Rage Online

Browsing the other side, I came across this account of an Oxford fan who has been sent to prison for possessing a smoke bomb at Plymouth:

http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/Away-fa ... story.html

Given that he didn't let it off, was apparently sober and didn't seem to be involved in any kind of trouble, a custodial sentence seems incredibly harsh doesn't it?

&quotKernow Yellow&quot wrote:Browsing the other side, I came across this account of an Oxford fan who has been sent to prison for possessing a smoke bomb at Plymouth:

http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/Away-fa ... story.html

Given that he didn't let it off, was apparently sober and didn't seem to be involved in any kind of trouble, a custodial sentence seems incredibly harsh doesn't it?

That was my reaction when I was told on Saturday as well.

I can't confirm if it is true or not, but it was alleged to me that the person involved has a previous criminal record, which may have contributed to a harder sentence this time.

They seemed to make a big thing about the damage and injury that could have been caused...by something that is routinely used in paintballing. A custodial sentence seems OTT to me...unless, as GY says, previous weighed heavily in the decision.

As an asthmatic, I think a smoke bomb in a seating area could be quite dangerous to an individual's health. There may not be any damage to the fixtures and fittings of a stand, but I certainly wouldn't want to be anywhere near one. I can choose not to go paintballing, I can't choose who I sit next to at the football!

&quotbspittles&quot wrote:As an asthmatic, I think a smoke bomb in a seating area could be quite dangerous to an individual's health. There may not be any damage to the fixtures and fittings of a stand, but I certainly wouldn't want to be anywhere near one. I can choose not to go paintballing, I can't choose who I sit next to at the football!

I suggest you take up a different pastime such as rambling or maybe trainspotting....oh wait ignore the last one you wouldnt want to get all wheezy with the chuffer trains would you

back to the thread....... just another twat magistrate who hasnt got a feckin clue even what a smoke bomb is my brother once got 3 months for spitting at a scum away game......he didnt even do it....but the twat magistrate chose to believe a lying pig from scumdon.....THATS the reason why any copper can go whistle when he expects me to help him when he's in trouble.....them and us imo.

I need to get my PC checked - the spam filter is ok, the virus checker is working but my 'filter out gormless drivel' application seems to have stopped working.

&quottts back&quot wrote:

&quotbspittles&quot wrote:As an asthmatic, I think a smoke bomb in a seating area could be quite dangerous to an individual's health. There may not be any damage to the fixtures and fittings of a stand, but I certainly wouldn't want to be anywhere near one. I can choose not to go paintballing, I can't choose who I sit next to at the football!

I suggest you take up a different pastime such as rambling or maybe trainspotting....oh wait ignore the last one you wouldnt want to get all wheezy with the chuffer trains would you

back to the thread....... just another twat magistrate who hasnt got a feckin clue even what a smoke bomb is my brother once got 3 months for spitting at a scum away game......he didnt even do it....but the twat magistrate chose to believe a lying pig from scumdon.....THATS the reason why any copper can go whistle when he expects me to help him when he's in trouble.....them and us imo.

You appear to be missing an i from your username.

&quotbspittles&quot wrote:

&quottts back&quot wrote:

&quotbspittles&quot wrote:As an asthmatic, I think a smoke bomb in a seating area could be quite dangerous to an individual's health. There may not be any damage to the fixtures and fittings of a stand, but I certainly wouldn't want to be anywhere near one. I can choose not to go paintballing, I can't choose who I sit next to at the football!

I suggest you take up a different pastime such as rambling or maybe trainspotting....oh wait ignore the last one you wouldnt want to get all wheezy with the chuffer trains would you

back to the thread....... just another twat magistrate who hasnt got a feckin clue even what a smoke bomb is my brother once got 3 months for spitting at a scum away game......he didnt even do it....but the twat magistrate chose to believe a lying pig from scumdon.....THATS the reason why any copper can go whistle when he expects me to help him when he's in trouble.....them and us imo.

You appear to be missing an i from your username.

You appear to be missing the point here, that being the punishment was over-harsh.

http://www.talksport.co.uk/magazine/vir ... est-banner

I'm trying to think of all the reasons to take such a thing to a game, and it's hard to think of any that can be justified, since he wasn't John Betjeman and it wasn't Slough.

Whatever you think of the sentence handed out, the simple fact is that if the guy had just gone to watch a game of football, then there would have been no need for the court case, would there?

&quotSmileyMan&quot wrote:I'm trying to think of all the reasons to take such a thing to a game, and it's hard to think of any that can be justified, since he wasn't John Betjeman and it wasn't Slough.

Whatever you think of the sentence handed out, the simple fact is that if the guy had just gone to watch a game of football, then there would have been no need for the court case, would there?

How do we know he hadn't just gone to watch football?

&quotGodalmingYellow&quot wrote:

&quotSmileyMan&quot wrote:I'm trying to think of all the reasons to take such a thing to a game, and it's hard to think of any that can be justified, since he wasn't John Betjeman and it wasn't Slough.

Whatever you think of the sentence handed out, the simple fact is that if the guy had just gone to watch a game of football, then there would have been no need for the court case, would there?

How do we know he hadn't just gone to watch football?

We don’t know, but he and his ‘bro are well known for trying to create a bit of atmosphere at Division IV or Conference level grounds recently. You have a valid point GY because if he was stopped and searched and found with an unlit smoke bomb anywhere else he would not be looking at contesting a prison stretch right now, and IMO had he let it off at Plymouth and was caught doing it on CCTV then it should just be a banning order and a fine.

Also Argyle should maybe look at their own navels and own up to an inadequate level of body searching, along with lots of other football clubs. These days I get routinely searched going into grounds but I’m never asked to empty my pockets when bigger articles than a flick knife are about my person such as a mobile ‘phone or a glasses case or a bottle of water.

If I need to say more to reinforce my argument then Sebastian Coe got away with much more in terms of pyrotechnics last night, and I thoroughly enjoyed seeing it..

&quotamershamwrighty&quot wrote:I need to get my PC checked - the spam filter is ok, the virus checker is working but my 'filter out gormless drivel' application seems to have stopped working.

Perhaps not totally gormless drivel. It gives an insight into why some people really hate the police. Like in any group of people there will be a mix of the good and bad - to put things simply - and obviously there are many very good decent police men and women out there. I watched Panorama tonight.

And by PC do you mean Police Constable

&quotSmileyMan&quot wrote:I'm trying to think of all the reasons to take such a thing to a game, and it's hard to think of any that can be justified, since he wasn't John Betjeman and it wasn't Slough.

Whatever you think of the sentence handed out, the simple fact is that if the guy had just gone to watch a game of football, then there would have been no need for the court case, would there?

With respect, I think that's a little simplistic.

Smoke bombs help to generate an atmosphere and a sense of drama at a game. But they can, in some circumstances, also be dangerous. There's clearly a judgement call to be made, therefore, weighing up the benefits and the dangers. My personal opinion is that the health and safety concerns have been given disproportionate weight, at the expense of allowing something which 99% of the time would cause no danger and would liven up the atmosphere. But equally, I can appreciate that a lowly club safety officer might take the view that it's more than their job's worth. There's no wholly right or wrong answer.

The law is, at its heart, simplistic. If you break it, you risk punishment. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. If the sentence is within the prescribed range, then it's not 'harsh'

And if you need smoke bombs to generate atmosphere and drama at a football match, you've got some odd priorities, IMO.

&quotSmileyMan&quot wrote:The law is, at its heart, simplistic. If you break it, you risk punishment. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. If the sentence is within the prescribed range, then it's not 'harsh'

And if you need smoke bombs to generate atmosphere and drama at a football match, you've got some odd priorities, IMO.

If the law is simplistic then how come so many people seem to be able to make a fortune out of it? Couldn't we all be barristers.
People used to be hung for stealing sheep. I'd say that was a bit harsh. But as it was the law at the time by your reckoning that was neither severe or cruel. But perhaps I have misunderstood the meaning of the word harsh.