" Civil bans on 5 Swansea fans "
Fri Apr 27, 2012 11:41 am
27 April 2012
Five Swansea City fans given three-year bans from matches in UK
The men were banned after a 'number of incidents' at Swansea City matches
Five Swansea City fans have been banned from attending football games in the UK for three years following incidents at a number of Swans matches.
Daniel Martoni, 18, Rhodri Boosey, Mark Morgan, Matthew Mackinnon, all 20, and Sean Aspland, 23, all pleaded guilty to involvement in violence and disorder.
They were banned at a civil hearing at Swansea Magistrates' Court on Monday.
They also must not enter any town or city where Swansea City or Wales are playing away on the day of a match.
The order was made on the basis that they had caused or contributed to violence and disorder.
The court agreed they should be banned despite never having been arrested or convicted of football-related violence.
Supt Phil Davies said the bans were a warning to repeat offenders.
"South Wales Police can, and will continue to pursue civil banning orders against those who are frequently and actively engaged in incidents of disorder at football events regardless of whether they have been arrested or convicted," he added.
"I'm sure that every Swansea City fan will agree that on the field results this season have been exceptional and going forward nobody will want to miss out on the continued success of the team.
"Therefore these cases should once again be seen as a deterrent to anyone thinking of getting involved in either organised or spontaneous disorder."
Five Swansea City fans given three-year bans from matches in UK
The men were banned after a 'number of incidents' at Swansea City matches
Five Swansea City fans have been banned from attending football games in the UK for three years following incidents at a number of Swans matches.
Daniel Martoni, 18, Rhodri Boosey, Mark Morgan, Matthew Mackinnon, all 20, and Sean Aspland, 23, all pleaded guilty to involvement in violence and disorder.
They were banned at a civil hearing at Swansea Magistrates' Court on Monday.
They also must not enter any town or city where Swansea City or Wales are playing away on the day of a match.
The order was made on the basis that they had caused or contributed to violence and disorder.
The court agreed they should be banned despite never having been arrested or convicted of football-related violence.
Supt Phil Davies said the bans were a warning to repeat offenders.
"South Wales Police can, and will continue to pursue civil banning orders against those who are frequently and actively engaged in incidents of disorder at football events regardless of whether they have been arrested or convicted," he added.
"I'm sure that every Swansea City fan will agree that on the field results this season have been exceptional and going forward nobody will want to miss out on the continued success of the team.
"Therefore these cases should once again be seen as a deterrent to anyone thinking of getting involved in either organised or spontaneous disorder."
Re: " Civil bans on 5 Swansea fans "
Fri Apr 27, 2012 11:42 am
They won't miss much 
Re: " Civil bans on 5 Swansea fans "
Fri Apr 27, 2012 11:45 am
Rivalry aside this Statment is a joke
The court agreed they should be banned despite never having been arrested or convicted of football-related violence.
The court agreed they should be banned despite never having been arrested or convicted of football-related violence.
Re: " Civil bans on 5 Swansea fans "
Fri Apr 27, 2012 11:46 am
there'll always be 5 manure/man city/liverpool/chelsea/arsenal fans
waiting in the wing to buy their season ticket anyway so no loss to the crowd
waiting in the wing to buy their season ticket anyway so no loss to the crowd
Re: " Civil bans on 5 Swansea fans "
Fri Apr 27, 2012 11:55 am
Yes we are very much away of this its called section 14 b as opposed to section 14a...
explained here in notes I have on this subject and something that we are concerned about at the FSF.
What are section 14a banning orders?
14A Banning orders made on conviction of an offence.
(1)This section applies where a person (the "offender") is convicted of a relevant offence.
(2)If the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that making a banning order would help to prevent violence or disorder at or in connection with any regulated football matches, it must make such an order in respect of the offender.
(3)If the court is not so satisfied, it must in open court state that fact and give its reasons.
(4)A banning order may only be made under this section--
(a) In addition to a sentence imposed in respect of the relevant offence, or
(b) In addition to an order discharging him conditionally.
(5) A banning order may be made as mentioned in subsection (4)(b) above in spite of anything in sections 12 and 14 of the Powers of the Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (which relate to orders discharging a person absolutely or conditionally and their effect).
Definition
In this section, "the court" in relation to an offender means--
(a) The court by or before which he is convicted of the relevant offence, or
(b) If he is committed to the Crown Court to be dealt with for that offence, the Crown Court.
What are section 14b banning orders?
Banning orders made on a complaint.
(1) An application for a banning order in respect of any person may be made by the chief officer of police for the area in which the person resides or appears to reside, if it appears to the officer that the condition in subsection (2) below is met.
(2)That condition is that the respondent has at any time caused or contributed to any violence or disorder in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.
(3)The application is to be made by complaint to a magistrates' court.
(4)If--
(a) It is proved on the application that the condition in subsection (2) above is met, and
(b) The court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that making a banning order would help to prevent violence or disorder at or in connection with any regulated football matches; the court must make a banning order in respect of the respondent
Section 14 b article by Garreth Cummins(FSF)
I'm on the list, I can't possibly know it for certain, but the fact remains that I'm on that list.
The authorities are monitoring me without my knowledge, watching my movements, noting my habits; they think I am a risk to society. There's covert surveillance of me at weekends. The government spies are everywhere, sometimes they don't even try to hide it. CCTV cameras are tracking my every move, they're on to me. It'll not be long 'til they stop me going where I want and when I want, call me in for regular checks; they will take my passport off me, just because I 'm on the list...
Far from being some Orwellian nightmare, the above is true of thousands, possibly tens of thousands of people in this country. And before you start to worry about my sanity and suggest I stop watch the "X files" re runs late into the night, I'm not talking about some great government conspiracy, there's no need for me to reach for the tin foil hat or shove pencils up my nostrils( well not yet anyway).
You see. The police are tracking football supporters in ever increasing numbers. Countless numbers of fans are assessed by police forces as "risk" supporters, but what does that mean? It might sound ludicrous, but if the police assess you as a risk supporter, that very assessment can be used against you in a court as "evidence" towards a football banning order (FBO)
I say "evidence" in inverted commas, because, like the rest of us , you probably thought that FBO's were reserved only for the hard-core hooligan element following football; those who commit serious acts of violence in and around stadia and are tried and convicted in front of a jury, the problem for fans now, however, is FBO's are being dished out much more liberally, and in much more worrying circumstances.
The legal bit
There are two ways you can get a banning order.
a) Under section 14(a) with which most people are familiar this is a criminal sanction following a conviction, typically of a football related offence.
b) Under section 14 (b) a civil injunction that follows a complaint by the police.
A banning order under section 14 (b) is exactly the same as one under section 14 (a) in duration, terms and restriction of freedoms, but you don't have to be convicted (in fact you don't even need to be arrested) of any offence for the police to apply
So what is a risk supporter?
The national police definition is someone " whether known or not, who can be regarded as posing a possible risk to public order or any anti-social behaviour, whether planned or spontaneous, at or in connection with a football match.
Can the police decide this with little or no evidence?
Yes, someone the police think poses a risk is a risk
How do you become a risk supporter?
There are no hard and fast rules, but associating with risk supporters is likely to see you classed as one too.
So anyone who attends a game could become a risk supporter
Yes
So you could attend a game and be talking to a known risk supporter without either of us realising it?
That is correct.
Do people know they are risk supporters?
No, the police don't inform people that they have been categorised as risk supporters.
The anatomy of the section 14 (b) banning order
So you probably still think that you'd have to do something fairly impressive for your local force to bring a case against you and threaten you with a banning order? You'd be wrong.
Suppose you head to your next away match, perhaps a local derby or cup game, to pick up a ticket from a mate at a pub a short distance from the ground
As it's busy, a couple of police officers are there monitoring events, but it's all good natured, and there is no hint of trouble
You are corralled into a larger group of your fans by the police near the away end; the police spotters are there with their camcorders looking out for trouble makers, but you largely ignore them as you make your way to the ground.
Walking in the throng towards the turnstiles the anticipation and atmosphere grows, and you exchange a few songs (and perhaps a few choice words) with groups of home supporters you pass.
All harmless, regular match day occurrences for many, you may think, unfortunately, each of these decisions could lead you on the road to a football banning order under section 14 (b) of the football supporters act of 1989, as amended by the football (disorder) Act 2000;
Police have used the fact that you have travelled to a game without a ticket as evidence that you are going to contribute to violence or disorder. Unknown to you, there were risk supporters in the pub you chose to stop at, or people on banning orders. The police have now identified you as associating with risk supporters
Your choice of pub indicates you are intent on contributing to disorder with home fans. Conversely if you'd chosen a pub further away that wasn't a typical match day pub, the police use this as evidence that disorder was planned away from the ground.
You have been videoed in the police escort. If you weren't a risk supporter, why else would you require an escort? The fact you had no choice is irrelevant
Swearing and gesturing at opposition fans as been taken as a sign of aggression. The police use this behaviour as evidence that you intend to commit disorder
A worst case scenario of course, but each of these arguments has been used successfully by the police applying for FBO's.
Section 14 (B) is a civil sanction, the standard of proof is only "in the balance of probabilities" rather than "beyond reasonable doubt", as criminal cases require
Some will still argue that only fans that have previous offences can be caught up in this, that is untrue and anyone, regardless of who they are, can be a victim of section 14 B
If you need assistance on this subject please contact myself or Vince....or please join the FSF where we provide information and guidance on all fan related questions.
http://www.fsf.org.uk/
explained here in notes I have on this subject and something that we are concerned about at the FSF.
What are section 14a banning orders?
14A Banning orders made on conviction of an offence.
(1)This section applies where a person (the "offender") is convicted of a relevant offence.
(2)If the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that making a banning order would help to prevent violence or disorder at or in connection with any regulated football matches, it must make such an order in respect of the offender.
(3)If the court is not so satisfied, it must in open court state that fact and give its reasons.
(4)A banning order may only be made under this section--
(a) In addition to a sentence imposed in respect of the relevant offence, or
(b) In addition to an order discharging him conditionally.
(5) A banning order may be made as mentioned in subsection (4)(b) above in spite of anything in sections 12 and 14 of the Powers of the Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (which relate to orders discharging a person absolutely or conditionally and their effect).
Definition
In this section, "the court" in relation to an offender means--
(a) The court by or before which he is convicted of the relevant offence, or
(b) If he is committed to the Crown Court to be dealt with for that offence, the Crown Court.
What are section 14b banning orders?
Banning orders made on a complaint.
(1) An application for a banning order in respect of any person may be made by the chief officer of police for the area in which the person resides or appears to reside, if it appears to the officer that the condition in subsection (2) below is met.
(2)That condition is that the respondent has at any time caused or contributed to any violence or disorder in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.
(3)The application is to be made by complaint to a magistrates' court.
(4)If--
(a) It is proved on the application that the condition in subsection (2) above is met, and
(b) The court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that making a banning order would help to prevent violence or disorder at or in connection with any regulated football matches; the court must make a banning order in respect of the respondent
Section 14 b article by Garreth Cummins(FSF)
I'm on the list, I can't possibly know it for certain, but the fact remains that I'm on that list.
The authorities are monitoring me without my knowledge, watching my movements, noting my habits; they think I am a risk to society. There's covert surveillance of me at weekends. The government spies are everywhere, sometimes they don't even try to hide it. CCTV cameras are tracking my every move, they're on to me. It'll not be long 'til they stop me going where I want and when I want, call me in for regular checks; they will take my passport off me, just because I 'm on the list...
Far from being some Orwellian nightmare, the above is true of thousands, possibly tens of thousands of people in this country. And before you start to worry about my sanity and suggest I stop watch the "X files" re runs late into the night, I'm not talking about some great government conspiracy, there's no need for me to reach for the tin foil hat or shove pencils up my nostrils( well not yet anyway).
You see. The police are tracking football supporters in ever increasing numbers. Countless numbers of fans are assessed by police forces as "risk" supporters, but what does that mean? It might sound ludicrous, but if the police assess you as a risk supporter, that very assessment can be used against you in a court as "evidence" towards a football banning order (FBO)
I say "evidence" in inverted commas, because, like the rest of us , you probably thought that FBO's were reserved only for the hard-core hooligan element following football; those who commit serious acts of violence in and around stadia and are tried and convicted in front of a jury, the problem for fans now, however, is FBO's are being dished out much more liberally, and in much more worrying circumstances.
The legal bit
There are two ways you can get a banning order.
a) Under section 14(a) with which most people are familiar this is a criminal sanction following a conviction, typically of a football related offence.
b) Under section 14 (b) a civil injunction that follows a complaint by the police.
A banning order under section 14 (b) is exactly the same as one under section 14 (a) in duration, terms and restriction of freedoms, but you don't have to be convicted (in fact you don't even need to be arrested) of any offence for the police to apply
So what is a risk supporter?
The national police definition is someone " whether known or not, who can be regarded as posing a possible risk to public order or any anti-social behaviour, whether planned or spontaneous, at or in connection with a football match.
Can the police decide this with little or no evidence?
Yes, someone the police think poses a risk is a risk
How do you become a risk supporter?
There are no hard and fast rules, but associating with risk supporters is likely to see you classed as one too.
So anyone who attends a game could become a risk supporter
Yes
So you could attend a game and be talking to a known risk supporter without either of us realising it?
That is correct.
Do people know they are risk supporters?
No, the police don't inform people that they have been categorised as risk supporters.
The anatomy of the section 14 (b) banning order
So you probably still think that you'd have to do something fairly impressive for your local force to bring a case against you and threaten you with a banning order? You'd be wrong.
Suppose you head to your next away match, perhaps a local derby or cup game, to pick up a ticket from a mate at a pub a short distance from the ground
As it's busy, a couple of police officers are there monitoring events, but it's all good natured, and there is no hint of trouble
You are corralled into a larger group of your fans by the police near the away end; the police spotters are there with their camcorders looking out for trouble makers, but you largely ignore them as you make your way to the ground.
Walking in the throng towards the turnstiles the anticipation and atmosphere grows, and you exchange a few songs (and perhaps a few choice words) with groups of home supporters you pass.
All harmless, regular match day occurrences for many, you may think, unfortunately, each of these decisions could lead you on the road to a football banning order under section 14 (b) of the football supporters act of 1989, as amended by the football (disorder) Act 2000;
Police have used the fact that you have travelled to a game without a ticket as evidence that you are going to contribute to violence or disorder. Unknown to you, there were risk supporters in the pub you chose to stop at, or people on banning orders. The police have now identified you as associating with risk supporters
Your choice of pub indicates you are intent on contributing to disorder with home fans. Conversely if you'd chosen a pub further away that wasn't a typical match day pub, the police use this as evidence that disorder was planned away from the ground.
You have been videoed in the police escort. If you weren't a risk supporter, why else would you require an escort? The fact you had no choice is irrelevant
Swearing and gesturing at opposition fans as been taken as a sign of aggression. The police use this behaviour as evidence that you intend to commit disorder
A worst case scenario of course, but each of these arguments has been used successfully by the police applying for FBO's.
Section 14 (B) is a civil sanction, the standard of proof is only "in the balance of probabilities" rather than "beyond reasonable doubt", as criminal cases require
Some will still argue that only fans that have previous offences can be caught up in this, that is untrue and anyone, regardless of who they are, can be a victim of section 14 B
If you need assistance on this subject please contact myself or Vince....or please join the FSF where we provide information and guidance on all fan related questions.
http://www.fsf.org.uk/
Re: " Civil bans on 5 Swansea fans "
Fri Apr 27, 2012 12:39 pm
Forget the fact they are Jacks for a minute and also we don't know the full facts but the following statement is very worrying
The court agreed they should be banned despite never having been arrested or convicted of football-related violence.
If they are classed as or have association with at 'risk supporters' then they could have a banning order imposed but it is the police who decide who is a at risk supporter and frequenting a particular pub could put you into this category
IMHO the law that allows this needs to be challenged and if necessary taken all the way to the European Courts because it's got to be a breach of your human rights 
It seems football supporters are treated no better than suspected terrorists
BTW On a light heated note what's the difference between my Wife and a terrorist................
Answer: You can negotiate with a terrorist
The court agreed they should be banned despite never having been arrested or convicted of football-related violence.
If they are classed as or have association with at 'risk supporters' then they could have a banning order imposed but it is the police who decide who is a at risk supporter and frequenting a particular pub could put you into this category
IMHO the law that allows this needs to be challenged and if necessary taken all the way to the European Courts because it's got to be a breach of your human rights It seems football supporters are treated no better than suspected terrorists
BTW On a light heated note what's the difference between my Wife and a terrorist................
Answer: You can negotiate with a terrorist
Re: " Civil bans on 5 Swansea fans "
Fri Apr 27, 2012 12:49 pm
It's the worrying way the world is going in all aspects of life, yet everyone just seems to accept it. Soon people will be getting arrested for having bad thoughts 
Re: " Civil bans on 5 Swansea fans "
Fri Apr 27, 2012 1:02 pm
ffs wrote:It's the worrying way the world is going in all aspects of life, yet everyone just seems to accept it. Soon people will be getting arrested for having bad thoughts
I'll get life then
Re: " Civil bans on 5 Swansea fans "
Fri Apr 27, 2012 2:46 pm
ffs wrote:It's the worrying way the world is going in all aspects of life, yet everyone just seems to accept it. Soon people will be getting arrested for having bad thoughts
But you can. Any of us can get into trouble on here for not having the same thoughts as the establishment. Some are trying to say it should be an offence to disagree with global warming in the same way as it is to say that the Concentration camps never happened.
We are told how to think act and now they even teach there ideas in Schools which is worrying as that what they do in Communist Countries.
To be punished for no offence is wrong and it goes against everything that a democratic Government stands for. For the Police to make that decision on who is a risk supporter and who should have restrictions on that person without proof of any offence being carried out is nothing short of a Police state being set up.
It doesn't matter they are Jacks we are all in this together, all Football fans!! but we are fighting the state Government here. Its not right and its damn well illegal as well.
Re: " Civil bans on 5 Swansea fans "
Fri Apr 27, 2012 3:12 pm
Nuclearblue wrote:ffs wrote:It's the worrying way the world is going in all aspects of life, yet everyone just seems to accept it. Soon people will be getting arrested for having bad thoughts
But you can. Any of us can get into trouble on here for not having the same thoughts as the establishment. Some are trying to say it should be an offence to disagree with global warming in the same way as it is to say that the Concentration camps never happened.
We are told how to think act and now they even teach there ideas in Schools which is worrying as that what they do in Communist Countries.
To be punished for no offence is wrong and it goes against everything that a democratic Government stands for. For the Police to make that decision on who is a risk supporter and who should have restrictions on that person without proof of any offence being carried out is nothing short of a Police state being set up.
It doesn't matter they are Jacks we are all in this together, all Football fans!! but we are fighting the state Government here. Its not right and its damn well illegal as well.
correct nukes.the state hates the organisation of working class males(white ones in particular but when groups of mixed get together than that,s a problem for them too).last home game i was with 2known lads in a pub having a chat.will this innocent chat between mates be recorded or noted?maybe.also talk to one ex lad near me in the ground .both he and i are church goers now yet this lad will defo have data on him.shame the ob who are that keen on database don,t trail him coming out of a church.that would smash there reasoning though wouldn,t it?new labour are kings of thought control.if you mention immigration your a racist.smear tactics.i was at a labour meeting two wk ago.a lad took me .i asked an m.p if we can have our own energy supply-clean coal cos we shouldn,t be robbing oil and having our kids killed.was told we arn,t robbing oil.at a national level im finished with them.they must think i havn,t got a tv or can read
Re: " Civil bans on 5 Swansea fans "
Fri Apr 27, 2012 3:29 pm
some of the dibble have more film than barry norman
Re: " Civil bans on 5 Swansea fans "
Fri Apr 27, 2012 3:32 pm
Shocking. I remember reading Corkys post a while back about 14b and too be honest I took it with a pinch of salt.
Fans not criminals?
On a brighter note they were jacks! joking aside it would be interesting to read what these blokes were like or what they actually did.
We have plenty of jacks on here who can enlighten us?
Fans not criminals?
On a brighter note they were jacks! joking aside it would be interesting to read what these blokes were like or what they actually did.
We have plenty of jacks on here who can enlighten us?
Re: " Civil bans on 5 Swansea fans "
Fri Apr 27, 2012 3:46 pm
griff105 wrote:Shocking. I remember reading Corkys post a while back about 14b and too be honest I took it with a pinch of salt.
Fans not criminals?
On a brighter note they were jacks! joking aside it would be interesting to read what these blokes were like or what they actually did.
We have plenty of jacks on here who can enlighten us?
ironic that the same type of lads are a shoe in if they want to go in the army
Re: " Civil bans on 5 Swansea fans "
Fri Apr 27, 2012 3:49 pm
griff105 wrote:Shocking. I remember reading Corkys post a while back about 14b and too be honest I took it with a pinch of salt.
Fans not criminals?
On a brighter note they were jacks! joking aside it would be interesting to read what these blokes were like or what they actually did.
We have plenty of jacks on here who can enlighten us?
we have plenty of jacks on here but they would have to go to games to know the fellas involed
Re: " Civil bans on 5 Swansea fans "
Fri Apr 27, 2012 4:38 pm
Two very good points gentlemen.
Re: " Civil bans on 5 Swansea fans "
Fri Apr 27, 2012 6:58 pm
griff105 wrote::lol:
Two very good points gentlemen.
Sorry , go to all the games , not met these particular gentlemen,
Re: " Civil bans on 5 Swansea fans "
Fri Apr 27, 2012 7:09 pm
Fusilier52 wrote:griff105 wrote::lol:
Two very good points gentlemen.
Sorry , go to all the games , not met these particular gentlemen,
This is one of them http://twitter.com/#!/vivaasplando
Re: " Civil bans on 5 Swansea fans "
Sat Apr 28, 2012 8:19 am
The Premier 1 wrote:there'll always be 5 manure/man city/liverpool/chelsea/arsenal fans
waiting in the wing to buy their season ticket anyway so no loss to the crowd
and if you ever get promoted you will never attract fans like that because of your alleged massive fan base
Re: " Civil bans on 5 Swansea fans "
Sat Apr 28, 2012 8:50 am
I remember the sad cunts done a "hooligan photoshoot".
So dull they make Tank look bright.
So dull they make Tank look bright.
Re: " Civil bans on 5 Swansea fans "
Sat Apr 28, 2012 8:51 am
GENERAL CHAT wrote:Fusilier52 wrote:griff105 wrote::lol:
Two very good points gentlemen.
Sorry , go to all the games , not met these particular gentlemen,
This is one of them http://twitter.com/#!/vivaasplando
f*cking mug. His facebook is even more embarrasing.