> 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?
Ok, what is the banning order meant to do - to prevent people at a venue (football ground) causing trouble. In this case someone has been banned from a football ground but neither committed it at a football ground, was in no way football related (telling a copper to ease up on another citizen), nor in this case did they commit an offence under the strict definition of the law, if what was posted earlier is the law. > > 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. They could and should, however causing offence is NOT one of the criteria for banning orders - again if what was posted earlier is the law. Indeed, part of the enjoyment of going to a football match was to cause offence, be that towards oppo players, management, referees and so on. > > The police officer was being hindered in doing his duty, which could have huh? Are you playing devil's advocate here? Having some low volume soundwaves hit your eardrum cannot be considered a "hindrence". Unless it is James Blunt of course. > 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'. Dont understand the point? Are you saying, prosecute everyone because at least some of them have done it before and gotten away with it, or might do it again? > > A punishment NEEDS to serve as a deterent. > A warning/caution would equally serve as a deterrent and would cost far less to the taxpayer and free up court time for proper crimes and proper criminals. > The rules are there for everyone to see, Football Supporters Act, Public > Order, etc. So saying a (what society currently deems) rude word is a public order offence and warrants court time, taxpayers money and a banning order? > 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. I understand what you are doing, but assuming the facts of the case are as has been presented I think the law has been abused in this instance. Fuck me, what happened to free speech? Would he have gotten away with calling the copper a "blinking busybody"? I am guessing he would. I agree that the police force need to have respect, but police officers are human like the rest of us and can and will take the piss. We all do and say things in the heat of the moment, police and us lot, if after reflection the bloke said he regretted what he said and apologised he should be cautioned and let go. If he did it a second time well then throw the book at him. IMO of course :-) _______________________________________________ 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
