|
Post by franklin on Sept 23, 2020 20:59:42 GMT
A caution by the police was ridiculous. It wasn't just common assault (which can mean a caution MAY be appropriate) it was actual bodily harm as the result of the punches was a cut which required stitches. A caution for actual bodily harm is very rare. It may have been difficult to prove it was racially motivated but anyone who causes ABH for any reason should expect a charge and a conviction rather than a caution. I wonder if the police went for a caution because of the huge backlog of court cases which has been caused by covid19? They shouldn't go down the conviction route for those reasons - but I bet there is a temptation to do so to ease the backlog a bit. By the definition of the offence thats right but you have charging standards and I would suggest it would result in a lower offence category hence the simple caution. Im guessing because I've not seen the file but it would have been classified as a common assault 39 rather than a 47.
|
|
|
Post by a on Sept 23, 2020 21:05:34 GMT
A caution by the police was ridiculous. It wasn't just common assault (which can mean a caution MAY be appropriate) it was actual bodily harm as the result of the punches was a cut which required stitches. A caution for actual bodily harm is very rare. It may have been difficult to prove it was racially motivated but anyone who causes ABH for any reason should expect a charge and a conviction rather than a caution. I wonder if the police went for a caution because of the huge backlog of court cases which has been caused by covid19? They shouldn't go down the conviction route for those reasons - but I bet there is a temptation to do so to ease the backlog a bit. By the definition of the offence thats right but you have charging standards and I would suggest it would result in a lower offence category hence the simple caution. Im guessing because I've not seen the file but it would have been classified as a common assault 39 rather than a 47. That’s a 47 all day
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Sept 23, 2020 21:08:25 GMT
By the definition of the offence thats right but you have charging standards and I would suggest it would result in a lower offence category hence the simple caution. Im guessing because I've not seen the file but it would have been classified as a common assault 39 rather than a 47. That’s a 47 all day Purely by the definition yes but it's not about that there are other factors taken into consideration ie charging standards and that would drop it down. You might not like it but thats how it works.
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Sept 23, 2020 21:24:20 GMT
Man assaults another man. Man admits assault. Man given caution. Whats all this rubbish being spouted about him going to Court / jail? Because he hit him several times in an unprovoked attack Should go to jail, even if it's just for a week.
|
|
|
Post by matelot1996 on Sept 23, 2020 21:39:43 GMT
If this was a white Guy Rabbit punching a Black ref then the “Moral Compass“ of the authorities would be pointing firmly in a very different direction.
|
|
|
Post by nottsover60 on Sept 23, 2020 23:10:36 GMT
Man assaults another man. Man admits assault. Man given caution. Whats all this rubbish being spouted about him going to Court / jail? 1. This wasn't two men fighting this was one man hitting another who was trying to do his job, three times which should not warrant just a caution anyway but more importantly: 2. The man assaulted was in a position of authority. By your rule that means as long as we admit the assault we can get away with hitting a teacher, a policeman, a security guard, a traffic warden etc. That is anarchy.
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Sept 24, 2020 7:05:54 GMT
Man assaults another man. Man admits assault. Man given caution. Whats all this rubbish being spouted about him going to Court / jail? 1. This wasn't two men fighting this was one man hitting another who was trying to do his job, three times which should not warrant just a caution anyway but more importantly: 2. The man assaulted was in a position of authority. By your rule that means as long as we admit the assault we can get away with hitting a teacher, a policeman, a security guard, a traffic warden etc. That is anarchy. There have been so many precedents set recently with regard to law breaking it has become the norm. the country is on the brink of becoming lawless, "protesters" defacing/damaging monuments, running around the streets with weapons clearly on view, attacking the Police who ran away, dressing in paramilitary uniforms and marching on the streets, all these incidents have resulted in none or few arrests and convictions, I agree this is aggravated assault if this was a football lad the outcome would have been completely different.
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Sept 24, 2020 7:16:15 GMT
"Following initial enquiries no allegations were substantiated"
So the initial investigator thought the ref banged his head on that kitchen cupboard door on the halfway line?
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Sept 24, 2020 8:22:53 GMT
"Following initial enquiries no allegations were substantiated" So the initial investigator thought the ref banged his head on that kitchen cupboard door on the halfway line? I would imagine they had the footage but no victim so they had no allegation, once the victim came forward they did. It's just their way of saying the victim had not been identified and/or made a complaint. It doesn't mean an offence had been identified why they just don't say that I dont know.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2020 21:29:48 GMT
Man assaults another man. Man admits assault. Man given caution. Whats all this rubbish being spouted about him going to Court / jail? 1. This wasn't two men fighting this was one man hitting another who was trying to do his job, three times which should not warrant just a caution anyway but more importantly: 2. The man assaulted was in a position of authority. By your rule that means as long as we admit the assault we can get away with hitting a teacher, a policeman, a security guard, a traffic warden etc. That is anarchy. He was probably just doing his hobby. You don't get many full time Sunday League referees. I quote: ‘I have been refereeing for six years, it is my hobby. He threw three punches. Im not sure all connected. As as to his injury. I quote: 'He was wearing a bracelet on his right hand. That was my mistake because I should have checked for jewellery before the match. But when he punched me, he caught me with the metal thing on his wrist. He hit me with something very sharp.' So the relatively minor injury was caused recklessly. So what we have is a Category 3 assault. There are no factors that signify greater harm or higher culpability. That gives a starting point of a Band A fine (range discharge to Band C fine) on the sentencing guidelines. Now we have a man of previous good character, coming forward voluntarily and admitting the offence. It is clearly suitable for a caution and it was properly administered. You, the referee,whoever, can moan as much as you want but the right decision was made by the right people. Thats how the criminal justice system works. That is anything other than anarchy. Nor are they my rules. You are the reason, however, that the prison population has increased by probably 300% in the last 25 years.
|
|
|
Post by nottsover60 on Sept 25, 2020 23:53:38 GMT
1. This wasn't two men fighting this was one man hitting another who was trying to do his job, three times which should not warrant just a caution anyway but more importantly: 2. The man assaulted was in a position of authority. By your rule that means as long as we admit the assault we can get away with hitting a teacher, a policeman, a security guard, a traffic warden etc. That is anarchy. He was probably just doing his hobby. You don't get many full time Sunday League referees. I quote: ‘I have been refereeing for six years, it is my hobby. He threw three punches. Im not sure all connected. As as to his injury. I quote: 'He was wearing a bracelet on his right hand. That was my mistake because I should have checked for jewellery before the match. But when he punched me, he caught me with the metal thing on his wrist. He hit me with something very sharp.' So the relatively minor injury was caused recklessly. So what we have is a Category 3 assault. There are no factors that signify greater harm or higher culpability. That gives a starting point of a Band A fine (range discharge to Band C fine) on the sentencing guidelines. Now we have a man of previous good character, coming forward voluntarily and admitting the offence. It is clearly suitable for a caution and it was properly administered. You, the referee,whoever, can moan as much as you want but the right decision was made by the right people. Thats how the criminal justice system works. That is anything other than anarchy. Nor are they my rules. You are the reason, however, that the prison population has increased by probably 300% in the last 25 years. I don't care whether he was doing it as a job or a hobby, he was in a position of authority and therefore should be protected by law from violence. The meaning of anarchy: the absence or non-recognition of authority. How were the actions af the assailant not anarchy? Where did I say he should be thrown in prison? But for the police to decide not to press charges in court sends out a completely wrong message. It is not as if there were no witnesses or the referee asked them not to press charges. The assailant had no previous convictions. That is not quite the same as 'is of good character' . I would suggest that if you need to be restrained from attacking a referee then 'of good character' is not a description which can be applied to you.
|
|
|
Post by Trouserdog on Sept 26, 2020 5:31:26 GMT
If this was a white Guy Rabbit punching a Black ref then the “Moral Compass“ of the authorities would be pointing firmly in a very different direction. Does somebody have to try and turn every single thread on this board into some stupid racial argument? It's an assault on a ref. The issue is whether refs are protected enough in amateur sport. But no, somebody has to wade in with this shite. Personally, I want to know what the punishment would be if the player was a muslim grooming gang and the ref was a 12 year old white girl because I'm sure someone's going to be telling me anyway within the next couple of pages.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2020 6:27:04 GMT
I actually witnessed something similar on Fenton Park many years ago. Ref gave a stone wall penalty, was surrounded by the team that conceded it and eventually was chased back to his car, where he locked himself in.
Was horrific to watch.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2020 8:35:53 GMT
The league I coach in has already warned they may not be able to provide a ref for every game this season, partly COVID related but they’d already raised it as a concern last season.
When we played last week the ref I was speaking to admitted he checks the teams he’s been allocated before saying whether he is available or not. He’s a retired guy in his 60’s, does it for the love of the game but doesn’t need the hassle.
As a side note if anyone has a teenager with a thick skin and a love of football now is a good time to be a qualified ref, we have 16/17 year olds who will ref an under 7’s/under 8’s/under 9’s game back to back and pick up £90 for 4 hours work. Then they will do the same on Sunday morning and occasionally a couple midweek as well.......
|
|