FSF - Walking away from trouble

I know it wasn't a fine. I look forward to others paying over €1,000 for wasting police time.

He wasn't actually convicted of anything, was he? Yet he gets a banning order whilst the rugby thug, who had pregious,captured on camera putting the boot in gets an on the spot fine and no banning order. Not exactly even-handed, is it?

 

When I first read the article, I was quite sceptical, mainly because I believe most trouble at football games and other sports is not caused by the under privileged youth, but by people in their 30s and 40s from perfectly normal backgrounds (see photo evidence above).

But actually, this approach may be onto something. There would be nothing so annoying, inconveniencing and humiliating to a hardened hooligan than getting a softly softly visit at home by the police, preferably with their mum present, and being made to go to a group meeting to discuss their anger issues and early life traumas. I would get them all to do a "Ted talks" about their enlightenment, and put it on you tube for everyone to see.

If they don't agree, banning order that expires just in time for the next World Cup, then get them on a plane and feed em to the Russians.

 

Don't think he can have done much if there wasn't anything to take him to court for, especially when you look at some of the reasons people have been to court for and even ended up in jail for at City matches.

A lot of football fans have had their time wasted by the police, a shame they can't be compensated.

 

Think this is a great idea for younger fans -say the under 18s (or under 21s, maybe)
though I don't know what proportion of banning orders are made on this age group?
However IMHO anyone over this age is far more set in their ways and less likely to respond to such an approach. They can chuck the book at them as far as I'm concerned, especially if the offence is violence or race related.

 

Some people commenting clearly haven't even read all of the original post

 

What about religion related? Or benefit claiming related? Or geographically related?

The keenness to hand out banning orders regarding football was highlighted by a case in Leeds a while ago. A bloke was caught by a police officer for passing in a shop doorway. This happened no far from Elland Road on the night of a match. He got stroppy and had a go at the copper and was arrested.
He was fined for urinating in a public place and resisting arrest. The magistrate said that because of his scuffle with the policd near a football ground on a match day here was applying for a banning order. To which the bloke replied he could do what he wanted, it didn't bother him as he hadn't been to the football and wasn't a football fan.

 

To be absolutely sure, stick em on a boat 30 miles out to sea and tip them off. The ****ers won't survive that