The NCAP Soccerball Thread

[AndyRM]

it will be interesting to see how they can prove any offence.
The number 97 is not solely linked to Hillsborough and it appears there was nothing to link the shirt to Hisllborough, and indeed it was a game between two Manchester teams and not involving Liverpool



I most certainly do not condone the behaviour of this person. Indeed who would wear such a shirt? However, it is up to the prosecution to prove the offence in law. It is not for the accused to prove his innocence

Seriously? I'm going to assume you're new at football if you don't see how this is an inflammatory/offensive gesture.

Whoever was wearing the shirt knew exactly what he was doing. There's no way he can get off with whatever he ends up being charged with.

 

[theclaud]

Seriously? I'm going to assume you're new at football if you don't see how this is an inflammatory/offensive gesture.

Whoever was wearing the shirt knew exactly what he was doing. There's no way he can get off with whatever he ends up being charged with.

Few people would dispute this. But apparently he could get six months in prison. What's to stop the cops using the same law against someone wearing an anti-monarchist or Free Palestine t-shirt?

 

[matticus]

The section of the relevant act i've seen quoted (Public Order 1986?) certainly seems to describe this - but there is clearly a large subjective element. But is that not so for many offences? Unless no-one has ever been prosecuted since 1986 ... !

Meanwhile, the accused seems to have a public disorder record alreadly, and be active in Britain First. Purely by-the-by, of course!

 

[Deleted member 49]

Give the lad a break.....then let him walk round Liverpool in it for a afternoon,preferably a Saturday.

 

[Beebo]

Seriously? I'm going to assume you're new at football if you don't see how this is an inflammatory/offensive gesture.

Whoever was wearing the shirt knew exactly what he was doing. There's no way he can get off with whatever he ends up being charged with.

It’s a terrible slogan but I can see Spen’s point.
I could easily make up some BS about 97 not being enough girlfriends or enough beers or anything really.
We all know it almost certainly refers to the victims of Hillsborough. But can this be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Maybe threaten to have the case heard by a jury in Liverpool and watch the guy admit his guilt asap.

 

[Ian H]

Meanwhile I'm pleased to see that Preston NE finished safely mid-table with a nicely symmetrical record and superb economy in scoring.

 

[fozy tornip]

I could easily make up some BS about 97 not being enough girlfriends or enough beers or anything really.

97 Luftballons?

 

[fozy tornip]

97 Bicycles in Beijing.

 

[AndyRM]

Few people would dispute this. But apparently he could get six months in prison. What's to stop the cops using the same law against someone wearing an anti-monarchist or Free Palestine t-shirt?

6 months would be a bit much I reckon. A fine and a warning would be about right.

 

[spen666]

Seriously? I'm going to assume you're new at football if you don't see how this is an inflammatory/offensive gesture.

Whoever was wearing the shirt knew exactly what he was doing. There's no way he can get off with whatever he ends up being charged with.

Assuming makes an ass of you and me.
i attend in excess of 100 plus football matches every year, am a member of the 92 club as well and have been so for the last 15 plus years. Sko yes, I am new at football. I have only been attending games for in excess of 50 years.


Being new at football is irrelevant to the interpretation of the law.

I stated what the law is

 

[spen666]

It’s a terrible slogan but I can see Spen’s point.
I could easily make up some BS about 97 not being enough girlfriends or enough beers or anything really.
We all know it almost certainly refers to the victims of Hillsborough. But can this be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Maybe threaten to have the case heard by a jury in Liverpool and watch the guy admit his guilt asap.

You do not need to make up anything.

The prosecution would have to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the shirt was about Hillsborough. THere is nothing on the shirt or where it was displayed to link it to Hillsborough.
97 - is not solely linked to Hillsborough. It is a number
The words Not enough - How do you prove that refers to hillsborough and nothing else. Is anyone using the words "not enough" only referring to Hillsborough


Moral outrage and jumping to conclusions is not evidence.

You are innocent until the prosecution prove your guilt and so far, no one on here has actually come up with any evidence that a reasonably directed tribunal could convict upon.
someone making reference to the accused being connected with Britan First - this is not evidence and is irrelevant. Someone's politcal connections or affiliations is irrelevant to this allegation

 

[matticus]

The prosecution would have to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the shirt was about Hillsborough. THere is nothing on the shirt or where it was displayed to link it to Hillsborough.
97 - is not solely linked to Hillsborough. It is a number
The words Not enough - How do you prove that refers to hillsborough and nothing else. Is anyone using the words "not enough" only referring to Hillsborough


Moral outrage and jumping to conclusions is not evidence.

I have NO IDEA whether this particular prosecution would succeed - it is clearly a subjective matter with many variables.
But surely the standard of proof here is also subjective; so you only have to remove doubt from the minds of the jury/tribunal/whatever.

Just read the crowd - the vast majority of commenters amongst the Great Unwashed are quite clear what this shirt means. Maybe they are guilty of "moral outrage and jumping to conclusions", but they have no doubt, the question is beyond reasonable doubt to them! I know that with the evidence so far, *I* would vote Guilty.

Q: has anyone been prosecuted for offensive/inflammatory slogans since the act of 1986 came into force? (I do not have the relevant legal knowledge to know this.) If it's been completely toothless in this regard for over 30 years, then I would have more confident that Mr 97 will walk free.

 

[spen666]

I have NO IDEA whether this particular prosecution would succeed - it is clearly a subjective matter with many variables.
But surely the standard of proof here is also subjective; so you only have to remove doubt from the minds of the jury/tribunal/whatever.

Just read the crowd - the vast majority of commenters amongst the Great Unwashed are quite clear what this shirt means. Maybe they are guilty of "moral outrage and jumping to conclusions", but they have no doubt, the question is beyond reasonable doubt to them! I know that with the evidence so far, *I* would vote Guilty.

Q: has anyone been prosecuted for offensive/inflammatory slogans since the act of 1986 came into force? (I do not have the relevant legal knowledge to know this.) If it's been completely toothless in this regard for over 30 years, then I would have more confident that Mr 97 will walk free.

The question here is how do you as a prosecutor prove this is directed at Hillsborough?

1. There is no mention of Hillsborough
2. There is no mention of Liverpool
3. There is not even a mention of anyone dying
4. The contetx of its being worn - ie at a football match between 2 Manchester teams. If it had been Man U v Liverpool, then this would have been limited evidence of its context

 

[matticus]

prove beyond reasonable doubt

FTFY

 

[AndyRM]

The question here is how do you as a prosecutor prove this is directed at Hillsborough?

1. There is no mention of Hillsborough
2. There is no mention of Liverpool
3. There is not even a mention of anyone dying
4. The contetx of its being worn - ie at a football match between 2 Manchester teams. If it had been Man U v Liverpool, then this would have been limited evidence of its context

Every football supporter understands the reference.