Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
lʍO‾ǝsnoɥpooM

A lifetime BAN!?

Recommended Posts

...but you're getting 14 year olds who 'pinched' a baseball cap or bottle of water getting custodial sentences when everyone knws the really, really nasty fookers will be the ones who get away with it again. And I know that when I was 14 I did far worse....even at footie matches...simply because I got caught up in the 'peer group..sheep' mentality.

Just seems that the easy, stupid 'sheep' get the book thrown at them and the ones that should be dealt with with harsher sentences end up sneaking away..

I hate folks running onto the pitch but sometimes a little common sense means they realise there own stupidity and don't do it again.....and if they do, then they get a ban.

True, but they need to stamp out the "peer group...sheep" mentality because that's the reason it escalated into such a huge problem - because the ordinary bored kids were getting involved. If they hadn't got involved it would've only left the real criminals, who would've then been dealt with. A handful of genuine criminals causes a problem, but hundreds of people doing the same thing but on a much bigger scale affects so many more innocent people in the long run. Knowing how severe the punishments will be, the vast majority of kids who would've otherwise become involved would now think twice. If they only got light punishments, there's nothing to deter them from doing again in the future.

If somebody runs on the pitch and doesn't get a lifetime ban, then there's 20,000 other fans who all know that if they run on the pitch they won't get a ban as long as they only do it once. Therefore, there's no deterrent. Obviously very few would do it, but I expect there would be a hell of a lot more incidents like this happening every time a ref makes a bad decision or something like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that related in any way to those people who big up their own business exploits, earning power and physique?

:biggrin:

yep i bet there are some people out there who are just like that :ohmy: ,some of us are lucky enough to be able to speak the truth :cool:

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...erm..i didn't turn into a major criminal I just grew up...the majority of 'sheep' do. And at 14 I would have been banned for life as would plenty more fans. Sorry I have to disagree...knee jerk reactions that 'make examples' of a small number of 'daft' individuals never, ever works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...erm..i didn't turn into a major criminal I just grew up...the majority of 'sheep' do. And at 14 I would have been banned for life as would plenty more fans. Sorry I have to disagree...knee jerk reactions that 'make examples' of a small number of 'daft' individuals never, ever works.

You've completely mis-read what I was saying. It's not about stopping the individuals becoming major criminals - it's about preventing similar events happening again. A deterrent. If these stupid kids involved in the looting were given light punishments, then there are thousands of other kids out there who would be prepared to do the same thing in order to get themselves some nice new trainers or an X-Box. Then we'd be having rioting/looting going on all the time.

So, knee-jerk reactions never, ever work? So, in that case we should be expecting more imminent rioting/looting. Similarly, we should expect somebody to run on the pitch on Saturday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

..i fully understood what you said....and it won't stop similar things happening again if the circumstances are repeated. And to ask if rioting/looting will be repeated imminently is a silly question.

Events like the riots happen because of a combination of events and circumstances...and to be honest it's a totally unreasonable comparison to be made with the fool who ran on the pitch.

However i stand by the idea of 'making an example' of an individual who acted in a foolish way for maybe the only incident being pointless. They should be dealt with with common sense and commensurate to the 'actions'

And someone will run on the pitch again...the next home game?...who knows but sooner or later.

Edited by Freshfish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One person going on the pitch encourages others if they are seen to get away with it.In the past fences were erected to keep people on the terraces and seating introduced to try and add a modicum of better behaviour.A lifetime ban does seem harsh but I can see they point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

..i fully understood what you said...

Then why did you say "...erm..i didn't turn into a major criminal I just grew up...the majority of 'sheep' do.?" I didn't say anything about anyone turning into major criminals.

....and it won't stop similar things happening again if the circumstances are repeated.

I completely disagree. There were thousands of people involved in the rioting/looting because they thought they could get away with it, and it created a huge culture of fear across several cities. Now that they're having the book thrown at them the chances of any similar events happening in anything but the distant future are extremely unlikely. There may be a few pockets of disturbance, but nothing like what we've recently seen. They got involved because they didn't expect harsh punishment. Now everyone considering getting involved in any future events will be aware that the punishments will be very harsh, so it becomes a deterrent.

Events like the riots happen because of a combination of events and circumstances...and to be honest it's a totally unreasonable comparison to be made with the fool who ran on the pitch.

The argument is about punishments being harsher than the crime, so it's not an unreasonable comparison at all. We're not comparing the crimes themselves here, we're discussing the need to hand out harsh punishments.

However i stand by the idea of 'making an example' of an individual who acted in a foolish way for maybe the only incident being pointless. They should be dealt with with common sense and commensurate to the 'actions'

Which would then let everybody know that they can run on the pitch and expect a light punishment, so they're far more likely to do it than if they face a lifetime ban.

And someone will run on the pitch again...the next home game?...who knows but sooner or later.

True, and they will now know that they face a lifetime ban. There will be far fewer incidents of people running onto the pitch because most fans don't want to face a lifetime ban. Therefore, it's a deterrent that works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im sorry but it serves him right. I agree with an earlier comment, the bloke could have approached a player and smacked him. 0% Tolerance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A "lifetime ban" ... how exactly do you even enforce that ?

Whats stopping him coming on Saturday , ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then why did you say "...erm..i didn't turn into a major criminal I just grew up...the majority of 'sheep' do.?" I didn't say anything about anyone turning into major criminals.

I completely disagree. There were thousands of people involved in the rioting/looting because they thought they could get away with it, and it created a huge culture of fear across several cities. Now that they're having the book thrown at them the chances of any similar events happening in anything but the distant future are extremely unlikely. There may be a few pockets of disturbance, but nothing like what we've recently seen. They got involved because they didn't expect harsh punishment. Now everyone considering getting involved in any future events will be aware that the punishments will be very harsh, so it becomes a deterrent.

The argument is about punishments being harsher than the crime, so it's not an unreasonable comparison at all. We're not comparing the crimes themselves here, we're discussing the need to hand out harsh punishments.

Which would then let everybody know that they can run on the pitch and expect a light punishment, so they're far more likely to do it than if they face a lifetime ban.

True, and they will now know that they face a lifetime ban. There will be far fewer incidents of people running onto the pitch because most fans don't want to face a lifetime ban. Therefore, it's a deterrent that works.

...I don't think it does. I think it provides short term results that never stick and fails to nail the more persistent and often more violent perpetrators. But we then criminalise a small number of people who could have been better served with a lesser punishment.

And having lived in London for almost 10 years and during the riots of the early 80's the places where the trouble was comes as no surprise. Same places, same problems and same circumstances all over again....and 'making examples of people' while failing to deal with the underlying problems didn't work then either.

As for someone running on the pitch...it will happen..more than once during the season and probably in greater numbers at some point and depending on circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A "lifetime ban" ... how exactly do you even enforce that ?

Whats stopping him coming on Saturday , ?

Just an assumption here, but it probably is difficult to physically enforce - but it would be making it a criminal offence for him to set foot on the grounds. He'd be made aware that if he is caught, he'd face further punishment. I'd also assume that there are relatively few people with lifetime bans, and so the police/stewards/officials wouldn't have too many faces to remember if they are trying to physically prevent the guy returning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its purely false advertising... it just says dont step on the pitch not dont step on the pitch and we will ban you for life.

why dont they put please dont step on pitch or you will be prosecuted or fined ect....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think part of the issue here might be that the club has been warned by the FA about the conduct of the fans on previous occasions, for example the Palace game. It does state in the article that actions taken by the club will affect the outcome of any enquiries, so they are acting now to try and prevent further problems down the line. Last thing we need is being hit by a fine or having other sanctions against us.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it provides short term results that never stick and fails to nail the more persistent and often more violent perpetrators.

But it wasn't the more persistent and more violent perpetrators that were causing the majority of the problems with these events. People were in fear and businesses were destroyed because of the ordinary kids who wouldn't have normally become involved if they'd realised that the punishments would be severe. They thought they had nothing to lose, now they know different.

And having lived in London for almost 10 years and during the riots of the early 80's the places where the trouble was comes as no surprise. Same places, same problems and same circumstances all over again....and 'making examples of people' while failing to deal with the underlying problems didn't work then either.

The difference though, is that those riots were around 30 years ago. Most of the people involved this time around weren't even born then. Making examples of people back then stopped similar events taking place for a long time. If the punishments were light back then, these events would've been much more commonplace in the years between. The deterrent doesn't always last forever, but it'll last a long time. A deterrent that can last for 30 years is much better than not having a deterrent at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently it was only 5 years initially, but he successfully appealed to get it extended.

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its purely false advertising... it just says dont step on the pitch not dont step on the pitch and we will ban you for life.

why dont they put please dont step on pitch or you will be prosecuted or fined ect....

I don't have a ticket to hand right now, but doesn't it say something on the back of the ticket about not entering the field of play because it's a criminal offence? I've been to plenty of grounds where they do warn that entering the field of play is a criminal offence - often over the speakers, but sometimes there are signs dotted around too - maybe Hillsborough itself is lacking in this respect.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it wasn't the more persistent and more violent perpetrators that were causing the majority of the problems with these events. People were in fear and businesses were destroyed because of the ordinary kids who wouldn't have normally become involved if they'd realised that the punishments would be severe. They thought they had nothing to lose, now they know different.

The difference though, is that those riots were around 30 years ago. Most of the people involved this time around weren't even born then. Making examples of people back then stopped similar events taking place for a long time. If the punishments were light back then, these events would've been much more commonplace in the years between. The deterrent doesn't always last forever, but it'll last a long time. A deterrent that can last for 30 years is much better than not having a deterrent at all.

No...the circumstances were similar. The 'making an example' didn't stop those who were involved in serious gang violence. Likewise, the circumstances that caused and fuelled the recent riots wasn't just 'ordinary kids'. They joined in when they realised how ineffectual the policing was and because they could get away with it.

Those involved in serious gang violence, looting, violence and intimidation remained after the 80's riots and will be around after these. Making examples of 'ordinary kids' will only increase problems if it criminalises them and pushes them towards the idea of the 'family' within gang culture.

The easiest and cheapest methods of 'showing we are in control' will be used and slapped all over the papers and other media and in 6 months will be forgotten.

Interestingly Prince Charles appears to be the one talking sense...and that takes something and speaks volumes about this government...whatever happened to 'Hug A Hoodie'? Did it change to 'Hang A Hoodie' because it suited?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently it was only 5 years initially, but he successfully appealed to get it extended.

lol

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...