Take the emotive subject (ie, football) out of it and look at it from a
different perspective.
What offence should be committed before a banning order is invoked?
Why shouldn't someone take offence just because they are called a c**t and
does it make it more or less acceptable when this is done in a public place.
The police officer was being hindered in doing his duty, which could have
been a different charge but carries similar sentencing.
How does the court know that this is a 'one time offender', remember that it
only takes 2 murders before you are classified a 'Serial Killer'.
A punishment NEEDS to serve as a deterent.
The rules are there for everyone to see, Football Supporters Act, Public
Order, etc.
I am not agreeing with the sentence given nor am I condoning the actions of
the individual, I am just looking at the facts presented.
Before anyone asks I am not a Solicitor.
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Richard Walker" <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 9:25 AM
To: "'Sean Emmott'" <[email protected]>; "'Terry Emmott'"
<[email protected]>; "Mark Humphries"
<[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>; "'Ted'" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [LU] At last we are top of the league............
This is a complete joke. We've got 152 banning orders - the police love to
publish these figures in an attempt to justify their presence at football
matches , yet when you look at why people are really banned it makes a
mockery of the whole process.
--- On Fri, 27/2/09, Mark Humphries <[email protected]>
wrote:
From: Mark Humphries <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [LU] At last we are top of the league............
To: "'Sean Emmott'" <[email protected]>, "'Terry Emmott'"
<[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected], "'Ted'" <[email protected]>
Date: Friday, 27 February, 2009, 7:30 AM
If a copper is "A PERSON LIKELY TO BE CAUSED
HARASSMENT, ALARM OR DISTRESS"
from the use of a naughty word then I suggest they move
into a more suitable
line of work!
I would personally feel more alarm, harassed or distressed
if someone walked
past in a shell suit.
As the law seemingly doesn't include need the
'person' to be offended, then
I wonder if the law is being used in the right way here -
ie for threatening
behaviour rather than a passing verbal..
> got off the train and saw one of these lads being
arrested and, in his
> words "roughed up". So he said to the
police "leave him alone you
> jobsworth cunts". They jumped on him, took his
details and let him go.
> Told him he would prob get a written warning but not a
summons. but he
> got a summons for "THREATENING ABUSIVE OR
INSULTING WORDS OR BEHAVIOUR
> OR
> DISORDERLY BEHAVIOUR WITHIN THE HEARING OR SIGHT OF A
PERSON LIKELY TO
> BE
> CAUSED HARASSMENT, ALARM OR DISTRESS THEREBY.",
according to the charge
> sheet.
_______________________________________________
the Leeds List is an unmoderated mailing list and the list
administrators accept no liability for the personal views
and opinions of contributors.
Leedslist mailing list
[email protected]
http://list.zetnet.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist
Sorry Macca - it's the curse of Bates old lad
_______________________________________________
the Leeds List is an unmoderated mailing list and the list administrators
accept no liability for the personal views and opinions of contributors.
Leedslist mailing list
[email protected]
http://list.zetnet.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist
Sorry Macca - it's the curse of Bates old lad
_______________________________________________
the Leeds List is an unmoderated mailing list and the list administrators
accept no liability for the personal views and opinions of contributors.
Leedslist mailing list
[email protected]
http://list.zetnet.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist
Sorry Macca - it's the curse of Bates old lad
