Look its more than likely that these 4 were "involved" in some way. The OB just didnt pick 4 people off the street at random. Being dim shouldnt get you banned or in front of the man. If thats the case then the OB would nick em selves !!!
There is far to much going on in the name of anti terrorism / OB clearing up their nick nick targets .
[cite]Posted By: BlackForestReds[/cite]Downloading stuff on terrorism and bomb making may or may not lead to that person constructing a bomb, but until then it shouldn't be criminalised.
good points in your analysis, very sensible post, though i really don't understand anything of this sentence in a way of logic
[cite]Posted By: Goonerhater[/cite]Yes much better to wait until they actually blow people to bits ! so we care about the basic point of law here but not on the other ?
Let's see if you can grasp this concept - one downloading child porn is a criminal act because it encourages and is in itself the consequence of another criminal act - ie the abuse of children, plus it encourages further child abuse, and that is more likely to happen if there is a pecuniary motive involved.
The other, downloading instructions on how to make a bomb, doesn't necessarily mean that a criminal act will ensue, although I agree that it is suspicious activity. If there is no other supporting evidence, such as the suspects gathering bomb making material, acting with intent in any way then I don't see that it is or should be a criminal act in itself.
[quote][cite]Posted By: Goonerhater[/cite]Look its more than likely that these 4 were "involved" in some way. The OB just didnt pick 4 people off the street at random. Being dim shouldnt get you banned or in front of the man. If thats the case then the OB would nick em selves !!!
There is far to much going on in the name of anti terrorism / OB clearing up their nick nick targets .[/quote]
Can't argue with the last bit Gh, or the the banned for being dim line.
Looks like we agree on the first bit as well, happy days :-)
[cite]Posted By: Goonerhater[/cite]BFR so how can the "association" of people in public places be a crime without a crime actually happening ? there has to be INTENT.
I think you need to read the report again, in particular pay attention to the line about the four "not opposing the orders", rather than the intent to cause trouble bit, why would they not oppose these orders if they weren't guilty? It seems these four made a habit of hanging around pubs frequented by opposition fans and made a nuisance of themselves doing so to boot and therefore got a reputation with the OB.
It would though be interesting to view the evidence rather than a cursory report in the paper. In this case I reckon there was sufficient photographic evidence etc for them to convicted, and they pleaded guilty to lesser charges rather than risk a trial and a criminal record. The rest of the report, ie the bit about intent is window dressing by the OB to make it look like they took down four hardened hooligans rather than four numpties who now have their Saturday afternoons back.
I really don't believe some of the comments on here. This board is either full of old bill who have first hand knowledge, or else people are just making it up as they go along!
Possesing information on bomb making material, whether downloaded, in a book or on the back of a bus ticket is in fact illegal. Whether you intend to use said material is irrelevant in the eyes of the law, you can still be nicked for it. Scenario, if someone is in possesion of kiddie porn, and they decide not to use it, in vulgar terms, not jack off to it or sell it or pass it on to others, does this make it acceptable to keep it and have it in your possesion?, of course it doesnt.
[quote][cite]Posted By: Goonerhater[/cite]BFR so how can the "association" of people in public places be a crime without a crime actually happening ? there has to be INTENT.[/quote]
I thought we had covered this one GH? The association bit is part of the report, there is no official suggestion that that was what they were in trouble for. The key phrases are "caught provoking opposition fans with violence" and "...hang around outside grounds looking for trouble". The OB obviously have had their eye on them for some time, as they set up a sting to catch them (although quite how that worked I don't know...).
Bottom line is they got caught, and when confronted with the evidence, they took the banning order in preference to a court appearance.
[cite]Posted By: Off_it[/cite]I really don't believe some of the comments on here. This board is either full of old bill who have first hand knowledge, or else people are just making it up as they go along!
Plus, why so much agression today?
or people somewhere in between perhaps? its clear that half the people commenting on the article (which may or may not be factual anyway!) read it one way and the other half read it another and hold the complete opposite point of view. Whats wrong with that? doesn't make either side Police or Mafia?!
[cite]Posted By: DJ Davey Dave[/cite]I know John Brown, 32. LOL!!!!!!
he was part of the crowd that found pleasure in trashing the last carriage of the (free) train back from operation riverside.
assuming the others named were also part of that crowd, i couldn't give a fcuk whether they were/are innocent. we don't need them sort of 'fans'.
[cite]Posted By: Off_it[/cite]I really don't believe some of the comments on here. This board is either full of old bill who have first hand knowledge, or else people are just making it up as they go along!
Plus, why so much agression today?
or people somewhere in between perhaps? its clear that half the people commenting on the article (which may or may not be factual anyway!) read it one way and the other half read it another and hold the complete opposite point of view. Whats wrong with that? doesn't make either side Police or Mafia?!
My point was that people seem to be stating FACTS when all they've got to go on is the same snippets in the article that you and i have read. But take it how you want to Suzi, doesn't bother me in the slightest.
Comments
There is far to much going on in the name of anti terrorism / OB clearing up their nick nick targets .
good points in your analysis, very sensible post, though i really don't understand anything of this sentence in a way of logic
Let's see if you can grasp this concept - one downloading child porn is a criminal act because it encourages and is in itself the consequence of another criminal act - ie the abuse of children, plus it encourages further child abuse, and that is more likely to happen if there is a pecuniary motive involved.
The other, downloading instructions on how to make a bomb, doesn't necessarily mean that a criminal act will ensue, although I agree that it is suspicious activity. If there is no other supporting evidence, such as the suspects gathering bomb making material, acting with intent in any way then I don't see that it is or should be a criminal act in itself.
There is far to much going on in the name of anti terrorism / OB clearing up their nick nick targets .[/quote]
Can't argue with the last bit Gh, or the the banned for being dim line.
Looks like we agree on the first bit as well, happy days :-)
I think you need to read the report again, in particular pay attention to the line about the four "not opposing the orders", rather than the intent to cause trouble bit, why would they not oppose these orders if they weren't guilty? It seems these four made a habit of hanging around pubs frequented by opposition fans and made a nuisance of themselves doing so to boot and therefore got a reputation with the OB.
It would though be interesting to view the evidence rather than a cursory report in the paper. In this case I reckon there was sufficient photographic evidence etc for them to convicted, and they pleaded guilty to lesser charges rather than risk a trial and a criminal record. The rest of the report, ie the bit about intent is window dressing by the OB to make it look like they took down four hardened hooligans rather than four numpties who now have their Saturday afternoons back.
Plus, why so much agression today?
Whether you intend to use said material is irrelevant in the eyes of the law, you can still be nicked for it.
Scenario, if someone is in possesion of kiddie porn, and they decide not to use it, in vulgar terms, not jack off to it or sell it or pass it on to others, does this make it acceptable to keep it and have it in your possesion?, of course it doesnt.
I thought we had covered this one GH? The association bit is part of the report, there is no official suggestion that that was what they were in trouble for. The key phrases are "caught provoking opposition fans with violence" and "...hang around outside grounds looking for trouble". The OB obviously have had their eye on them for some time, as they set up a sting to catch them (although quite how that worked I don't know...).
Bottom line is they got caught, and when confronted with the evidence, they took the banning order in preference to a court appearance.
If they had been muggers I wouldn't just want them banned from dark alley ways but locked up.
or people somewhere in between perhaps? its clear that half the people commenting on the article (which may or may not be factual anyway!) read it one way and the other half read it another and hold the complete opposite point of view. Whats wrong with that? doesn't make either side Police or Mafia?!
The thought of him just makes me laugh! Little fat lad, works on The Dust.
he was part of the crowd that found pleasure in trashing the last carriage of the (free) train back from operation riverside.
assuming the others named were also part of that crowd, i couldn't give a fcuk whether they were/are innocent. we don't need them sort of 'fans'.
Printing names and addresses in the paper, makes you wonder where the press get their kicks from.
if you are correct, then apologies to the other 3 for my assumption.
My point was that people seem to be stating FACTS when all they've got to go on is the same snippets in the article that you and i have read. But take it how you want to Suzi, doesn't bother me in the slightest.