Rebellious Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 It is, but watch the poor bastard get a £100,000 fine now to bring him in line with Pardew. Fair point. That's what I was going to type before work called. I would reply that I would be happy to allow him back to the stadium as long as he pays £100k to charity. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebellious Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Its a shame that last paragraph where he tells the CI that he is posting the replies online. That will obviously curb his next reply if he makes one. You could almost feel the CI squirming in his seat as he read it. I`m not sure he is allowed to share it publically. I know you can`t record someone and share it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtype Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 That conversation would have much more credibility if it wasn't initiated by someone who's already on a stadium ban. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 That conversation would have much more credibility if it wasn't initiated by someone who's already on a stadium ban. It ran out 2 years ago. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belfast Boy Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 That conversation would have much more credibility if it wasn't initiated by someone who's already on a stadium ban. Quite the opposite, he is highlighting the unfairness in the way the two cases have been dealt with. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 That's what I was going to type before work called. I would reply that I would be happy to allow him back to the stadium as long as he pays £100k to charity. Good idea, let's fine one person a few years wages to bring him in line with somebody who will earn his fine in a matter of weeks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtype Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 That conversation would have much more credibility if it wasn't initiated by someone who's already on a stadium ban. Quite the opposite, he is highlighting the unfairness in the way the two cases have been dealt with. I'd like to know the circumstances of his case and what he did before deciding that it's unfair. Now it just looks like he's using it as an excuse to complain about his own treatment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
manosdepiedra Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 That conversation would have much more credibility if it wasn't initiated by someone who's already on a stadium ban. Quite the opposite, he is highlighting the unfairness in the way the two cases have been dealt with. I'd like to know the circumstances of his case and what he did before deciding that it's unfair. Now it just looks like he's using it as an excuse to complain about his own treatment. Some goon appeared from nowhere at half time when we played Hull in the cup in 2009 and attempted to tear down a banner Keith was holding up. Keith threw three punches, none of which connected. Never been in trouble of any kind before. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shays Given Tim Flowers Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Ancillary orders get granted without a moments thought or hesitation. That being said it seems fair enough that somebody who works in football ought to fall into an exception when it comes to football banning orders. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtype Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 That conversation would have much more credibility if it wasn't initiated by someone who's already on a stadium ban. Quite the opposite, he is highlighting the unfairness in the way the two cases have been dealt with. I'd like to know the circumstances of his case and what he did before deciding that it's unfair. Now it just looks like he's using it as an excuse to complain about his own treatment. Some goon appeared from nowhere at half time when we played Hull in the cup in 2009 and attempted to tear down a banner Keith was holding up. Keith threw three punches, none of which connected. Never been in trouble of any kind before. Fair enough, didn't realize he was a personal acquaintance of people on here. It sounds like he received and completed a fair punishment relative to what he did, but I can understand why he'd feel aggrieved about the current situation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Ancillary orders get granted without a moments thought or hesitation. That being said it seems fair enough that somebody who works in football ought to fall into an exception when it comes to football banning orders. Why should somebody who works in football fall into an exception? If I nutted somebody and went to prison I'd lose my job, why should it be different for somebody in football? Somebody who is more likely to be looked upon as a role model than I am. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebellious Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 That's what I was going to type before work called. I would reply that I would be happy to allow him back to the stadium as long as he pays £100k to charity. Good idea, let's fine one person a few years wages to bring him in line with somebody who will earn his fine in a matter of weeks. Exactly as you have highlighted, they can`t be treated the same because they are not. One is a member of public that goes to the stadium for fun, so he lost that right for being a twat. One goes to the stadium to work and do a job, so he lost his wages for being a twat. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belfast Boy Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Ancillary orders get granted without a moments thought or hesitation. That being said it seems fair enough that somebody who works in football ought to fall into an exception when it comes to football banning orders. Why should somebody who works in football fall into an exception? If I nutted somebody and went to prison I'd lose my job, why should it be different for somebody in football? Somebody who is more likely to be looked upon as a role model than I am. Obviously there are circumstances where banning orders are not appropriate. From the extreme, ie Groves v Froch hitting each other in Wembley stadium, and the likes of Remy's ban for headbutting. But at what point does that line get crossed to a normal fan who gets a banning order? They are saying Pardew falls into the "let the sport deal with it" side, what if Ashley himself attacked a fan? What about a steward assaulting another steward? What if someone like "Hendo", who was at the game purely as a fan got involved in something? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shays Given Tim Flowers Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Ancillary orders get granted without a moments thought or hesitation. That being said it seems fair enough that somebody who works in football ought to fall into an exception when it comes to football banning orders. Why should somebody who works in football fall into an exception? If I nutted somebody and went to prison I'd lose my job, why should it be different for somebody in football? Somebody who is more likely to be looked upon as a role model than I am. Ok, if you 'nutted' someone like Pardew did you wouldn't go to Prison. Fact. You may not even get community service, as to whether you would lose your job, well that's a matter for your employer. The simple fact is that banning orders were brought in to stop hooliganism and organised fighting at football. They have subsequently been over used. If someone's entire livelihood is dependant on a particular business then it is arguably disproportionate to ban them from football stadiums. Particularly for something as momentary and harmless as Pardew on Meyler. That's not to say their shouldn't be any state imposed sanction on Pardew. Pardew can thank himself very lucky no further action was taken against him. I'm also not the same as saying people should be punished differently for like offences. Just that Courts have a range of sanctions they can impose to ensure that people receive the same level of punishment without necessarily using the exact same sentencing tools. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebellious Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Ancillary orders get granted without a moments thought or hesitation. That being said it seems fair enough that somebody who works in football ought to fall into an exception when it comes to football banning orders. Why should somebody who works in football fall into an exception? If I nutted somebody and went to prison I'd lose my job, why should it be different for somebody in football? Somebody who is more likely to be looked upon as a role model than I am. If you nutted someone as hard as Pardew did and went to prison you would have had the shittest solicitor or barrister in the world. Also when I was at school we all picked footballers as role models not managers, have things changed ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtype Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Most players are exempt from legal liability for minor physical threats/harm to other players based on a theory of implied consent. Basically, if you're a professional football player you've signed on for the risk of injury and the occasional flaring of tempers. Whether this extends to managers assaulting players as well would be an interesting question that I don't have the answer to. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shays Given Tim Flowers Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 It almost certainly wouldn't extend to managers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 That's what I was going to type before work called. I would reply that I would be happy to allow him back to the stadium as long as he pays £100k to charity. Good idea, let's fine one person a few years wages to bring him in line with somebody who will earn his fine in a matter of weeks. Exactly as you have highlighted, they can`t be treated the same because they are not. One is a member of public that goes to the stadium for fun, so he lost that right for being a t***. One goes to the stadium to work and do a job, so he lost his wages for being a t***. That's a load of bollocks, was Pardew not equally being a twat? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtype Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 It almost certainly wouldn't extend to managers. There's an argument to be made that if you look at it from the perspective of each individual player unilaterally consenting to the risk and waiving the right to suit for all reasonably foreseeable football-related injury, as opposed to an implicit agreement among players not to bring suit against each other for what happens during matches, I think you could argue that it applies to managers as well. All of this is debatable and largely pointless in the end, of course. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shays Given Tim Flowers Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 It almost certainly wouldn't extend to managers. There's an argument to be made that if you look at it from the perspective of each individual player unilaterally consenting to the risk and waiving the right to suit for all reasonably foreseeable football-related injury, as opposed to an implicit agreement among players not to bring suit against each other for what happens during matches, I think you could argue that it applies to managers as well. All of this is debatable and largely pointless in the end, of course. I think a fracas where a manager involved is about as far as it goes. I think anything above a bit of pushing and shoving, or a particularly nasty tackle on the football pitch (i.e. punches, head butts etc) is probably criminal. The fact that such instances aren't always prosecuted blurs the line. Yeah. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Ok, if you 'nutted' someone like Pardew did you wouldn't go to Prison. Fact. You may not even get community service, as to whether you would lose your job, well that's a matter for your employer. The simple fact is that banning orders were brought in to stop hooliganism and organised fighting at football. They have subsequently been over used. If someone's entire livelihood is dependant on a particular business then it is arguably disproportionate to ban them from football stadiums. Particularly for something as momentary and harmless as Pardew on Meyler. That's not to say their shouldn't be any state imposed sanction on Pardew. Pardew can thank himself very lucky no further action was taken against him. I'm also not the same as saying people should be punished differently for like offences. Just that Courts have a range of sanctions they can impose to ensure that people receive the same level of punishment without necessarily using the exact same sentencing tools. I'll not nut somebody so I don't expect to find out what would happen to me but if I was daft enough I think I would think that time in prison was a possibility. I've been following football long enough to know that actions of one person, even "something as momentary and harmless as Pardew on Meyler" can lead to far greater problems in the crowd, luckily we've moved on from those times and luckily the headbutting incident was contained. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shays Given Tim Flowers Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Dont think for a second I'm saying he wasn't a twat Mick. Overreaction or not he's lucky it hasn't ended up in trouble with the law. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest chopey Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Has Pardew been sent to FA jail yet Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 If you nutted someone as hard as Pardew did and went to prison you would have had the shittest solicitor or barrister in the world. Also when I was at school we all picked footballers as role models not managers, have things changed ? Barrett is claiming that he was heavily fined and banned for throwing punches which didn't connect so how can you claim that actually connecting with a head wouldn't bring a greater penalty? One of our fans was rightly jailed for punching a horse without injuring it, I'm not even sure if the punch connected. Taking that further and expecting somebody who nutted another person might go to prison isn't that far fetched. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 If you nutted someone as hard as Pardew did and went to prison you would have had the shittest solicitor or barrister in the world. Also when I was at school we all picked footballers as role models not managers, have things changed ? Barrett is claiming that he was heavily fined and banned for throwing punches which didn't connect so how can you claim that actually connecting with a head wouldn't bring a greater penalty? One of our fans was rightly jailed for punching a horse without injuring it, I'm not even sure if the punch connected. Taking that further and expecting somebody who nutted another person might go to prison isn't that far fetched. His punches didn't connect. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts