3 Darlington thugs to appear in court...
Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2016 1:49 pm
tomorrow in Manchester, just heard off a friend don't want to say names though.
The number one Darlington FC fan's website
https://www.darlofc.co.uk:443/forum/
https://www.darlofc.co.uk:443/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=31540
if your source is correct, then their names will be made public anywaynotgnilrad wrote:tomorrow in Manchester, just heard off a friend don't want to say names though.
If it's the FC United game the one or two did by all accounts.HarrytheQuaker wrote:For what??? No Darlo fan did anything wrong
It may need a DFSG membership vote on banning anyone convicted, however I suppose the DFC board can already decide on the fans' behalf.murtonquaker wrote:At what level does Court enforced national/international football banning orders kick in, Step 1 or 2?
Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
Neil Johnson wrote:It may need a DFSG membership vote on banning anyone convicted, however I suppose the DFC board can already decide on the fans' behalf.murtonquaker wrote:At what level does Court enforced national/international football banning orders kick in, Step 1 or 2?
Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
Banning orders cover matches in the National League North/ South and abovemurtonquaker wrote:At what level does Court enforced national/international football banning orders kick in, Step 1 or 2?
Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
I thought the sameSpyman wrote:Neil Johnson wrote:It may need a DFSG membership vote on banning anyone convicted, however I suppose the DFC board can already decide on the fans' behalf.murtonquaker wrote:At what level does Court enforced national/international football banning orders kick in, Step 1 or 2?
Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
Gift that keeps giving.Neil Johnson wrote:It may need a DFSG membership vote on banning anyone convicted, however I suppose the DFC board can already decide on the fans' behalf.murtonquaker wrote:At what level does Court enforced national/international football banning orders kick in, Step 1 or 2?
Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
Nothing to stop them being named now so long as nothing is published that prejudices the court case.notgnilrad wrote:Court date for these guys have been put back to next week now. Wish it was today as they would have been named and shamed.
You're too simple. Everyone's said this for the months and years you've been cluttering up this board with your verbal garbage.Neil Johnson wrote:As pubs can bar anyone, so can DFC at their ground.
Away bans would need a National banning order, where those ignoring a ban can be registered on fan camera phones. and sent back to court by DFC and the police.
Is that too simple?
DFC can bar whoever they want for any reason they want. It is a private club and they can deny admission if they choose to. Yes we don't want to go down the Reynolds route but if someone is due in court for offences relating to their support of DFC then the club have every right to deny admission.Darlogramps wrote: A couple of things - firstly pubs can't bar anyone, nor can DFC. There has to be a justification. Otherwise we end up in the situation we were in with George Reynolds, where he tried to censor anyone who criticised him.
Enjoy your court appearance.darlodaz wrote:fuckn knob end darlogramps again. knows it all.cant wait to tap you on the shoulder only a matter of time sir lets see what you have to say face to face!!
Keep up your obsession boyo. It is very weird, but each to their own.darlodaz wrote:fuckn knob end darlogramps again. knows it all.cant wait to tap you on the shoulder only a matter of time sir lets see what you have to say face to face!!
There's always a pedant. The point I was making is that there must be a sufficient reason to ban an individual, otherwise there could be recourse from those who've had action taken against them.loan_star wrote:DFC can bar whoever they want for any reason they want. It is a private club and they can deny admission if they choose to. Yes we don't want to go down the Reynolds route but if someone is due in court for offences relating to their support of DFC then the club have every right to deny admission.Darlogramps wrote: A couple of things - firstly pubs can't bar anyone, nor can DFC. There has to be a justification. Otherwise we end up in the situation we were in with George Reynolds, where he tried to censor anyone who criticised him.
As has been said already a club or pub can bar anyone simply because they want to.Darlogramps wrote:There's always a pedant. The point I was making is that there must be a sufficient reason to ban an individual, otherwise there could be recourse from those who've had action taken against them.loan_star wrote:DFC can bar whoever they want for any reason they want. It is a private club and they can deny admission if they choose to. Yes we don't want to go down the Reynolds route but if someone is due in court for offences relating to their support of DFC then the club have every right to deny admission.Darlogramps wrote: A couple of things - firstly pubs can't bar anyone, nor can DFC. There has to be a justification. Otherwise we end up in the situation we were in with George Reynolds, where he tried to censor anyone who criticised him.
Obviously if a "supporter" has committed an offence, that is sufficient justification for a ban.
But the more general point, that a club can ban who it likes for what it likes, is far too simplistic.
Spen666 in being deliberately obtuse shocker.spen666 wrote:As has been said already a club or pub can bar anyone simply because they want to.Darlogramps wrote:There's always a pedant. The point I was making is that there must be a sufficient reason to ban an individual, otherwise there could be recourse from those who've had action taken against them.loan_star wrote:DFC can bar whoever they want for any reason they want. It is a private club and they can deny admission if they choose to. Yes we don't want to go down the Reynolds route but if someone is due in court for offences relating to their support of DFC then the club have every right to deny admission.Darlogramps wrote: A couple of things - firstly pubs can't bar anyone, nor can DFC. There has to be a justification. Otherwise we end up in the situation we were in with George Reynolds, where he tried to censor anyone who criticised him.
Obviously if a "supporter" has committed an offence, that is sufficient justification for a ban.
But the more general point, that a club can ban who it likes for what it likes, is far too simplistic.
No one has any right to enter a pub or football ground.
The owner of pub or football club needs no reason to ban someone
The fact is Spen is correct.Darlogramps wrote:Spen666 in being deliberately obtuse shocker.spen666 wrote:As has been said already a club or pub can bar anyone simply because they want to.Darlogramps wrote:There's always a pedant. The point I was making is that there must be a sufficient reason to ban an individual, otherwise there could be recourse from those who've had action taken against them.loan_star wrote:DFC can bar whoever they want for any reason they want. It is a private club and they can deny admission if they choose to. Yes we don't want to go down the Reynolds route but if someone is due in court for offences relating to their support of DFC then the club have every right to deny admission.Darlogramps wrote: A couple of things - firstly pubs can't bar anyone, nor can DFC. There has to be a justification. Otherwise we end up in the situation we were in with George Reynolds, where he tried to censor anyone who criticised him.
Obviously if a "supporter" has committed an offence, that is sufficient justification for a ban.
But the more general point, that a club can ban who it likes for what it likes, is far too simplistic.
No one has any right to enter a pub or football ground.
The owner of pub or football club needs no reason to ban someone
Sadly Gramps it is the legally correct answer. You are wrong in law.Darlogramps wrote:No he's not.
It's a reductionist argument which ignores other factors (recourse from individuals involved, reputational damage) that mean it simply couldn't happen in the real world.
It's a shame you've decided to follow a worthless troll like Spen and deliberately ignore the points I'm making.