Blues attacked by Utd fans get banned

[Bigga]

Interesting.

I've read the whole thread and yet not one person has noted that the must have had

a) other punters in and

b) staff on to serve them.

So, here's the question; did none of these people come forward and speak on behalf the 'innocent' since they were vital witnesses??

Strange...

 

[chumpster1]

“Missiles were then launched from the United fans which smashed some of the windows. Those inside responded by hurling objects through the broken glass with terrified members of staff ducking for cover.

These two sentences imply that the staff only ducked for cover when objects got thrown out of the already broken windows.


As Bigga says .. Strange indeed

 

[mancunial]

Had the same type of incident in tameside back when Beckham scored the free kick at Maine road, a mob turned up on a pre arranged meeting between certain united fans even sending individuals in to check out the opposition inside the pub, they burst through the doors only to be turned on by everyone and shoed all the way down the road, next day I was told by another red that they met at certain pubs along the way to pick up reinforcements and even waited around the corner from the pub before making their move, that is their mentality sometimes the best laid plans come unstuck, so I have a lot of sympathy with these guys they did what they had to do.

 

[Alex the Blue]

Interesting.

I've read the whole thread and yet not one person has noted that the must have had

a) other punters in and

b) staff on to serve them.

So, here's the question; did none of these people come forward and speak on behalf the 'innocent' since they were vital witnesses??

Strange...

My understanding is if you plead guilty at Crown Court no witnesses are called. It's down to the barristers to argue for the defendents.

 

[sergiokun]

Interesting.

I've read the whole thread and yet not one person has noted that the must have had

a) other punters in and

b) staff on to serve them.

So, here's the question; did none of these people come forward and speak on behalf the 'innocent' since they were vital witnesses??

Strange...

Maybe because they pleaded guilty there was no witnesses there? To be fair if theses blues was enjoying a beer and wasn't looking for trouble then its very harsh. I don't like fans fighting its childish and no need for it but on some cases some people just need a kickin to shut them or or put them back in there place.

Breaking windows with people on the other side is a joke and they probably deserved everything they got.
And i am sure they will do it again unless punished and the police won't do that so the blues did and now get a 5 year ban. What's happened to the cowards that did the damage?

 

[Bigga]

Interesting.

I've read the whole thread and yet not one person has noted that the must have had

a) other punters in and

b) staff on to serve them.

So, here's the question; did none of these people come forward and speak on behalf the 'innocent' since they were vital witnesses??

Strange...

My understanding is if you plead guilty at Crown Court no witnesses are called. It's down to the barristers to argue for the defendents.

All the more strange...

In my opinion, if one is innocent and you have witnesses to back that to the hilt, you use them, full stop. However, if you've stated you're innocent and the witnesses may just not concur with your view, then you have problems.

Perhaps they thought 'mitigating circumstances' via 'provocation' might just win them the day...

 

[stonerblue]

When given the option of pleading guilty and getting fined or pleading not guilty and getting sent down then it's a no-brainer.

yeah you are right mate,i was talking to one of the lads the other week n he's glad not to be going to jail,think they got a result to be honest

The law do it all the time. All this 'there were witnesses, you're in the right so go to cc and prove your innocence' guff very rarely ends well for the accused.

 

[cyberblue]

Interesting.

I've read the whole thread and yet not one person has noted that the must have had

a) other punters in and

b) staff on to serve them.

So, here's the question; did none of these people come forward and speak on behalf the 'innocent' since they were vital witnesses??

Strange...

My understanding is if you plead guilty at Crown Court no witnesses are called. It's down to the barristers to argue for the defendents.

All the more strange...

In my opinion, if one is innocent and you have witnesses to back that to the hilt, you use them, full stop. However, if you've stated you're innocent and the witnesses may just not concur with your view, then you have problems.

Perhaps they thought 'mitigating circumstances' via 'provocation' might just win them the day...

The proescutaion could make Mother Thersa sound like the bat out of hell .if you were in crown court & had the chance of getting no jail time for pleading guilty or a strech if the jury didnt believe you what would you do ?

 

[Bigga]

My understanding is if you plead guilty at Crown Court no witnesses are called. It's down to the barristers to argue for the defendents.

All the more strange...

In my opinion, if one is innocent and you have witnesses to back that to the hilt, you use them, full stop. However, if you've stated you're innocent and the witnesses may just not concur with your view, then you have problems.

Perhaps they thought 'mitigating circumstances' via 'provocation' might just win them the day...

The proescutaion could make Mother Thersa sound like the bat out of hell .if you were in crown court & had the chance of getting no jail time for pleading guilty or a strech if the jury didnt believe you what would you do ?

Why the fook would anyone plead if they're innocent??

Does that make sense to any sane person who knows that the BAR STAFF would vindicate the story of self defence?? The prosecution would have to make liars of the bar staff too, surely?

*shakes head*

Wow...

 

[allan harper]

All the more strange...

In my opinion, if one is innocent and you have witnesses to back that to the hilt, you use them, full stop. However, if you've stated you're innocent and the witnesses may just not concur with your view, then you have problems.

Perhaps they thought 'mitigating circumstances' via 'provocation' might just win them the day...

The proescutaion could make Mother Thersa sound like the bat out of hell .if you were in crown court & had the chance of getting no jail time for pleading guilty or a strech if the jury didnt believe you what would you do ?

Why the fook would anyone plead if they're innocent??

Does that make sense to any sane person who knows that the BAR STAFF would vindicate the story of self defence?? The prosecution would have to make liars of the bar staff too, surely?

*shakes head*

Wow...

My own personal experience at crown court that's what would happen. The prosecution wouldn't have to make liars out of the bar staff, they'd just use leading questions.

Was these city fans defending themselves ? ( they'd never in a million years ask that question )