Queens v Ayr

[Mustafa_sheet]

No, read what Pandarilla said and I agreed with. A fine and a stern warning is appropriate.

However, hoping the police are involved and the judicial system is just ludicrous!

 

 

You agree that “a fine and a stern warning is appropriate”.

However you then add that “hoping the police are involved and the judicial system is just ludicrous”!

Am I missing something here?!.......Who exactly hands out the fines these days if the police and the judicial system aren’t involved?!

[Steeplechat]

Skyline works for the club and has stimulated a public discussion of what should happen in this individual's particular case. Not a general discussion of that sort of behaviour but a discussion of this guy specifically. That's honestly what I don't really like and I accept the fact it's maybe the sort of thing that bothers me more than it bothers most.
However, Skyline actually did confirm that police action is being taken, on page 25. Those comments could affect police charging, and or breach data protection or the club's duty of care. E.g. if the guy's employer was made aware.
Basically it feels different to generic comments about a group of pitch invaders (eg after a goal) who haven't been specifically identified, or comments by people who aren't officials of the club. And prior to now SD hadn't acknowledged my earlier comment. I'm happy to drop it, I've said my piece.

Arrested , fined & banned.

And quite rightly so

[Doonhamer doon south]

Fined and made to watch the highlights or full match coverage of our demolition of Ayr for the next X number of weeks.

[Trogdor]

23 minutes ago, Mustafa_sheet said:

You agree that “a fine and a stern warning is appropriate”.

However you then add that “hoping the police are involved and the judicial system is just ludicrous”!

Am I missing something here?!.......Who exactly hands out the fines these days if the police and the judicial system aren’t involved?!

Schadenfreude - to wish the police were involved and taking glee at that, that's what I was meaning.  Also, I was referring to custodial and court action. Surely a fine doesn't need to go to the court?

The guy isn't a criminal despite how offended the majority of Queens fans are.

[Young Eddie]

It was a bizarre incident, clearly he wasn't a streaker so wasn't entering the pitch on 'comedy' grounds. Seeing what looks like a geriatric casual charging onto the pitch would raise alarm bells as you wonder what on earth he is planning. Actually what was he planning to do before his intoxication and obesity combined to send him flying arse over tit? Who knows, and that's the worrying thing.

Ignoring the police/stewards who should have stopped him getting on the pitch in the first place, the guy has no right to be at a football match again, I don't care if it's a one off or he's been a fan for '40 or 50 years' he just threw away his privileges in one mad moment.

[qos_75]

2 hours ago, Trogdor said:

^ This

The guy got on the field of play, he didn't interact with the players or ref. I'm struggling to see how that means a ban or police custody.

We have bigger issues in our country than a fat, bald, middle aged drunk running onto a football pitch and face planting.

Great stuff, I will run onto the Hampden pitch on Friday night and I will see what happens.  

I am no Donald Findlay QC, but I would imagine a stay in a Glasgow nick, closely followed by a court appearance and moderate fine on the Monday morning would feature prominently on my intinery. 

As a momento of the occasion, a letter from the SFA telling me not to come back would also be in the post.

Joking aside, I have no doubt the guy was steaming and it was out of character for him. However, he cannot really blame anyone else for his actions or the consequences of them.

Surely, everyone knows they will get lifted if they run onto the pitch? 

That said,  I would imagine “the fear” he felt on the Sunday morning would have been something else. 

[weeredbook]

5 match ban for the dive .

2 match ban for supporting Ayr 

2 match ban for being a baldy.

1 match ban ( suspended for 1 year )  for unsuitable attire .

Free entry to Somerset and match hospitality ( free drinks package )  for being drunk on an empty head .

[Trogdor]

Some of the comments on here are hilarious... Do you guys live in the real world? 

You speed in the car 80 in a 70, you get pulled over by the police get 3 points and fined £60. 

You run onto a football pitch proceed to fall over and then get taken off the pitch. You get taken to the cells overnight, brought before the court, banned from football for life and given a huge fine.

Get a grip, the first is more dangerous to public safety than the second and should be treated as such.

[19QOS19]

 

 

 

He lied to you then. 

 

 

 

It's in hand. The idea that he got a warning and no further consequences is nonsense. Both clubs are well aware of exactly who he is and will deal with it appropriately.

 

 

 

However, Skyline actually did confirm that police action is being taken, on page 25.

 

Did he? Can't say that's what I've taken from his posts. Certainly nothing there is suggesting the police will "take action", the clubs possibly (be it a ban). I imagine they would look at the incident anyway but taking action is a different story entirely.

 

I think you're possibly getting a bit worked up over nothing here.

 

[Sloop John B]

48 minutes ago, Margaret Thatcher said:

Skyline works for the club and has stimulated a public discussion of what should happen in this individual's particular case. Not a general discussion of that sort of behaviour but a discussion of this guy specifically. That's honestly what I don't really like and I accept the fact it's maybe the sort of thing that bothers me more than it bothers most.

However, Skyline actually did confirm that police action is being taken, on page 25. Those comments could affect police charging, and or breach data protection or the club's duty of care. E.g. if the guy's employer was made aware.

Basically it feels different to generic comments about a group of pitch invaders (eg after a goal) who haven't been specifically identified, or comments by people who aren't officials of the club. And prior to now SD hadn't acknowledged my earlier comment. I'm happy to drop it, I've said my piece.

 

I'm sure the vague reference  from someone who most likely has minimal input into the decision making of the matter about some sort of disciplinary process  that could be internal or external, is really***  going to overrule the video evidence of him running on to the pitch, the thousands of people that saw him do it and the stewards and police that 'apprehended him.' 

 

As for data protection 

 

*** It isn't

[itzdrk]

I think the scoreline will be reversed at Somerset. 

[Priti priti priti Patel]

7 minutes ago, Sloop John B said:

 

I'm sure the vague reference  from someone who most likely has minimal input into the decision making matter about some sort of disciplinary process  that could be internal or external, is really***  going to overrule the video evidence of him running on to the pitch, the thousands of people that saw him do it and the stewards and police that 'apprehended him.' 

 

As for data protection 

 

*** It isn't

Naw m9 but the confirmation that the police are taking action could tip him off to get early advice which would make charging more difficult.

And as for data protection, that's the most boring subject going, but it's the thing that's most certain to have happened...the guy has been identified by some on here (they know who he is), and Skyline has then shared info held about that person without his express consent. If you disclose information held in relation to an identifiable person without their express consent, that's a breach. As I say, it's boring as f**k, but it is a thing, and if the guy was so inclined then the club could, ironically enough, get fined! 

As I've said data protection wasn't really my issue though

[qos_75]

7 minutes ago, Trogdor said:

Some of the comments on here are hilarious... Do you guys live in the real world? 

You speed in the car 80 in a 70, you get pulled over by the police get 3 points and fined £60. 

You run onto a football pitch proceed to fall over and then get taken off the pitch. You get taken to the cells overnight, brought before the court, banned from football for life and given a huge fine.

Get a grip, the first is more dangerous to public safety than the second and should be treated as such.

Yes we are living in the real world. You don’t need to do too much digging to find examples of supporters in Scotland banned and fined for entering the field of play. Fines between £400 and £900 are bound to smart

[Trogdor]

2 minutes ago, qos_75 said:

Yes we are living in the real world. You don’t need to do too much digging to find examples of supporters in Scotland banned and fined for entering the field of play. Fines between £400 and £900 are bound to smart

I am flabbergasted by this...

£400 for stepping on a football pitch and £60 for speeding what a world! Hell you can use a mobile phone while driving and only be fined £200 and there's a much higher chance to hurt someone. 

I think we've done this to death anyway.

Hopefully AUFC are proportionate, a lifetime ban is not proportionate.

[19QOS19]

I think the scoreline will be reversed at Somerset. 

Nah, we're poorer at home. I wouldn't bother turning up when we come to yours B)

[die hard doonhamer]

12 minutes ago, itzdrk said:

I think the scoreline will be reversed at Somerset. 

I agree.

5-0 at Palmerston.

0-5 at Somerset.

[Fae_the_'briggs]

13 minutes ago, itzdrk said:

I think the scoreline will be reversed at Somerset. 

 

1 minute ago, die hard doonhamer said:

I agree.

5-0 at Palmerston.

0-5 at Somerset.

F-ing beat me to it dhd.  Of course it could be a whoosh from itzdrk. 

[Homer Thompson]

14 minutes ago, Margaret Thatcher said:

Naw m9 but the confirmation that the police are taking action could tip him off to get early advice which would make charging more difficult.

And as for data protection, that's the most boring subject going, but it's the thing that's most certain to have happened...the guy has been identified by some on here (they know who he is), and Skyline has then shared info held about that person without his express consent. If you disclose information held in relation to an identifiable person without their express consent, that's a breach. As I say, it's boring as f**k, but it is a thing, and if the guy was so inclined then the club could, ironically enough, get fined! 

As I've said data protection wasn't really my issue though

Data protection is just something you've heard other people talking about, isnt it?

[qos_75]

18 minutes ago, Trogdor said:

I am flabbergasted by this...

£400 for stepping on a football pitch and £60 for speeding what a world! Hell you can use a mobile phone while driving and only be fined £200 and there's a much higher chance to hurt someone. 

I think we've done this to death anyway.

Hopefully AUFC are proportionate, a lifetime ban is not proportionate.

I have removed the person’s details and the teams involved, but this is what happened to someone who run onto the pitch. The press didn’t report him approaching any players or acting in an aggressive manner.  Just that he run onto the field when his side went behind in the game.

 

 

[Waniche]

All getting a bit much now. Against the law to enter the field of play...yes. Malicious.....no. Funny debatable. Fine... most definitely.  Hmmm quite a few know about policing standards. That’s why on the Ayr thread I asked if he was ejected or lifted. On leaving I asked a steward and he said he was just taken out. Then his co worker said he was getting done for a breach. I just laughed and asked why he was cuffed in front and not in highball position, nor why his cuffs werent double locked. 

Not detracting he broke the law and will be punished but come on. It’s not a witch hunt.