Disagree firstly the social service thing as that could impact a potential partner and kids which is wrong as they are more innocent than anyone as they may not even of been present.Lifetime ban from all football, 6 months in clink, social services referral to make sure he never goes near any kids and blacklisted from all employment would seem fair in this case.
Someone who runs on to a football pitch to assault an official is an obvious risk to children, both their own and others. This man is a criminal who clearly has anger issues and an inability to properly regulate his emotions. An absolute safeguarding risk.Disagree firstly the social service thing as that could impact a potential partner and kids which is wrong as they are more innocent than anyone as they may not even of been present.
Secondly any attempt at lifetime ban would be thrown out in court as per recent case there must now be a timeframe.
Finally the average Assault sentence in the UK is 16 weeks so roughly 4 months.
Fine then. What about a 100 year ban?Secondly any attempt at lifetime ban would be thrown out in court as per recent case there must now be a timeframe.
Anyone who is stupid enough to run onto a football pitch and try to attack a referee should be nowhere near children. If he can get that irate about a (correct) penalty decision what will he be like if his children annoy him, or god forbid they play football and he disagrees with a refereeing decision at one of their games?Disagree firstly the social service thing as that could impact a potential partner and kids which is wrong as they are more innocent than anyone as they may not even of been present.
Secondly any attempt at lifetime ban would be thrown out in court as per recent case there must now be a timeframe.
Finally the average Assault sentence in the UK is 16 weeks so roughly 4 months.
Yes as this may hold in courtFine then. What about a 100 year ban?
The kids thing is a decision for his partner as social service involvement causes issues for her and her children sins of the father and all that.Anyone who is stupid enough to run onto a football pitch and try to attack a referee should be nowhere near children. If he can get that irate about a (correct) penalty decision what will he be like if his children annoy him, or god forbid they play football and he disagrees with a refereeing decision at one of their games?
A lifetime ban from all football might be a challenge, but Port Vale can certainly issue a life time ban from their games. It is a private venue, they are perfectly entitled to say who is or isn't allowed to be in the ground. Lots of supporters have been given lifetime bans from grounds.
There is so much wrong with this incident. Obviously the behaviour of the idiot, but where are the stewards, there is just no way someone should be able to run the entire width of the pitch unchallenged.
That doesn't work as many times the partner is too scared of the abuser to take any action.The kids thing is a decision for his partner as social service involvement causes issues for her and her children sins of the father and all that.
Also a court in the UK ruled recently a ban with no end date is unenforceable by law.
That doesn't work as many times the partner is too scared of the abuser to take any action.
If you are going to quote legal precedents fine, but can you provide a link as I have never heard of that. It doesn't need to be enforceable by law, if someone owns a private venue it is entirely down to them as to who they allow into it. No different to who you allow into your house.
That's for a football banning order, don't dispute that. But a football club can ban an individual from their ground for any period of time they like, it is private property and they chose who they allow in.max is 10 years
Football banning orders were introduced by the Football Spectators Act 1989 (FSA 1989). They are civil orders which aim to stop known hooligans causing trouble at and around football matches, both home and abroad.
They are usually imposed by the court after someone has been convicted of a football related offence, although they can be imposed even after an acquittal. Police can also apply to the magistrates’ court for a banning order if an individual has caused or contributed to any violence or disorder in the UK or elsewhere and the court is satisfied that making a banning order would help to prevent violence or disorder at, or in connection with, any regulated football matches.
They can be used to ban an individual from attending football matches both home and abroad for a period of between two and 10 years. Precise conditions can also be imposed on a case-by-case basis.
In 2014 a High Court Ruling stated no individual may extend a ban beyond the 10 years as a offender may not face prosecution twice for a singular offence this lead to the ending of a number of high profile club enforced bans which he exceed the 10 year limit.
Bottom paragraph if they get a FBO the club can’t extend it.That's for a football banning order, don't dispute that. But a football club can ban an individual from their ground for any period of time they like, it is private property and they chose who they allow in.
I think the point being made is that the club has the right to prevent anyone from coming in at any time because it’s private property.Bottom paragraph if they get a FBO the club can’t extend it.
You are missing the point, it is private property and owners will always have a right to say who they will allow in. No different to being banned for life from a pub or club, and there are loads of examples of it. Gillingham banned a fan for life late last year for racist behaviour, Sheffield Wednesday banned a fan for life for a racist tweet aimed at Darren Moore, and so on.Bottom paragraph if they get a FBO the club can’t extend it.