|
Post by a on Aug 23, 2022 18:53:06 GMT
Are you a lawyer, willie ? If so you will know that FBOs are, in law, not part of the punishment but are supposed to be a necessary measure to prevent future disorder, although I think there is widespread ignorance of that point, both inside and outside the judicial system. Consider for example the proposal advanced by Patel and others that possession of drugs in a football ground should attract a FBO. If someone in possession in a football ground engages in a violent act, or runs on to the pitch, they are likely to attract an FBO anyway. But if they don't, and their possession is not accompanied by another offence, it's difficult to see how it meets the legal test for an FBO. In that sense the fact that they are in a football ground as opposed to, say, a pub, a music festival, Parliament (where you will recall evidence of cocaine use was found ) or wherever is irrelevant. All it is likely to do is transfer the possession and the use to another environment. Now, PBOs - Parliamentary Banning Orders - there's an idea Iam. The legislation is some of the most Draconian out there. They, at the time, served a purpose. They do not so much now. The recent legislation change in June to allow Communications Act offences to be subject to FBOs is just the pits. Out of interest, how, if a change in the law/legislation helps (and it is of course subjective) at reducing online racist abuse regarding football (fans/players) then why should it be a problem?
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Aug 23, 2022 18:53:33 GMT
I can’t access the recording, as I don’t live in the UK anymore. From what I’ve read, the FBOs are being extended to cover football-related, online racial abuse as well as those found with Class A drugs in the Stadium. Is there really an issue with this? I was thinking the same. I gather that some folk aren’t happy at football fans being banned, when such sanctions may not exist for festivals? To be honest if it deters online racists, drug users at football, those throwing flares etc then I don’t mind, as I don’t do any of that myself. If you’re daft enough to do any of the above then you deserve to be kept away from those keen to just go watch the match, maybe sing a few songs and enjoy a sensible amount of amber nectar. Use of pyros in a football ground, which is both dangerous and anti-social, can already attract an FBO. I have commented above on drug use in a football ground. I don't think there is any evidence to support the proposition that FBOs would deter on-line racists, precisely because that offence is committed on-line. There is no evidence to suggest that the majority of on-line racism is committed by match-going fans, and of course an FBO wouldn't prevent someone continuing to engage in it. All in all the whole thing is a politically-generated non-story.
|
|
|
Post by a on Aug 23, 2022 18:54:54 GMT
I was thinking the same. I gather that some folk aren’t happy at football fans being banned, when such sanctions may not exist for festivals? To be honest if it deters online racists, drug users at football, those throwing flares etc then I don’t mind, as I don’t do any of that myself. If you’re daft enough to do any of the above then you deserve to be kept away from those keen to just go watch the match, maybe sing a few songs and enjoy a sensible amount of amber nectar. Use of pyros in a football ground, which is both dangerous and anti-social, can already attract an FBO. I have commented above on drug use in a football ground. I don't think there is any evidence to support the proposition that FBOs would deter on-line racists, precisely because that offence is committed on-line. There is no evidence to suggest that the majority of on-line racism is committed by match-going fans, and of course an FBO wouldn't prevent someone continuing to engage in it. All in all the whole thing is a politically-generated non-story. Fair enough, so the online abusers don’t go to matches, so that’s a moot point, but drug users at football receiving harsh punishments? I’d have thought that would be welcomed by the FSA.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Aug 23, 2022 19:06:01 GMT
Use of pyros in a football ground, which is both dangerous and anti-social, can already attract an FBO. I have commented above on drug use in a football ground. I don't think there is any evidence to support the proposition that FBOs would deter on-line racists, precisely because that offence is committed on-line. There is no evidence to suggest that the majority of on-line racism is committed by match-going fans, and of course an FBO wouldn't prevent someone continuing to engage in it. All in all the whole thing is a politically-generated non-story. Fair enough, so the online abusers don’t go to matches, so that’s a moot point, but drug users at football receiving harsh punishments? I’d have thought that would be welcomed by the FSA. The point I made above is that FBOs, which is what this is about, are not in law part of the punishment. You have illustrated my comment that this is often not understood. Society can have a debate about what level of legal punishment is appropriate for different types of drug possession or use, and the relative roles of legal punishments and rehabilitation and education. The point I made was that if that use or possession in a football ground is not accompanied by any other offence or violent misbehaviour, the fact that it's in a football ground should be irrelevant, and not treated as different to any other environment.
|
|
|
Post by willieeetmiout on Aug 23, 2022 19:28:36 GMT
Iam. The legislation is some of the most Draconian out there. They, at the time, served a purpose. They do not so much now. The recent legislation change in June to allow Communications Act offences to be subject to FBOs is just the pits. Out of interest, how, if a change in the law/legislation helps (and it is of course subjective) at reducing online racist abuse regarding football (fans/players) then why should it be a problem? If you, for example, racially abused me, a doctor, a nurse, a bus driver etc online you would be punished. If you, for example, racially abused a footballer online you would be punished AND would likely receive a FBO that would restrict your movements on a weekly basis both at home and abroad. Why the difference? None actually involve going to a football match. Edit In fact let me give you a better example. You racially abuse a footballer online. You are sentenced and receive a restrictive FBO. As a result of the above the footballer posts your tweet and it goes viral. You are then subjected to death threats etc. The person sentenced is punished but no restrictive FBO. Neither involved attendance at a football match. Why should there be a difference in ancillary orders made?
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Aug 23, 2022 19:31:55 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Aug 23, 2022 19:38:58 GMT
|
|
|
Post by a on Aug 23, 2022 19:55:44 GMT
Fair enough, so the online abusers don’t go to matches, so that’s a moot point, but drug users at football receiving harsh punishments? I’d have thought that would be welcomed by the FSA. The point I made above is that FBOs, which is what this is about, are not in law part of the punishment. You have illustrated my comment that this is often not understood. Society can have a debate about what level of legal punishment is appropriate for different types of drug possession or use, and the relative roles of legal punishments and rehabilitation and education. The point I made was that if that use or possession in a football ground is not accompanied by any other offence or violent misbehaviour, the fact that it's in a football ground should be irrelevant, and not treated as different to any other environment. I suppose I would liken it to a pub landlord barring someone who is found to be in possession/taking drugs in their pub. Would you suggest that they shouldn’t have that right? And if yes then how is it different to a football club?
|
|
|
Post by a on Aug 23, 2022 19:57:41 GMT
Out of interest, how, if a change in the law/legislation helps (and it is of course subjective) at reducing online racist abuse regarding football (fans/players) then why should it be a problem? If you, for example, racially abused me, a doctor, a nurse, a bus driver etc online you would be punished. If you, for example, racially abused a footballer online you would be punished AND would likely receive a FBO that would restrict your movements on a weekly basis both at home and abroad. Why the difference? None actually involve going to a football match. Edit In fact let me give you a better example. You racially abuse a footballer online. You are sentenced and receive a restrictive FBO. As a result of the above the footballer posts your tweet and it goes viral. You are then subjected to death threats etc. The person sentenced is punished but no restrictive FBO. Neither involved attendance at a football match. Why should there be a difference in ancillary orders made? No they don’t. I also don’t condone people making death threats or taking the law into their own hands. But that is on the basis that this hypothetical scenario you created plays out. Leave it as it is then because poor drug takers are being mistreated.
|
|
|
Post by willieeetmiout on Aug 23, 2022 19:59:13 GMT
The point I made above is that FBOs, which is what this is about, are not in law part of the punishment. You have illustrated my comment that this is often not understood. Society can have a debate about what level of legal punishment is appropriate for different types of drug possession or use, and the relative roles of legal punishments and rehabilitation and education. The point I made was that if that use or possession in a football ground is not accompanied by any other offence or violent misbehaviour, the fact that it's in a football ground should be irrelevant, and not treated as different to any other environment. I suppose I would liken it to a pub landlord barring someone who is found to be in possession/taking drugs in their pub. Would you suggest that they shouldn’t have that right? And if yes then how is it different to a football club? Can the pub landlord request you attend a police station within 3 days of being barred in order to provide them with various details? Can the pub landlord stop you going within large areas on given days? Can a pub landlord prevent you from entering different parts of the country on given days? Can the pub landlord restrict your movements abroad? Can the pub landlord request you surrender your passport to the police? Do you commit a crime to which you can be imprisoned if you don't comply with the order?
|
|
|
Post by willieeetmiout on Aug 23, 2022 20:04:02 GMT
If you, for example, racially abused me, a doctor, a nurse, a bus driver etc online you would be punished. If you, for example, racially abused a footballer online you would be punished AND would likely receive a FBO that would restrict your movements on a weekly basis both at home and abroad. Why the difference? None actually involve going to a football match. Edit In fact let me give you a better example. You racially abuse a footballer online. You are sentenced and receive a restrictive FBO. As a result of the above the footballer posts your tweet and it goes viral. You are then subjected to death threats etc. The person sentenced is punished but no restrictive FBO. Neither involved attendance at a football match. Why should there be a difference in ancillary orders made? No they don’t. I also don’t condone people making death threats or taking the law into their own hands. But that is on the basis that this hypothetical scenario you created plays out. Leave it as it is then because poor drug takers are being mistreated. Obviously my post has nothing to do with drugs at all. You do realise being drunk in a public place is a crime. You do realise if you do that on the way to a football match you could receive a FBO. It is the most Draconian piece of legislation I have seen enacted. It is not fit for purpose, and extending the offences where a FBO can be imposed is reactionary and poorly thought out.
|
|
|
Post by a on Aug 23, 2022 20:04:59 GMT
I suppose I would liken it to a pub landlord barring someone who is found to be in possession/taking drugs in their pub. Would you suggest that they shouldn’t have that right? And if yes then how is it different to a football club? Can the pub landlord request you attend a police station within 3 days of being barred in order to provide them with various details? Can the pub landlord stop you going within large areas on given days? Can a pub landlord prevent you from entering different parts of the country on given days? Can the pub landlord restrict your movements abroad? Can the pub landlord request you surrender your passport to the police? Do you commit a crime to which you can be imprisoned if you don't comply with the order? Sounds extreme but I suppose it would depend on the severity of the offence? I’d like to think that the punishment would fit the crime, given the time and cost to implement.
|
|
|
Post by a on Aug 23, 2022 20:06:48 GMT
No they don’t. I also don’t condone people making death threats or taking the law into their own hands. But that is on the basis that this hypothetical scenario you created plays out. Leave it as it is then because poor drug takers are being mistreated. Obviously my post has nothing to do with drugs at all. You do realise being drunk in a public place is a crime. You do realise if you do that on the way to a football match you could receive a FBO. It is the most Draconian piece of legislation I have seen enacted. It is not fit for purpose, and extending the offences where a FBO can be imposed is reactionary and poorly thought out. I meant the idea as a whole. But yes I am aware of the implications. I’d be interested to see how many drunk on the way to a match will receive this full blown FBO, restricting freedom of movement etc. not many would be my guess, if any
|
|
|
Post by willieeetmiout on Aug 23, 2022 20:08:37 GMT
Can the pub landlord request you attend a police station within 3 days of being barred in order to provide them with various details? Can the pub landlord stop you going within large areas on given days? Can a pub landlord prevent you from entering different parts of the country on given days? Can the pub landlord restrict your movements abroad? Can the pub landlord request you surrender your passport to the police? Do you commit a crime to which you can be imprisoned if you don't comply with the order? Sounds extreme but I suppose it would depend on the severity of the offence? I’d like to think that the punishment would fit the crime, given the time and cost to implement. Unfortunately it doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by cvillestokie on Aug 23, 2022 20:11:46 GMT
Fair enough, so the online abusers don’t go to matches, so that’s a moot point, but drug users at football receiving harsh punishments? I’d have thought that would be welcomed by the FSA. The point I made above is that FBOs, which is what this is about, are not in law part of the punishment. You have illustrated my comment that this is often not understood. Society can have a debate about what level of legal punishment is appropriate for different types of drug possession or use, and the relative roles of legal punishments and rehabilitation and education. The point I made was that if that use or possession in a football ground is not accompanied by any other offence or violent misbehaviour, the fact that it's in a football ground should be irrelevant, and not treated as different to any other environment. I’m just getting my head around this debate and it’s developments and I’m likely to ask some stupid questions, however; if a person were to commit a solitary, violent offence in a ground, would they be banned? Or would they just be told not to do it again? Does the FBO allow for stricter punishments to be dealt in the first instance, if the person was using a Class A drug? I personally don’t believe that sensible use of drugs is the worst thing in the World. I do however, dislike the results from the Kent (?) study that suggests 30% of fans have witnessed drug use at matches. I don’t think it’s a big deal for adults, but it isn’t something that should be done in the presence of children. Measures to limit this from occurring aren’t the worst thing, either, in my opinion. With regards to online, racial abuse, I don’t know what the issue is. I suppose that they are looking for a way to increase the level of punishment because a small fine doesn’t seem to work and for as much as they are scum, I believe that prison is only warranted for dangers to society (violent criminals).
|
|
|
Post by willieeetmiout on Aug 23, 2022 20:21:15 GMT
The point I made above is that FBOs, which is what this is about, are not in law part of the punishment. You have illustrated my comment that this is often not understood. Society can have a debate about what level of legal punishment is appropriate for different types of drug possession or use, and the relative roles of legal punishments and rehabilitation and education. The point I made was that if that use or possession in a football ground is not accompanied by any other offence or violent misbehaviour, the fact that it's in a football ground should be irrelevant, and not treated as different to any other environment. I’m just getting my head around this debate and it’s developments and I’m likely to ask some stupid questions, however; if a person were to commit a solitary, violent offence in a ground, would they be banned? Or would they just be told not to do it again? Does the FBO allow for stricter punishments to be dealt in the first instance, if the person was using a Class A drug? I personally don’t believe that sensible use of drugs is the worst thing in the World. I do however, dislike the results from the Kent (?) study that suggests 30% of fans have witnessed drug use at matches. I don’t think it’s a big deal for adults, but it isn’t something that should be done in the presence of children. With regards to online, racial abuse, I don’t know what the issue is. I suppose that they are looking for a way to increase the level of punishment because a small fine doesn’t seem to work and for as much as they are scum, I believe that prison is only warranted for dangers to society (violent criminals). In theory yes. If a punch you in the nose in the Town Centre on a night out causing a bloodied nose I would get a police caution (assuming I admitted it and had never been in trouble before). If I punch you in the nose at the end of a football game (assuming I admitted it and had never been in trouble before) I would likely be charged and have Court appearance with a significantly harsher punishment as a FBO can only be given on conviction for an offence (ignoring civil applications).
|
|
|
Post by thepiermaster on Aug 23, 2022 20:36:52 GMT
Fuck me, she should try watching Stoke at the minute WITHOUT being on drugs. That would very quickly change her mind.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Aug 23, 2022 20:49:53 GMT
The point I made above is that FBOs, which is what this is about, are not in law part of the punishment. You have illustrated my comment that this is often not understood. Society can have a debate about what level of legal punishment is appropriate for different types of drug possession or use, and the relative roles of legal punishments and rehabilitation and education. The point I made was that if that use or possession in a football ground is not accompanied by any other offence or violent misbehaviour, the fact that it's in a football ground should be irrelevant, and not treated as different to any other environment. I’m just getting my head around this debate and it’s developments and I’m likely to ask some stupid questions, however; if a person were to commit a solitary, violent offence in a ground, would they be banned? Or would they just be told not to do it again? Does the FBO allow for stricter punishments to be dealt in the first instance, if the person was using a Class A drug? Basically it's all a matter for the police and then the magistrates. If the police decide to charge you and you are convicted, they can apply to the court for an FBO. If it was a first offence and not too serious you might escape without a FBO, but unlikely if the police ask the court for one and it involved violence. Willie may comment from his experience of the courts.
|
|
|
Post by cvillestokie on Aug 23, 2022 20:50:53 GMT
I’m just getting my head around this debate and it’s developments and I’m likely to ask some stupid questions, however; if a person were to commit a solitary, violent offence in a ground, would they be banned? Or would they just be told not to do it again? Does the FBO allow for stricter punishments to be dealt in the first instance, if the person was using a Class A drug? I personally don’t believe that sensible use of drugs is the worst thing in the World. I do however, dislike the results from the Kent (?) study that suggests 30% of fans have witnessed drug use at matches. I don’t think it’s a big deal for adults, but it isn’t something that should be done in the presence of children. With regards to online, racial abuse, I don’t know what the issue is. I suppose that they are looking for a way to increase the level of punishment because a small fine doesn’t seem to work and for as much as they are scum, I believe that prison is only warranted for dangers to society (violent criminals). In theory yes. If a punch you in the nose in the Town Centre on a night out causing a bloodied nose I would get a police caution (assuming I admitted it and had never been in trouble before). If I punch you in the nose at the end of a football game (assuming I admitted it and had never been in trouble before) I would likely be charged and have Court appearance with a significantly harsher punishment as a FBO can only be given on conviction for an offence (ignoring civil applications). So, then it seems that if someone doesn’t want to fall afoul of problems that may affect their day-to-day lives, they should probably just practice civility and not go around punching people in the face? That seems pretty easy to do to be honest.
|
|
|
Post by willieeetmiout on Aug 23, 2022 21:07:05 GMT
I’m just getting my head around this debate and it’s developments and I’m likely to ask some stupid questions, however; if a person were to commit a solitary, violent offence in a ground, would they be banned? Or would they just be told not to do it again? Does the FBO allow for stricter punishments to be dealt in the first instance, if the person was using a Class A drug? Basically it's all a matter for the police and then the magistrates. If the police decide to charge you and you are convicted, they can apply to the court for an FBO. If it was a first offence and not too serious you might escape without a FBO, but unlikely if the police ask the court for one and it involved violence. Willie may comment from his experience of the courts. Unfortunately the Draconian legislation strikes again. Where a person is convicted of a “relevant offence”, the court must impose a FBO in addition to any sentence for the offence if it is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that making a banning order would help to prevent violence or disorder at or in connection with any regulated football matches. No pre cons etc doesnt help here. Note the starting point is must make an order.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Aug 23, 2022 21:43:56 GMT
Basically it's all a matter for the police and then the magistrates. If the police decide to charge you and you are convicted, they can apply to the court for an FBO. If it was a first offence and not too serious you might escape without a FBO, but unlikely if the police ask the court for one and it involved violence. Willie may comment from his experience of the courts. Unfortunately the Draconian legislation strikes again. Where a person is convicted of a “relevant offence”, the court must impose a FBO in addition to any sentence for the offence if it is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that making a banning order would help to prevent violence or disorder at or in connection with any regulated football matches. No pre cons etc doesnt help here. Note the starting point is must make an order. I had forgotten about the "must" bit. The bottom line here is that football fans are treated in a more severe way than others who exhibit similar behaviours in other contexts, because they are football fans.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Aug 24, 2022 6:50:09 GMT
The point I made above is that FBOs, which is what this is about, are not in law part of the punishment. You have illustrated my comment that this is often not understood. Society can have a debate about what level of legal punishment is appropriate for different types of drug possession or use, and the relative roles of legal punishments and rehabilitation and education. The point I made was that if that use or possession in a football ground is not accompanied by any other offence or violent misbehaviour, the fact that it's in a football ground should be irrelevant, and not treated as different to any other environment. I suppose I would liken it to a pub landlord barring someone who is found to be in possession/taking drugs in their pub. Would you suggest that they shouldn’t have that right? And if yes then how is it different to a football club? Just to pick up on this point. Football clubs are already in an exactly analogous position to the pub landlord in that they can, and often do, ban fans for all sorts of reasons, sometimes justifiably, sometimes not, sometimes with proper procedures which allow the fan the right to present their case, call witnesses to the incident etc., sometimes not. In appropriate cases we (FSA) encourage clubs to consider requiring the fan to sign a good behaviour agreement before imposing a ban, a bit like a suspended sentence, but of course it all depends on the circumstances of the individual case. The PL and EFL recently announced that fans using pyros or invading the pitch will be subject to automatic bans by clubs. But this thread isn't about that, it's about the judicial processes and Priti Patel's sudden announcement about Football Banning Orders; her implication that some of this is new; her reference to "life bans" for certain things (FBOs have a maximum of 10 years at the moment), and the fact that the judicial system treats football fans differently from others for exactly the same behaviours.
|
|
|
Post by a on Aug 24, 2022 7:13:03 GMT
I suppose I would liken it to a pub landlord barring someone who is found to be in possession/taking drugs in their pub. Would you suggest that they shouldn’t have that right? And if yes then how is it different to a football club? Just to pick up on this point. Football clubs are already in an exactly analogous position to the pub landlord in that they can, and often do, ban fans for all sorts of reasons, sometimes justifiably, sometimes not, sometimes with proper procedures which allow the fan the right to present their case, call witnesses to the incident etc., sometimes not. In appropriate cases we (FSA) encourage clubs to consider requiring the fan to sign a good behaviour agreement before imposing a ban, a bit like a suspended sentence, but of course it all depends on the circumstances of the individual case. The PL and EFL recently announced that fans using pyros or invading the pitch will be subject to automatic bans by clubs. But this thread isn't about that, it's about the judicial processes and Priti Patel's sudden announcement about Football Banning Orders; her implication that some of this is new; her reference to "life bans" for certain things (FBOs have a maximum of 10 years at the moment), and the fact that the judicial system treats football fans differently from others for exactly the same behaviours. I do think that the clubs should be in charge of who they ban and for how long. The use of FBOs seems to be a way of extending that to all football, which makes sense if someone is acting like a clown at say Stoke then it stands to reason that they might deem their behaviour acceptable elsewhere. Whether the length of bans are too long well I suppose I’d hope that due process was applied before imposing such a measure.
|
|
|
Post by str8outtahampton on Aug 24, 2022 15:53:31 GMT
You may have seen that yesterday the Home Secretary issued a press release threatening life bans and banning orders for various things a small minority of football fans do, many of which are already illegal. I'm mystified as to why she did suddenly this at this time, but if you are interested you can listen to my response of behalf of the FSA on Radio 5 yesterday morning at approximately 2 hrs 42 mis on the link below www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001bb7zGood show Malcolm. I think we all know what's behind the substance and the timing of the PN. As I am sure you're aware it was a double header - the co-signatory was the "Culture" Secretary...
|
|
|
Post by stokesaint1 on Aug 24, 2022 16:21:37 GMT
Did Priti Patel consider giving herself a banning order for her political related disorder over the alleged bullying of her staff and her job only being saved by "honest" Boris? This is a case of pot calling kettle. Sooner she is removed from any position of power the better.
|
|
|
Post by Ron on Aug 25, 2022 6:05:50 GMT
The problems associated with football generally mirror the issues in wider society. However- the is a need to strike a balance between policing football properly and over zealous policing.
Police regrettably provoke issues by there mere excess prescence in certain circumstances.
There is a need though to try and curb some of issues- but the issue isn’t football- the issue is these people are generally dickheads using football as a vehicle to behave badly.
However- Patel is a facist and, once again, football fans seems to be demonised as a different species to those attending any other event. Cricket / rugby- go and have a beer in the stands- enjoy yourself. Football- no drinking in the stands you thugs.
This country is going to shit and as long as people tick the “blue” Box when voting this kind of attitude is what you’re going to see from politicians.
|
|
|
Post by sportsman on Aug 25, 2022 6:25:40 GMT
The problems associated with football generally mirror the issues in wider society. However- the is a need to strike a balance between policing football properly and over zealous policing. Police regrettably provoke issues by there mere excess prescence in certain circumstances. There is a need though to try and curb some of issues- but the issue isn’t football- the issue is these people are generally dickheads using football as a vehicle to behave badly. However- Patel is a facist and, once again, football fans seems to be demonised as a different species to those attending any other event. Cricket / rugby- go and have a beer in the stands- enjoy yourself. Football- no drinking in the stands you thugs. This country is going to shit and as long as people tick the “blue” Box when voting this kind of attitude is what you’re going to see from politicians. Don't tick the red box, he can't even say what a woman is or have any policies.
|
|
|
Post by leicspotter on Aug 25, 2022 7:52:42 GMT
Football fans certainly get treated differently (worse) than most other sections of the population and yet a majority of the entire population would probably identify as being football fans. So it's the context, not the individual, that creates this situation i.e. it is football fans AT football (or on the way to/ from the match) that are being demonised.
Are we different people when we go to the game? I reckon most of us aren't...but I know from experience that some ARE and they, and those who are scumbags anyway, make it hard for everyone else. This is in no way a justification for being treated differently or laws being enacted to target football fans, but I think it does explain attitudes both amongst politicians and the police.
FBO's are the right way forward, but only for football related disorder and should not be added on to sentences for other offences that are non-violent and intrinsically not football related, whatever the venue. That's a very slippery slope
|
|
|
Post by boothenender on Aug 25, 2022 21:19:50 GMT
If anyone thinks that priti Patel has the best of the publics interest at heart, you are far off the mark. This bitch would sell her Granny to get an extra vote for her Nazi Party bosses. Horrible person, horrible party.
|
|