https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/n ... -year-ban/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No, he’s a pr1ck

That goes without saying.

PaintYorkClaretnBlue wrote:No, he’s a pr1ck

Go on elaborate?

Ahh, the good old football banning order. The offence of not actually doing anything but you're found guilty of it and banned. In any other walk of life uproar but say it's football and that's ok.

Stevebfc40 wrote:Ahh, the good old football banning order. The offence of not actually doing anything but you're found guilty of it and banned. In any other walk of life uproar but say it's football and that's ok.

Correct.... That's the one.

tim_noone wrote:Go on elaborate?

Not necessary, speaks for itself.

PaintYorkClaretnBlue wrote:
Not necessary, speaks for itself.

TBH from that report not really at all.Found guilty of no criminal charges.

The key word here is allegedly. So he obviously hasn't been nicked or caught on CCTV involved in any bother. But because the local plod know him and have taken a dislike to him that's enough to warrant a 4 year ban? It's a shame they didn't pursue those Hannover lads with the same vigour.

How do I get myself one of these?

Do you think the courts would allow me to have one for just Dyche's tenure at the club?

He's committed no crime. He's been tried by what is effectively a kangaroo court.

So, this is the second time that he's not done anything ?

A tad unlucky I would say.

Funkydrummer wrote:So, this is the second time that he's not done anything ?

A tad unlucky I would say.

You got there in the End...."is this guy unlucky" yes....though that's debatable regards the football being played.

Some of the comments at the bottom of that report... you can tell Rovers are doing well in the Championship. Their fans have come out of the woodwork.

Do you get banned from driving if police suspect you may have been speeding? Without hard evidence it would be laughed out of court. Football fans must be the only people police are still allowed to victimize and treat like dirt and it's acceptable for some reason.

Stevebfc40 wrote:TBH from that report not really at all.Found guilty of no criminal charges.

Steve, this is civil law which requires a lower burden of proof than a criminal court. It was heard in a magistrates court so it isn’t the police just deciding to pick on somebody, there does need to be evidence, the matter is decided “on the balance of probabilities” rather than “beyond reasonable doubt” as in a criminal case.
E
It’s almost as though some people on here believe that the police randomly pick out a football fan and issue a banning order just because they can, it’s laughable. The police can’t and don’t do that, they present the evidence in front of a bench of magistrates who then weigh up that evidence and make a decision.

It means it would be thrown out in a criminal court. If let's say the alleged troublemaker called a copper a pr!ck....your choice of word would he deserve a banning order?

tim_noone wrote:It means it would be thrown out in a criminal court. If let's say the alleged troublemaker called a copper a pr!ck....your choice of word would he deserve a banning order?

Is the story about you Tim?

Its a load of ********. Fair enough if somebody had been assaulted but nowadays your guilty for being in with the crowd thats passionate about your club.

I believe he went to the european games and the world cup. Dedication

PaintYorkClaretnBlue wrote:Is the story about you Tim?

No...this is about police at football being above the Law.Burnley v Blackburn for one. Burnley v Hanover ...Brown trousers.

tim_noone wrote:No...this is about police at football being above the Law.Burnley v Blackburn for one. Burnley v Hanover ...Brown trousers.

Yeah, ok.

PaintYorkClaretnBlue wrote:Steve, this is civil law which requires a lower burden of proof than a criminal court. It was heard in a magistrates court so it isn’t the police just deciding to pick on somebody, there does need to be evidence, the matter is decided “on the balance of probabilities” rather than “beyond reasonable doubt” as in a criminal case.
E
It’s almost as though some people on here believe that the police randomly pick out a football fan and issue a banning order just because they can, it’s laughable. The police can’t and don’t do that, they present the evidence in front of a bench of magistrates who then weigh up that evidence and make a decision.

I'm aware of the workings of civil bans. The 'evidence' is may we say 'open to interpretation', which when being presented by the police, magistrates will take as fact.

As previously mentioned, the Hannover game. The 'culprits' were confined in the stadium. Security and police were witnesses to it. It's on CCTV, yet nothing.

Maybe he was a easy target after the first ban. I’ve known people go through this. The police over exaggerate situations. People who drink in certain pubs and associate with certain people are watched unbeknown to their knowledge. Then all that “evidence” is piled together in a file and presented to the mags. 90% of the time the accused don’t have the financial ability to fight them and it could be anything as simple as being drunk at a game that starts the process

PaintYorkClaretnBlue wrote:Steve, this is civil law which requires a lower burden of proof than a criminal court. It was heard in a magistrates court so it isn’t the police just deciding to pick on somebody, there does need to be evidence, the matter is decided “on the balance of probabilities” rather than “beyond reasonable doubt” as in a criminal case.
E
It’s almost as though some people on here believe that the police randomly pick out a football fan and issue a banning order just because they can, it’s laughable. The police can’t and don’t do that, they present the evidence in front of a bench of magistrates who then weigh up that evidence and make a decision.

Culvert_for_one wrote:

DE7CAD51-47B3-43E3-A119-4D26D0BABCA7.jpeg

That much is definitely true.