" TWO FOOTBALL FANS TO CONTEST FOOTBALL BANNING ORDERS "

Three Macclesfield football fans to contest UK stadium ban
Two football fans are to contest a nationwide order which bans them from every stadium in the country.

Sky News

15/11/2015

The Macclesfield Town FC fans were banned after admitting charges of being drunk and disorderly and using threatening or abusive words or behaviour.

Cheshire Police applied to Macclesfield magistrates for the court to impose a football banning orders on Nathan Hulme, 19 and Jack Johnson, 22.

It follows Hulme and Johnson’s convictions for being drunk and disorderly on August 29, the same day as Macclesfield Town FC lost 2-1 to Chester FC at the Moss Rose ground.



The pair will appeal their ban alongside Lawrence Richard Carr, 22, who was convicted of using threatening or abusive words or behaviour at the game, as previously reported in the Express.

The trio appeared at South Cheshire Magistrates’ Court on October 15 and were bailed with conditions to appear at Macclesfield magistrates’ court on December 17 to contest the football banning order (FBO).

Hulme, of Hermitage Drive, Holmes Chapel, Carr, of Derwent Drive, Congleton, and Johnson, of Taylorson Street South, Salford Quays, are banned from UK football grounds or entering any area around a stadium where Macclesfield are playing, home or away, four hours before or after kickoff.

What is the grounds for their appeal Annis? They have pleaded guilty to being drunk and disorderly and aggressive and abusive behaviour at a match so why do they think they should retain their right to attend future games with people who can behave in a proper manner?

What is the grounds for their appeal Annis? They have pleaded guilty to being drunk and disorderly and aggressive and abusive behaviour at a match so why do they think they should retain their right to attend future games with people who can behave in a proper manner?

Keith,

I've just searched the story and all I can find is this

The pair will appeal their ban alongside Lawrence Richard Carr, 22, who was convicted of using threatening or abusive words or behaviour at the game, as previously reported in the Express.

The trio appeared at South Cheshire Magistrates’ Court on October 15 and were bailed with conditions to appear at Macclesfield magistrates’ court on December 17 to contest the football banning order (FBO).

Hulme, of Hermitage Drive, Holmes Chapel, Carr, of Derwent Drive, Congleton, and Johnson, of Taylorson Street South, Salford Quays, are banned from UK football grounds or entering any area around a stadium where Macclesfield are playing, home or away, four hours before or after kickoff.

What is the grounds for their appeal Annis? They have pleaded guilty to being drunk and disorderly and aggressive and abusive behaviour at a match so why do they think they should retain their right to attend future games with people who can behave in a proper manner?

The minute you plead guilty, I agree Keith you've given your rights away and your then in the hands of what the court decides.

What is the grounds for their appeal Annis? They have pleaded guilty to being drunk and disorderly and aggressive and abusive behaviour at a match so why do they think they should retain their right to attend future games with people who can behave in a proper manner?

The minute you plead guilty, I agree Keith you've given your rights away and your then in the hands of what the court decides.

I am told by others that some plead guilty in the hope of getting more lenient sentences even if they believe they are innocent. Easy for me to say , but I think they are badly advised to do so and instead they should be using the powers of great people like FSF to help them in their not guilty pleas.

What is the grounds for their appeal Annis? They have pleaded guilty to being drunk and disorderly and aggressive and abusive behaviour at a match so why do they think they should retain their right to attend future games with people who can behave in a proper manner?

The minute you plead guilty, I agree Keith you've given your rights away and your then in the hands of what the court decides.

I am told by others that some plead guilty in the hope of getting more lenient sentences even if they believe they are innocent. Easy for me to say , but I think they are badly advised to do so and instead they should be using the powers of great people like FSF to help them in their not guilty pleas.

Keith, its true, many are told this and are badly advised.

Not connected,my mate tried to query a speeding ticket either take a £100 fine and 6 pts or go to court lose ands its £550 fine and 6 pts ,were fucked whatever we do

What is the grounds for their appeal Annis? They have pleaded guilty to being drunk and disorderly and aggressive and abusive behaviour at a match so why do they think they should retain their right to attend future games with people who can behave in a proper manner?

The minute you plead guilty, I agree Keith you've given your rights away and your then in the hands of what the court decides.

I am told by others that some plead guilty in the hope of getting more lenient sentences even if they believe they are innocent. Easy for me to say , but I think they are badly advised to do so and instead they should be using the powers of great people like FSF to help them in their not guilty pleas.

Yeah they dangle the carrot that if you plead guilty now you get a third off what you may get if you plead innocent. It's wrong.