Two Portsmouth football fans who posed as:

Two Portsmouth football fans who posed as stewards in an attempt to watch the south coast derby have been banned from matches for three years

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

No violence involved here. Years ago they would have been chucked out and everyone would have had a good laugh about it. Now they are charged with amongst other things fraudulent misrepresentation (which means they have a career changing criminal record) fined £1,000 and banned from a game they obviously love for three years.

Meanwhile in Hull career shoplifters if -and thats a big if - caught by the police are told to pay for them or put the goods back (BBC report last week)

Way over the top.

Season ban at most would have been fine.

Way over the top.

Season ban at most would have been fine.

From the club, not via the Law would surely suffice!

However, in this day and age, the other side of the argument is the potential that they might have gotten away with it, and the consequences that could have fir the safety of spectators from some with a more sinister motivation for doing so!

Way over the top.

Season ban at most would have been fine.

From the club, not via the Law would surely suffice!

However, in this day and age, the other side of the argument is the potential that they might have gotten away with it, and the consequences that could have fir the safety of spectators from some with a more sinister motivation for doing so!

I think this is right.

Another thing I'd say is that if they had just got a slap on the wrists then it wouldn't do much to discourage others from doing the same. So an example had to be set.

For these reasons, I can understand the decision.

Way over the top.

Season ban at most would have been fine.

From the club, not via the Law would surely suffice!

However, in this day and age, the other side of the argument is the potential that they might have gotten away with it, and the consequences that could have fir the safety of spectators from some with a more sinister motivation for doing so!

I think this is right.

Another thing I'd say is that if they had just got a slap on the wrists then it wouldn't do much to discourage others from doing the same. So an example had to be set.

For these reasons, I can understand the decision.

Sorry I have to disagree. To use fraudulent misrepresentation to convict them is a misuse of the intention of the that law.And 3 year ban? Way over the top. Again, misuse of a that law was brought in with the intention to prevent violent fans from attending games for which there is absolutley no evidence that they were intending violence. Possible grounds for an appeal here but very costly.

Way over the top.

Season ban at most would have been fine.

From the club, not via the Law would surely suffice!

However, in this day and age, the other side of the argument is the potential that they might have gotten away with it, and the consequences that could have fir the safety of spectators from some with a more sinister motivation for doing so!

I think this is right.

Another thing I'd say is that if they had just got a slap on the wrists then it wouldn't do much to discourage others from doing the same. So an example had to be set.

For these reasons, I can understand the decision.

Sorry I have to disagree. To use fraudulent misrepresentation to convict them is a misuse of the intention of the that law.And 3 year ban? Way over the top. Again, misuse of a that law was brought in with the intention to prevent violent fans from attending games for which there is absolutley no evidence that they were intending violence. Possible grounds for an appeal here but very costly.

I'm not saying I agree with the punishment because I don't, but I can understand why. Like I say, they will have wanted to set an example.

Way over the top.

Season ban at most would have been fine.

From the club, not via the Law would surely suffice!

However, in this day and age, the other side of the argument is the potential that they might have gotten away with it, and the consequences that could have fir the safety of spectators from some with a more sinister motivation for doing so!

I think this is right.

Another thing I'd say is that if they had just got a slap on the wrists then it wouldn't do much to discourage others from doing the same. So an example had to be set.

For these reasons, I can understand the decision.

Sorry I have to disagree. To use fraudulent misrepresentation to convict them is a misuse of the intention of the that law.And 3 year ban? Way over the top. Again, misuse of a that law was brought in with the intention to prevent violent fans from attending games for which there is absolutley no evidence that they were intending violence. Possible grounds for an appeal here but very costly.

I'm not saying I agree with the punishment because I don't, but I can understand why. Like I say, they will have wanted to set an example.

Think I misunderstood it when you said "I think this is right". You were referring to the previous posts explanation of the reasoning for the decision and not the meits of the decision itself.

Quality from them lads

Games Gone