NailseaRed Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Not sure if this has been talked about, maybe it did and got removed, but did Brooker escape punishment from the club after their little tussle in town? I remember the other three being dropped but Brooker wasn't was he? Or was he injured. seems a bit unfair if he got special treatment from the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazareth Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 http://www.bcfc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/News/...~780357,00.htmlJust when we thought we were over the crest of the hill... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NailseaRed Posted February 21, 2006 Author Share Posted February 21, 2006 give it five minutes before it gets removed. why are we not able to discuss things mentioned on the main site?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mikenoski Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 I thought it was just Brown, Orr and Partridge. What did Brooker do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CiderHider Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Allmost forgot about this little happening Lets hope they get a fair trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NailseaRed Posted February 21, 2006 Author Share Posted February 21, 2006 sounds like he is being charged too, but the club didn't punish him did they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 give it five minutes before it gets removed. why are we not able to discuss things mentioned on the main site?!See my statement above, Matt. Its not that we can't its, just we have to be careful what we say. Tom, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lordofthebling Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Brilliant news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NailseaRed Posted February 21, 2006 Author Share Posted February 21, 2006 Having read the newly pinned item regarding the court case I don't see how my thread broke any of the new said rules. Modding is getting way over the top now. my thread was asking about the club punishment not the court hearing, can you let me know which rule that broke? or is it just personal yet again tom? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CiderHider Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 give it five minutes before it gets removed. why are we not able to discuss things mentioned on the main site?!Nonsence, they can't remove this, it's legitimate news and fine for discussion no?I know the club are not saying much about it, but why would they? It's hardly great new, i just guess people better be careful what they say here i suppose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedM Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 I was wondering what was happening regarding this. I think the club has acted properly by releasing this statement and confirming the court date, there would be lots more rumour, gossip and speculation if they had tried to keep it quiet. Not what we want regarding our relegation worries, but what is done is done and should be left to the courts now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazareth Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Out of interest, how could anything posted here be prejudicial to a court hearing? All jurors are selected on the basis that they have no knowledge of the people involved and no prior knowledge of the incident. If those jurors are surfing a Bristol City fans forum in the first place then they are in contempt of court! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NailseaRed Posted February 21, 2006 Author Share Posted February 21, 2006 yeah course be careful and don't discuss what happend that night, but i don't see how discussing the punishment the club handed out is really going to effect the court case. I very much doubt the judge will look on here haha. Sometimes the mods think this forum is more important than it is. Not everyone lives their life on the forum! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Port Said Red Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Allegedly there was more than one incident around the same time, so in theory it could have been worse as more players could be on charges, if the police had been involved more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_red Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 aww dang, dang??? oh, anyway i got a trip to the magistrates on monday and their case is on the wednesday, just my luck really Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Out of interest, how could anything posted here be prejudicial to a court hearing? All jurors are selected on the basis that they have no knowledge of the people involved and no prior knowledge of the incident. If those jurors are surfing a Bristol City fans forum in the first place then they are in contempt of court!You don't get jurors at a magistrates court hearing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NailseaRed Posted February 21, 2006 Author Share Posted February 21, 2006 haha had two threads removed about this now. modding on here is ridiculous. Anyone else feel mods are a bit personal sometimes? My thread said the same as this one yet got removed. how is that fair? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CiderHider Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Out of interest, how could anything posted here be prejudicial to a court hearing? All jurors are selected on the basis that they have no knowledge of the people involved and no prior knowledge of the incident. If those jurors are surfing a Bristol City fans forum in the first place then they are in contempt of court!True, but i think this forum still could be held liable if information relating to the incident is posted here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 haha had two threads removed about this now. modding on here is ridiculous. Anyone else feel mods are a bit personal sometimes? My thread said the same as this one yet got removed. how is that fair?They have been MERGED Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NailseaRed Posted February 21, 2006 Author Share Posted February 21, 2006 You don't get jurors at a magistrates court hearing.Could it be explained how this forum could influence the court hearing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CiderHider Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 haha had two threads removed about this now. modding on here is ridiculous. Anyone else feel mods are a bit personal sometimes? My thread said the same as this one yet got removed. how is that fair?They are just covering there own behinds, or they could get into deep doggy do do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_red Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 You don't get jurors at a magistrates court hearing.thats right tom you get 3 magistartes who are not paid, they are generally very nosy toffs (i am doing magistrates at the mo, just finished juries Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NailseaRed Posted February 21, 2006 Author Share Posted February 21, 2006 They have been MERGEDmaybe an idea for mods to pm people just before they are about to have their posts removed or merged? rather than just moving what people have said without telling them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 maybe an idea for mods to pm people just before they are about to have their posts removed or merged? rather than just moving what people have said without telling them?I agree, but as you can understand it has hit the fan and they haven't had time.I have dropped you a PM anyway Matthew. It wasn't me that deleted your post, and its not personal. I am just trying to do my job in a situation thats less that ideal right now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NailseaRed Posted February 21, 2006 Author Share Posted February 21, 2006 They are just covering there own behinds, or they could get into deep doggy do do.Covering the whole of your behind is pretty hard to do without thinking about it. maybe modding should put just as much thought into the modding rather than just deleting everything in site! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Port Said Red Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Covering the whole of your behind is pretty hard to do without thinking about it. maybe modding should put just as much thought into the modding rather than just deleting everything in site! 25 posts on this thread in as many minutes, mods have to make quick decisions and sometimes err on the side of caution, that's understandable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeRed Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Affray is quite a serious charge.Many football fans have been jailed when convicted of such a charge.I believe the maximum sentence is 6 months (at Magistrates Court) or 3 years (if case goes to Crown Court).However I would imagine that IF the players are found guilty then a lesser punishment may well given - for example in the Jonathen Woodgate (Leeds United) case he was convicted of Affray and received a sentence of 100 hours community service.Whatever happens this could be the final twist in this up and down season as appearing in court must affect a person, remember that Woodgate didn't play at all whilst the trial was ongoing - although Bowyer did carry on playing & was found not guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Could it be explained how this forum could influence the court hearing?Along the lines of sub judice Of judicial proceedings, not yet decided by a court of law or judge. As long as a matter is sub judice all discussion is prohibited elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mike11 Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Orr,Partridge and Brown took some serious flak on here and from the fans in general over this.Orr and Brown going in front of the cameras to apologise.Not a week goes by without posters relating to it."Town boy incident".."The appalling conduct of 3 of our players".Brooker should maybe brace himself for more of the same?Hmmmm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CGS RED Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Any comment or allegation which may influence or have adverse affect on the hearing, should rightly be removed. The four players are entitled to a fair hearing, and facts rather than speculation and innuendo should be the only guideline on the forum, as it will be in a court of law.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Port Said Red Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Brooker should maybe brace himself for more of the same?Hmmmm. He's charged not sentenced lets not get ahead of ourselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NailseaRed Posted February 21, 2006 Author Share Posted February 21, 2006 I'm more interested in the club punishment in the past nothing at all to do with the future court case. why was brooker not punished by the club? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Port Said Red Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 I'm more interested in the club punishment in the past nothing at all to do with the future court case. why was brooker not punished by the club? As we are in alegal mood, I refer my honourable friend to my earlier comment. maybe the club accepted Brookers explanation of his involvement in the events. Maybe they did punish him and didn't make it public, we don't know. We also don't know if he did anything wrong yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cary Grant supported City Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Irrespective of what the players were "alledged" to of done, it's like with ALL cases, at ALL Clubs, where their players have "alledged" to have been involved in some incident, you have to take care when chatting about it on forums like this, as that's the law of the land, and could get the "Mods" in serious trouble!!.The same could be said if you were to go on here slagging off the Company you worked for!!.IF you were unlucky enough that your Boss was also reading this Forum, then they could have you on a charge of Gross Misconduct as they gave you your cards!!.So talk about the "Alledged" incident freely, BUT use a little bit of "Common" sense with what you write, and then EVERYBODY will be happy!!. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snufflelufagus Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 If found guilty perhaps community service would be appropriate ie serving the public by playing for us for free or maybe possible free coaching sessions to kids at school (whether or not they would be good role models by doing this is another discission) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NailseaRed Posted February 21, 2006 Author Share Posted February 21, 2006 357 replies later and my original subject point of my thread comes forward for discussion thanks honourable horn Surely no body apart from those four know what happens so still seems unfair for the club to give different punishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cary Grant supported City Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 I'm more interested in the club punishment in the past nothing at all to do with the future court case. why was Brooker not punished by the club?Always on rule for one player and another rule for the other's!!.Like certain player's being fined by Danny Wilson for missing training, and other's getting away with it frequently, "Allegedly!". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
City Exile Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 If found guilty the custodial sentance rate for Actual Bodily Harm (which is the charge Partridge faced) is about one in four and average sentence around 3 months. However I would assume that custodial sentences are even less for first offenders (assuming that applies here) so while it may prey on his mind it is unlikely to mean he is unable to play.Although I suppose you could have the entertaining spectacle of him playing tagged at MK! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cary Grant supported City Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 If found guilty perhaps community service would be appropriate ie serving the public by playing for us for free or maybe possible free coaching sessions to kids at school (whether or not they would be good role models by doing this is another discussion)A half Decent Football Club would have their Player's doing work in the Community, as to already be a part of that Community, whether it be coaching at School's, Chatting to the folk in Old Age Homes, or the sick in the Hospital!. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Port Said Red Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 357 replies later and my original subject point of my thread comes forward for discussion thanks honourable horn Surely no body apart from those four know what happens so still seems unfair for the club to give different punishment. Well yes to a degree however... Orr and Brown felt it necessary to apologise for their involvement which could be construed as meaning they are in a different position to Brooker. (I am choosing my words VERY carefully here you understand). Which may also explain why the club has dealt with them differently..... (mods' I hope this is Ok?!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_red Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 If found guilty the custodial sentance rate for Actual Bodily Harm (which is the charge Partridge faced) is about one in four and average sentence around 3 months. However I would assume that custodial sentences are even less for first offenders (assuming that applies here) so while it may prey on his mind it is unlikely to mean he is unable to play.Although I suppose you could have the entertaining spectacle of him playing tagged at MK!should never assume makes an ass out of you and me, sorry love that saying!!But you know what these magistrates may think big time footballing thugs. bad influence etc etc, could do it as a sort of denounciation type of thing, trying to make an example of a proffesional footballer knowing it will be well-documented in the press so a future detterence of that kind of behaviour to lil kids, you get me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WARWICK RED Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 should think it will be a slap on the wrist =fine and maybe some community service very much doubt that they would get a jail term for it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedTop Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Could it be explained how this forum could influence the court hearing?Certainly. This is how I understand it:As the matter is now going before a court, there is a risk of contempt of court. Just because the first hearing is being held in a magistrates' court it does not necessarily mean it will be heard there. The magistrates may determine that the case is serious enough to be moved into crown court, which often happens. There is therefore a risk of anything that is published at this stage being read by potential jurors and prejudicing either the prosecution or defence. Those is court must make their judgement on guilt and sentence based purely on the evidence presented in the courtroom. Therefore anything else that may be judged inadmissible must not interefere.In fact, one must remember that strictly speaking it is not only jurors that may be swayed by what they read outside a courtroom. The law is imposed to prevent any suggestion that judges or magistrates may have been swayed by inadmissible evidence etc too. Bear in mind many of those who become involved in the case will not even be aware at this stage that they will be, so they will continue picking up gossip and 'information' as we all do every day from papers, friends, the Internet etc.While the risk of a juror etc reading prejudicial material - or hearing about it from a friend, relative etc - may be higher if it's published in the Evening Post, this forum is also covered and it is right that it should be. The trial will almost certainly go ahead in Bristol. With that in mind, the law of averages means it is highly possible that one of the magistrates, or the judge, or a juror will either be a Bristol City fan or have a close relative who is. Given that, it is also highly possible that the Bristol City fan might read this forum as an interested fan and gossip about anything on it with friends and relatives, especially if he/she hears they have become involved in a case involving his/her favourite club. Even a Gashead who despises the club might pick up gossip because of an interest and pass it on in all innocence.Imagine the consequences, for example, if (hypothetically, obviously) someone read a post the forum and said in passing to someone who ended up on a jury: "Apparently Player X has a history of getting drunk and getting into fights on the Dockside. One of the guys on the forum said he saw Player X punch a guy in the face and leave him in a pool of blood a couple of weeks before that incident, and that they were lucky the police weren't called. And apparently he's got a criminal record for assault, so he's obviously a bit of a lad." Well human nature being what it is, it becomes very difficult for jurors (and often magistrates, in my experience) to ignore the suggestion that someone has previous convictions or a notoriety for violence when they make a decision. This means the player involved has been denied a fair trial and will either suffer accordingly or face a new trial at immense extra public cost and personal distress. That is why previous convictions are almost always inadmissible until guilt or innocence has been determined and can only be considered when it comes to sentencing, and why it is vital that gossip etc must not be allowed to affect the system.Once there has been an arrest, but before the players appear in court, procedings automatically become 'active' and are covered by the Contempt of Court Act 1981. The test is whether anything published might create "a substantial risk" of "serious impediment or prejudice" to either the prosecution or defence cases. That is the situation we are currently in until the players appear in court.The first hearing at a magistrates court is almost always a straight 'up and down' to determine pressing issues like bail etc. At that point, the case falls under the Magistrates' Court Act 1980 which imposes further limits. That means that until the trial is held or a guilty plea is entered and sentencing takes place, we are limited to just ten (rather boring) points of fact that can be published, such as their names, ages, addresses, the exact charges, who their lawyers are etc. No discussion of the supposed 'facts' of what actually happened beyond what is stated in the charge is permitted. At a later point during an actual trial, or once the case continues with a guilty plea and the facts being read out in court, the details given in evidence can obviously be published and we will all be at liberty to talk about them provided we do not suggest that there are other facts etc that the court are not aware of etc.Strictly speaking, even once the matter of guilt or innocence is determined, the risk of contempt continues until the judge or magistrates has imposed a sentence. Once the case is over the above rules vanish and we are all free to say what we like again provided we bear in mind, as always, the law of libel.I'm sure that as City fans and as ordinary members of the public all we want is for justice to be done and the players to get a fair trial. With that in mind, the simple answer is that if you're not sure whether what you want to say is allowed or not, hold back until after the trial when all the above rules vanish. If they go beyond the restrictions above, it won't be the moderators acting like tyrants, it will be the moderators enforcing the law to protect you, them and the players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mike11 Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 He's charged not sentenced lets not get ahead of ourselves.The other three were only "charged".Didn't stop them copping for a load did it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cary Grant supported City Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Anyway, Bristol City v Nottingham Forest is going to be a great match now!!. very much doubt that they would get a jail term for itWe've had the worst sentence this season................................Watching the player's on and off of the park!!. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Port Said Red Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Well yes to a degree however... Orr and Brown felt it necessary to apologise for their involvement which could be construed as meaning they are in a different position to Brooker. (I am choosing my words VERY carefully here you understand). Which may also explain why the club has dealt with them differently..... (mods' I hope this is Ok?!) The other three were only "charged".Didn't stop them copping for a load did it? I don't normally like to quote myself, but the above could apply equally to your post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mike11 Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 I don't normally like to quote myself, but the above could apply equally to your post.They are being charged with the same offence.Affray.The fact that two of them have apologised doesn't make them any more guilty does it?If anything it brings into question Brooker's conduct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedTop Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 As we are in alegal mood, I refer my honourable friend to my earlier comment. maybe the club accepted Brookers explanation of his involvement in the events. Maybe they did punish him and didn't make it public, we don't know. We also don't know if he did anything wrong yet.It must also be borne in mind that the thresholds are different. Just because the club has punished players does not mean they are guilty of offences in law. It is perfectly possible that an incident can bring the club into disrepute or break player rules regarding drinking or nights out, without breaking the law. Equally, just because the club has accepted Brooker's explanation (if it has) does not mean that a court has to!However, if a player is found guilty and the court has to consider the sentence then it can only work in his favour if his lawyer can show he has already suffered a degree of punishment in way of a fine etc by his employer. It doesn't always guarantee leniency but it frequently has an affect during mitigation and I've never seen a case where it has worked against the defendant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazareth Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 StuffThis is the kind of post that TomF et al do not want... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolman Block B Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 They are being charged with the same offence.Affray.The fact that two of them have apologised doesn't make them any more guilty does it?If anything it brings into question Brooker's conduct.Does anyone know the maximum penalty for AFFRAY???I havent got a clue, but if these lads are found guilty, are they likley to be be made examples of because their in the public eye, or how will the manager look at this. Blimey, if he,s tough on some because they have a beer or two, they could have the book thrown at them!!!This is truly an awful situation, these players must feel terrible, very unsettling knowing they got to go to court.Will GJ rest them? Can he afford to?What a nightmare, just when the sun has started to shine a liittle on the pitch for us.And D Partridge, sounds like big trouble for him.I'm dumbstruck and gutted for all at the football club..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Let's hope the most important lesson has been thoroughly learned:Don't go to Romeo Brown's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 This is the kind of post that TomF et al do not want...And delete.The report button helps me out, I am busy today to say the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
City Exile Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 It is an affray if you use or threaten violence to somebody else in such a way that a person of reasonable firmness would fear for his or her personal safety.Street fighting, with or without weapons or missiles, is an affray. It can be tried in the Crown Court or the Magistrates' Court. The maximum penalty is three years' imprisonment.Serious assaults on individuals include the offences of inflicting grievous bodily harm and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. These offences are set out in the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 . If you cause or inflict grievous bodily harm on somebody or wound him or her - that is, cut the skin, the maximum penalty is life imprisonment. If the person dies, the charge may be murder or manslaughter. If the injury is less serious, such as bruising or grazes, the charge may be assault occasioning actual bodily harm, with a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment.That all sounds pretty heavy. But, bear in mind that a magistrates court is usually chosen over a crown court when it is deemed less serious.Equally, in ABH, the most serious charge made here, 1 in 4 lead to a custodial sentance. This is much lower if it is a first offense.In the vast majority of 'affray' charges (which are quite common after a scrap on a Saturday night up and down the country), the person charged pleads guilty, and if it is a first offense, gets no more than a fine and/or community service. It would be wrong to speculate on this case clearly - they may plead not guilty, they may be proved innocent. Statistically the outcome however is very likely to be that a guilty outcome would lead to anybody charged with these offenses, for whom it is a first offense, being a bit lighter in the pocket, having to do a few hours community service, and hopefully feeling a little wiser. For people charged and found guilty of affray for instance, it is often argued that the most damaging personal outcome, above any punishment handed out, is that this does then bestow a 'criminal record' which is if you like a lifetime sentance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cider head Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bucksred Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Stuff all the fancy words, and legalese!! Lets hope ALL the bloody players LEARN summat from this sorry bloody affair. Grow up. Behave. No excuses anymore. If the club/pub/whatever has a dodgy reputation stay the fork out.End of rant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Stuff all the fancy words, and legalese!! Lets hope ALL the bloody players LEARN summat from this sorry bloody affair. Grow up. Behave. No excuses anymore. If the club/pub/whatever has a dodgy reputation stay the fork out.End of rant.Well said, lets hope it stops the drinking culture once and for all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan C Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 This is just what we don't need in the closing months of the season with a relegation fight on our hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_red Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 thinking about the club did release a statement about brooker didn't they, just afterlink Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy g Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 I hope we (the fans) give the players concerned the same benefit of the doubt we would give to our fellow fans in incidents like this.And for the sake of our league position, lets not go wildly overboard with this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mtraveller Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 what do you think city will do if these lads are found guilty. will the club keep them or can they sack the four. it looks like partridge is in the most trouble he will have to answer 2 charges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 what do you think city will do if these lads are found guilty. will the club keep them or can they sack the four. it looks like partridge is in the most trouble he will have to answer 2 charges.have you been out all day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mtraveller Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 what do you mean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 what do you meandid you see the thread lower down with 2 pages of replies on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SouthGlosRed Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 I'm more interested in the club punishment in the past nothing at all to do with the future court case. why was brooker not punished by the club?Wasn't it that case that regarding any part Brooker may or may not have played in any incidents that night, he did not come under possible suspicion until a later date, hence he was not initially treated the same way as the other three ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bucksred Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Will the players learn owt? Wheeled out for the routine apology. Lets hope they meant it.aint going to hold my breath though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest revkev Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Let's hope Goblin doesn't get burgled or himself or anyone else in his household gets attacked. I can only think of the despair in his heart at having to deal with the corrupt royalist gestapo etc., etc. to defend him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest revkev Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 So you won't bother calling 999 then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorset_Cider Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Could it be explained how this forum could influence the court hearing?It got Danny Wilson sacked ....... oh no...... it didn't...... did it...... because this forum does not sway opinon....... right....... erm or wrong........... as the case may be your honour...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bucksred Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 ..........just like Tony Martin, the burgled farmer, himself a victim of the Royalist Gestapo Police and their corrupt puppet masters in the toff/snob led Crown Prosecution Service. In Texas USA Tony Martin would have received a $5,000 reward not 2 years in one of your imposter 'God' Queen's prisons Face facts - this country's legal system is generally regarded as being the most corrupt and class based - i.e. toff/snob led - legal system in Western Europe. God Save Us from the Royalist tyranny.Goblin, spare us the Martin pony- he shot someone with an ILLEGAL pump action shotgun........in no country bar the US do they allow pump actions to be held legally by anyone. The burglar got what he deserved, but Martin was little better-if you cant do the time, don't do the crime. He would probably have escaped jail had it just been a double barreled gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 From what I understand, Tony Martin had been burgled many times previously as had many other farmers and householders in his area. His overpaid/underworked regional Royalist Gestapo Police knew of the problems and did little to deal with the problem of rural crime. Unfortunately for Tony martin, he admitted to 'fetching a gun' therefore the shooting became planned - a low life Crown Prosecution Service lawyer picked up on this statement to convict Tony Martin of a premeditated killing. The fact that Tony Martin was probably scared out of his wits by intruders in the middle of the night on his lonely small-holding and the fact that he was sick of the Gestapo Police allowing so many burglaries would not matter to the corrupt Crown Prosecution Service. Tony Martin claimed to have "found" the unlicensed Winchester 1300 Defender Pump action shotgun holding 8 cartridges that he used to shoot a 16 year old in the back. He went down because noone in the courtroom believed he was scared, his premeditated actions were enough proof he had different motives.I agree the police are terrible at dealing with burglaries, mainly due to there not being enough resources to investigate them properly and prosecute, and I agree that people have a right to defend themselves and their home, but in that particular case he went waaaaay over the line.Nibor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.