- This topic has 31 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
They ought to care now.
They will care when they are held responsible for a serious injury or, worse still, corporate manslaughter.
So a thread on here with split opinions is irrelevant as the stewards and police are not capable of spotting these flares when entering the stadium. They also seem to ignore the culprit and just get rid of the flare. If/when there is a serious crack down on them you will notice the craze fizzles out.
So a thread on here with split opinions is irrelevant as the stewards and police are not capable of spotting these flares when entering the stadium. They also seem to ignore the culprit and just get rid of the flare. If/when there is a serious crack down on them you will notice the craze fizzles out.I wouldn’t describe you on one side of the fence and the rest of the sensible world on the other as “split opinions”
They ought to care now.They will care when they are held responsible for a serious injury or, worse still, corporate manslaughter.
An individual isn’t held responsible for corporate manslaughter. A clue is in the word ‘corporate’
They ought to care now.
They will care when they are held responsible for a serious injury or, worse still, corporate manslaughter.
An individual isn’t held responsible for corporate manslaughter. A clue is in the word ‘corporate’[/quote]
No. Individuals can be held responsible under the doctrine of identification if the failing can be imputed to what is termed a “controlling mind”. For Latics that is likely to be determined to be the Chief Executive, Stadium Manager or the Safety Officer, whose roles involve day to day management of procedures within the stadium.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/#a08
If any of you do want to buy some flares for future games you can order via the below link:
They ought to care now.
They will care when they are held responsible for a serious injury or, worse still, corporate manslaughter.
An individual isn’t held responsible for corporate manslaughter. A clue is in the word ‘corporate’[/quote]
No. Individuals can be held responsible under the doctrine of identification if the failing can be imputed to what is termed a “controlling mind”. For Latics that is likely to be determined to be the Chief Executive, Stadium Manager or the Safety Officer, whose roles involve day to day management of procedures within the stadium.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/#a08%5B/quote%5D
Section 18 states that an individual cannot be indicted for aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of this offence. However an individual may still be prosecuted for common law gross negligence manslaughter.
The Act does not provide police with any power of arrest of individuals.
An organisation guilty of the offence will be liable to an unlimited fine. The Act also provides for courts to impose a publicity order, requiring the organisation to publicise details of its conviction and fine. Courts may also require an organisation to take steps to address the failures behind the death by means of a remedial order.
They ought to care now.
They will care when they are held responsible for a serious injury or, worse still, corporate manslaughter.
An individual isn’t held responsible for corporate manslaughter. A clue is in the word ‘corporate’[/quote]
No. Individuals can be held responsible under the doctrine of identification if the failing can be imputed to what is termed a “controlling mind”. For Latics that is likely to be determined to be the Chief Executive, Stadium Manager or the Safety Officer, whose roles involve day to day management of procedures within the stadium.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/#a08%5B/quote%5D
Section 18 states that an individual cannot be indicted for aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of this offence. However an individual may still be prosecuted for common law gross negligence manslaughter.
The Act does not provide police with any power of arrest of individuals.
An organisation guilty of the offence will be liable to an unlimited fine. The Act also provides for courts to impose a publicity order, requiring the organisation to publicise details of its conviction and fine. Courts may also require an organisation to take steps to address the failures behind the death by means of a remedial order.[/quote]
Errrrr……….does anyone fancy a pint?If any of you do want to buy some flares for future games you can order via the below link:Top post Salford do they do the shirt as well
The legal positionhttp://www.fsf.org.uk/assets/Smoke-Bombs-Flares-and-Fireworks-Factsheet-for-FSF.pdf
Aceface said “One thing we can do is stop putting threads on forums about it”
No – perhaps we need to profile the consequences highly to ensure these idiots read this factsheet from the Football Supporters Federation. Particularly that courts view this seriously and have issued custodial sentences (“jail” for those hard of understanding, as the carriers of these things are) for people even with previous clean records. The record will also show on Criminal Records checks which will limit future job prospects and visas to US etc.
It is NOT just an innocent laugh.
Garswood, do you honestly think they would take the time to read it.All they will be talking about is the raction it got at the game and how everyone is talking about it on the forums, and doing it at the next game
If any of you do want to buy some flares for future games you can order via the below link:It’s out of order advertising them on here, they’re a lot more offensive than the other flares we’ve seen lately.
NUFC have been warned against it
If any of you do want to buy some flares for future games you can order via the below link:
It’s out of order advertising them on here, they’re a lot more offensive than the other flares we’ve seen lately.[/quote]
I prefer to wear parallels & docs myself !
It is something that has got really popular over the last 12 months or so. Almost every club is doing it and those doing it seem to be the young generation. I for one couldn’t care less. I enjoy getting drunk at games, home or away. Not everybody does that but it’s my choice. If I was you I’d just make sure I was more towards the front of the stand as they tend to be set off towards the back. Instead of reporting those doing it just accept it, enjoy the atmosphere and like they do support the club in your own way.So if setting off flares at football matches adds to the atmosphere why does this only occur in the away end? Secondly, assuming I have a choice of where to sit, why should that be influenced by a bunch of morons who want to set off smoke bombs? Finally, exactly how is this “supporting the club in your own way” when those involved show not the slightest interest in what’s happening the game?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
