6, 2016 7:16:02 GMT
So you're saying "no smoke without fire" Not guilty means NOT GUILTY, is it really that difficult? Why bother with courts, judges, the whole judicial system? Let's just punish the people we don't like!
Off to work now, I have a feeling when I next log on the will be several more posts on this thread...............
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Oct 6, 2016 7:26:18 GMT
Not Guilty may depend on many factors though. Absolutely wrong conviction (wrong person at the wrong time/place) or not enough evidence to prosecute, but clear circumstantial evidence to suggest that someone acted in appropriately. I think most of the issues with fans fits into the former and not the latter, but of course there maybe some specific (not global) circumstances where an ABC is appropriate.
|
|
|
Post by myles on Oct 6, 2016 8:07:33 GMT
So you're saying "no smoke without fire" Not guilty means NOT GUILTY, is it really that difficult? Why bother with courts, judges, the whole judicial system? Let's just punish the people we don't like! Off to work now, I have a feeling when I next log on the will be several more posts on this thread............... You're spectacularly missing the point here Colin. Meeting the criminal standard of proof for an offence is not the only factor determining whether a particular behaviour is acceptable or not. It's also ignoring the different burdens of proof for criminal and civil matters. If you have a party at home and one of the guests takes a p*ss in one of your pot plants, that's not going to result in a criminal conviction but you're not going to invite them back are you?
|
|
|
Post by Pete Burrett on Oct 6, 2016 9:28:41 GMT
How would I feel if I happened to have been near a scrap at a football match, been arrested for being involved, found innocent in court and then offered an ABC by Oxford United as a 'better' alternative to a ban? I'd feel extremely p*ssed off. It would clearly be unjust. The other side of the coin, however, is that OUFC can ban (or impose an ABC on) anyone they please, irrespective of circumstances or fairness, in the same way a pub landlord can ban anyone for any or no particular reason. If someone at OUFC believed I was a little too close to the 'action' and had doubts about my innocence, whatever the court outcome, they may well have issued an ABC believing they were acting in the best interests of others attending matches. Indeed, if a person is arrested and found innocent in court more than once for similar charges, the indignation might still be appropriate, but maybe OUFC's decision would be even more understandable, not withstanding Colin's objection to the 'no smoke without fire' mantra. So yes, I'm sort of sitting on the fence. (No fence end puns please oufcyellows). My sense of righteousness says for a person found innocent of an offence to receive an ABC is diabolical, but I can see how OUFC may take that action. Life ain't always fair. I've been ejected from matches in the 'good old days' for doing absolutely nothing but being close to trouble makers. Good thread: worth making a reappearance for.
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Oct 6, 2016 10:00:41 GMT
What I don't like about ABCs are that the things you aren't allowed to do anymore are part of everday football for many of the crowd. eg. Meeting in a group of more than four people, perhaps having had more than two pints of beer, swearing during a match, standing up in the ground, perhaps gesturing at opposition fans as part of a crowd action during the game. Obviously not every fans does this, but a lot do without it causing any particular worries to fans, although some parents can get upset by excessive swearing near their young children.
Silly things like groups of 'lads' running around the stadium causing fear and distress of potential trouble to everday fans, lining up outside the North Stand after the match to intimidate or goad opposition fans, I would perhaps say cross the line of behaving acceptably without being criminal behaviour.
|
|
|
Post by Colin B on Oct 6, 2016 11:57:40 GMT
So you're saying "no smoke without fire" Not guilty means NOT GUILTY, is it really that difficult? Why bother with courts, judges, the whole judicial system? Let's just punish the people we don't like! Off to work now, I have a feeling when I next log on the will be several more posts on this thread............... You're spectacularly missing the point here Colin. Meeting the criminal standard of proof for an offence is not the only factor determining whether a particular behaviour is acceptable or not. It's also ignoring the different burdens of proof for criminal and civil matters. If you have a party at home and one of the guests takes a p*ss in one of your pot plants, that's not going to result in a criminal conviction but you're not going to invite them back are you? I'm spectacularly missing nothing at all. You, Myles, are clearly by your statement above assuming that everybody found not guilty of an offence must have done "something" even if it is not "meeting the criminal standards of proof." You are, whether you realise it or not, completely making my point about "no smoke without fire." Well let me tell you something you clearly don't know. People can be, are, and have been arrested and charged by TVP at OUFC matches for doing absolutely nothing. It has happened many times in the past, and they've sometimes been frightened into pleading guilty, on the grounds of it being much more serious for them if they plead not guilty and are found guilty. It is an often used tactic by TVP and other forces. Others, though plead not guilty and are found not guilty, and in the past that has been the end of it (apart from the photos, names and addresses in the Oxford Mail that normally occur BEFORE people have even been to court). Now those people are either forced to sign an ABC or cannot attend games. Please remember as well that once you have had your day in court and won TVP will have you on their "risk list" now and will be looking for any excuse to make you pay for daring to prove them wrong in court. I witnessed a situation where a woman was knocked over by TVP at a high profile OUFC game as they rushed to get to an incident that was nothing to do with her. And I mean violently pushed over. Her boyfriend tried to protect her and was beaten to the ground by the police with batons. He was arrested and frightened into pleading guilty of a lesser charge and received a football banning order (not something I would have done, but that's not the point). But guess what happened next? The woman was also charged, but the charges were then dropped, but, here comes the sucker punch, SHE was presented with an ABC!!!!! But that's ok is it? These are not isolated cases. Across the country there are hundreds of them, maybe thousands. We are a democracy and people fought wars to protect that and I'm damned if I'll stand by and allow our freedom to be eroded via the back door with things like ABCs.
|
|
|
Post by essexyellows on Oct 6, 2016 13:51:54 GMT
Colin B for PM! Much more eloquently put than I can manage.
The biggest "firm" out on match days are the ones in uniform and they have all the tools & judicial support at their disposal. By all means give folk bans, ABC`s or whatever....when they have been found guilty in a court of law. NOT when they have been found not guilty.
|
|