Chelsea fan ban ??

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed Jul 22, 2015 2:54 pm

Five-year ban for Chelsea fan over Paris metro race row

I don't understand several aspects of this case, perhaps someone can enlighten me.

Firstly why was an incident on the Paris metro tried at Stratford Magistrate court ?

How can the sentence be a ban from attending football matches....only ?

So, what were they charged with ?

Post by **spot** » Wed Jul 22, 2015 3:22 pm

Bruv;1483094 wrote: So, what were they charged with ?

Embarrassing the nation, presumably, as covered by http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/37 section 22 "Restriction orders arising out of offences outside England and Wales" and "stirring up hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins, or against an individual as a member of such a group". There's something about going and coming as well as being at the match.

What I can't get over is that one of them is - still! - a director of the World Human Rights Forum. I'm baffled. What on earth does the organization do if it has a chap like that as a director. Is it a UNESCO gravy-train NGO?

G#Gill · Post by **G#Gill** » Thu Jul 23, 2015 3:31 am

First thing I would do if I was the highest officer of World Human Rights Forum, is kick the fatherless prat out, accompanied by a load of bad publicity against that person. His actions have done a lot of harm to the, up till now, good name of the WHRF. Human rights ????? don't make me laugh.

Post by **spot** » Thu Jul 23, 2015 5:06 am

G#Gill;1483105 wrote: His actions have done a lot of harm to the, up till now, good name of the WHRF. I'm by no means convinced the World Human Rights Forum had a good name to start with, I'd never heard of them until this week. It certainly organizes splendid trips abroad for its membership, and I bet the expense budget is astronomical. I wonder what their annual turnover is, and whose grant it chiefly consists of.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Jul 23, 2015 6:11 am

I would never have had the patience to find Section 22, probably why I am not a lawyer..

So basically we get to ban them from football matches and they 'get away' with the crime ?

Post by **spot** » Thu Jul 23, 2015 6:34 am

I'd have thought if there were fining or jailing to be done the French should have done it. On Devil's Island perhaps, they being French and that being a tradition.

I'm rather hoping football hooligans who annoy their hosts in Qatar will have a hand removed, to the detriment of their subsequent sex life.

probably why I am not a lawyer..
I never had the Latin.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Jul 23, 2015 9:39 am

spot;1483111 wrote: I'd have thought if there were fining or jailing to be done the French should have done it. On Devil's Island perhaps, they being French and that being a tradition.

I'm rather hoping football hooligans who annoy their hosts in Qatar will have a hand removed, to the detriment of their subsequent sex life.

I never had the Latin.

The French option would have cost lots of money I suppose in these stricken times.

It is a good joke, but you don't really mean that do you ?

Post by **spot** » Thu Jul 23, 2015 9:46 am

It's a quote from Peter Cook.