Rangers fan jailed

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,622]

1 hour ago, Blue Nosed Babe said:

Already answered it. Was a breach of the peace and Kenny hammered them.

Googled it.

Bheasts hadn't even been at the game and specifically went looking for a fight. Their sole purpose was to attack people leaving a game. Their violence was to the extent plod had to use the horses to control the group they were head of that were mobbing and rioting from what I've read.

Pretty different from a guy getting 9 months for running on the pitch and slipping and nearly doing stuff.

But if that's your defence that the law is equal regards us and the bheast then I guess there's no talking sense to you.

[eejay the dj 31,964]

49 minutes ago, Ger_onimo said:

So the court will pass you confidential information about cases you're not involved in?

The fuckers do what they want nowadays 

[reallyruff 622]

1 hour ago, Jimbeamjunior said:

Thats a feeble argument though tbh, so what if someone did something in their past, in thirty years from now will that still be held against him

The punishment should be for the crime only, not for what he did and what he's done before

No sorry that's wrong, you cant treat everyone as a first offender. If someone is up for say their third rape, are you seriously suggesting that this shouldn't be put before the court to show he's an irredeemable bastard? As for the thirty years argument, well that's something that can be said and acknowledged in mitigation, but say someone has done something to you directly would it be a comfort to you knowing they did it previously , were punished, served their porridge/fine whatever, before losing control and doing it again to you?

[Blue Nosed Babe 20,533]

2 hours ago, Ger_onimo said:

So the court will pass you confidential information about cases you're not involved in?

No of course not. You can hear things though in chit chat and stuff. 

[Blue Nosed Babe 20,533]

1 hour ago, Sportingintegritymyarse said:

Googled it.

Bheasts hadn't even been at the game and specifically went looking for a fight. Their sole purpose was to attack people leaving a game. Their violence was to the extent plod had to use the horses to control the group they were head of that were mobbing and rioting from what I've read.

Pretty different from a guy getting 9 months for running on the pitch and slipping and nearly doing stuff.

But if that's your defence that the law is equal regards us and the bheast then I guess there's no talking sense to you.

Maybe if you spent as much time at court as I have you would actually understand how criminal law works. 

There is no point in talking to some on here who have a skewed view of the justice system when they have no clue what they are talking about.

[kaiser1041 9,088]

1 minute ago, Blue Nosed Babe said:

Maybe if you spent as much time at court as I have you would actually understand how criminal law works. 

There is no point in talking to some on here who have a skewed view of the justice system when they have no clue what they are talking about.

Maybe if you spent more time out with the justice system you'd get yer hole 

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,622]

10 minutes ago, Blue Nosed Babe said:

Maybe if you spent as much time at court as I have you would actually understand how criminal law works. 

There is no point in talking to some on here who have a skewed view of the justice system when they have no clue what they are talking about.

So when it appears there is a distinct imbalance between sentencing of bears v others you roll out a dissimilar incident from 4 years ago to support your case and that works?

I'll understand if everyone is getting pokey time like this guy. Are they?

The recent case where the bheast was at the dividing fence hurling sectarian abuse, bizarrely got a warning from plod as I recall, continued then resisted arrest. Did he get time? No but the bear walking to a game did for singing.

Things like the effigies being deemed a breach but not sectarian go to show how this roost is being ruled.

 

[kaiser1041 9,088]

Although I see a clear agenda in the Scottish media when it corncerns Rangers I'd like to think that the justice system in this country treats every defendant as an individual rather than ohh he's a bear jail him.

@Blue Nosed Babe works in this specific line of work it would be foolish to argue with her.

[eejay the dj 31,964]

35 minutes ago, kaiser1041 said:

Although I see a clear agenda in the Scottish media when it corncerns Rangers I'd like to think that the justice system in this country treats every defendant as an individual rather than ohh he's a bear jail him.

@Blue Nosed Babe works in this specific line of work it would be foolish to argue with her.

We all would like to think .....

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,622]

36 minutes ago, kaiser1041 said:

Although I see a clear agenda in the Scottish media when it corncerns Rangers I'd like to think that the justice system in this country treats every defendant as an individual rather than ohh he's a bear jail him.

@Blue Nosed Babe works in this specific line of work it would be foolish to argue with her.

Aye and if you asked someone in the media if they were biased they'd likely say no.

Working in an industry or environment doesn't validate an opinion.

Our support were outnumbered by what 100-1. Yet by all accounts those charged seems roughly equal. Let's see where we end up after the cases are heard with numbers ending up jailed. I know how I anticipate it. And it's one nil already.

[Ger_onimo 20,488]

59 minutes ago, Blue Nosed Babe said:

No of course not. You can hear things though in chit chat and stuff. 

So you overhear court officials gossiping in court buildings about confidential details of live cases? And this is more reliable than the information divulged in the actual court?

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,504]

2 hours ago, reallyruff said:

No sorry that's wrong, you cant treat everyone as a first offender. If someone is up for say their third rape, are you seriously suggesting that this shouldn't be put before the court to show he's an irredeemable bastard? As for the thirty years argument, well that's something that can be said and acknowledged in mitigation, but say someone has done something to you directly would it be a comfort to you knowing they did it previously , were punished, served their porridge/fine whatever, before losing control and doing it again to you?

if someone is up for their 3rd rape then id serious challenge the ability of the system first in how such a dangerous person was allowed back on the streets

as for something happening to me, doesnt matter if its first offence or not, if i am attacked without reason (the cup final incidents) then you should be jailed no ifs buts or maybes, then if it happens again its a longer sentence

in this system currently it can take two or 3 offences before someone goes to jail, thats wrong, if you've attacked someone you should be locked up

[reallyruff 622]

42 minutes ago, Jimbeamjunior said:

if someone is up for their 3rd rape then id serious challenge the ability of the system first in how such a dangerous person was allowed back on the streets Absolutely, but that's kinda the point. Sentencing in our courts can be considered disproportionate at times, So to take your 30 year example someone could've served an 8 year sentence for rape, followed by a 15 year lifer then still been up for a third sentence inside the 30 years mentioned. But by your argument nothing done previous to that third rape should be considered when sentencing for the third time.

as for something happening to me, doesnt matter if its first offence or not, if i am attacked without reason (the cup final incidents) then you should be jailed no ifs buts or maybes, then if it happens again its a longer sentence That is what I am arguing, second offences should carry heavier sentences especially if they are more serious than the first and even if they are comparable to the first (showing a pattern of repeat offending).

in this system currently it can take two or 3 offences before someone goes to jail, thats wrong, if you've attacked someone you should be locked up Agreed, assault should be viewed as a serious enough offence, notwithstanding any mitigating factors, to warrant a custodial sentence. As for other offences I don't necessarily agree that they all should result in jail but if there is enough of them (again showing a pattern of repeat offending ) then no matter their severity a custodial sentence should be handed down. BNB'S argument was that this fan was a repeat offender currently serving a sentence across the water. Given this info it was only right that this was considered in his sentencing, though I did think his conviction harsh given the circumstances described, but to have had the sentence made consecutive rather than to run concurrently with his present sentence is maybe too much.

 

[NixonRFC 1,310]

we don't half go to the extremes to make a point sometimes, went from a guy kicking a.guy in the head/face to hypothetical rapes.

 

if someone jumped to the last pagemail they'd think we were talking about a Rangers fan raping someone, jeez