Are football players a special case? by raistlin

User avatar

A common assault, or more properly, assault by beating. Little more than a slap in the face and, as assaults go, hardly worth the name when compared to the assault of a vulnerable adult, or even worse, a child, in a domestic violence setting.

The thug was handed down the maximum sentence allowed in law so why are people so "astonished" as to the "leniency" of the sentence?

Oh, I see, it was an MP who, not wanting to allow common sense to get in the way of a good sound-bite, chose to display her crass stupidity :mad1:

Should there be more severe sentences for those who assault a football player as compared to those who assault in a domestic violence setting or those who assault the aged, infirm or otherwise vulnerable members of society just for fun?

That certainly seems to be the consensus of opinion amongst the armchair judges and magistrates. There are an awful lot of people who either can't, or won't, differentiate between justice and extremism.

It seems to me that those who should know better are quite willing to pander to the vociferous as well.

Maybe my moderate views are wrong. Perhaps there should be a sliding scale of sentencing based upon ones social position rather than the circumstances of the offence.

Just to put meat on the bones, a section 39 Common Assault, is a summary only offence (ie cannot be sent to Crown Court), carrying a maximum sentence of six months, and as with all sentences is subject to a reduction of between 10% ( guilty plea, day of trial) to 33% (guilty plea, first opportunity).

Cogito ergo sum... maybe?

Click the image to go to Nano-Meet Website

Posted 22 Oct 2012, 17:56 #1 

Last edited by raistlin on 22 Oct 2012, 19:25, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Footballers aren't a special case although a lot of them believe and behave like they are.
The problem stems with the silly amounts that they get paid which isn't all the players fault for getting all they can while they can.

Posted 22 Oct 2012, 19:13 #2 

User avatar
I heard on the radio that it was said in court that football had make great strides to get rid of hooligans and it should be the place to be able to take the family with children, problem is families cant afford the bloody prices any more.

I was told at the weekend of an apprentice who has just signed on at a local premiership club for 18k per week, stop and think for a moment thats 18,000 per week or 936,000 per year at just 18, no wonder thay think they are invincible and get molly coddled by clubs who cater for their every whim, we are all in this together dont forget !

No excuse for the assault but Kirkland went down like a sack of potatoes and if i had been approached by a drunken fan on the pitch i may have given him a wide berth or at least put my hand by my face as protection just in case.
Robs Pictures at :

Robs Car Gallery

click below to access nano website

Planning is an unnatural process, much better to just get on with things, that way failure comes as a complete surprise instead of being preceeded by a period of worry and doubt

Posted 22 Oct 2012, 19:37 #3 

As ever, when `Sport’ is discussed in the printed media hyperbole rules. When you look closely at what happened, what was said and by whom, and what the result was, you have to wonder at the mentality of these mollycoddled prima donnas.

For a start, just what `treatment’ was necessary? He was wasn’t punched, he was shoved. I was watching it from a better position than the referee and I saw a two handed shove with the palms of the hands followed by the victim taking a dive. We have all seen far worse assaults than that meted out to and by opposing players in almost every league game. Only on this occasion to catch and punish the offender doesn’t invoke 10 million armchair pundits to scream obscenities if the offender’s team is penalised with a red card. Goalkeepers are in very vulnerable positions and are lucky if not booted in the face when diving for a save.

`Shocked, upset(?) and angry' is a stupid thing for a grown man to say - all the hallmarks of coaching in a wider sense. `Anyone who supports that….’ is also stupid. He knows nobody `supports’ that.

So that’s the ’victim’s’ side, realistically, and looking at the bare bones of it without considering right or wrong.

The offender seemed to think the amount he had drunk in some way excused him or should be a mitigating factor in considering his penalty. To say he had drunk in the region of 12 pints of lager/cider and three quarters of a litre of Vodka sounds like elitism to me. That’s well over £50. Add in the price of admission, one or two pies and sundries and it’s cost him approaching a hundred quid. What’s his job then? Like confessing to a larger crime than that actually committed to gain some sort of notoriety or perceived kudos. A lie. Also, suicidal probably.

It’s football, even if both parties were not necessarily players. And that means real men, noted for their bravery and valour on the field of battle, striving in the face of privation and disadvantage to rescue the honour of their respective tribal loyalties….and so on ad nauseum.

Through my jaundiced eyes the above is a cold description of events. Now my unqualified, lay, verdict. When are we going to get real about such appalling conduct? The sentencing seems to bear no relation to what has happened and even appears to serve as encouragement to others to offend. An assault is an assault. No matter who the offender or victim. No matter the whereabouts, except where the law allows, like boxing or other violent contact sports which are legalised even if you don’t agree with them. There can be no doubt about the offence - all the world saw it and the offender intended it to be seen.

All that now matters is the degree of the assault ie. if a weapon was used or not, the degree of genuine suffering or damage to the victim, and the history of the offender. In my Utopian wishworld, the offender was always going to be found guilty (given the TV evidence) so an early guilty plea is irrelevant for discount purposes. His form is significant, so leniency again is not a consideration. There was no weapon other than his palms and the victim suffered minimal damage. His remorse is suspect insofar as sincerity is concerned and to be expected after such publicity. I can see no good reason for discount and, if there are no other relevant facts about which we have not been told, my sentence would be one full year in prison with two years probation after release. A lifetime ban from all football grounds in the country, on pain of a further year in prison if broken. At the end of the prison sentence he would think more than twice about reoffending in any way and wouldn’t get the chance anyway. More importantly, it might send the right message to others of his ilk.

Sorry to go on, but not being a person of consequence means that a chance to vent is rare when the audience is just my wife!

Posted 22 Oct 2012, 22:38 #4 

User avatar
Haven't got time for the fairies who play football..... RUGBY a real man's sport!!!! Get kicked, get bruised, get cut and even lose a bollock but still play on.

Posted 23 Oct 2012, 11:14 #5 

User avatar
bopperbrian wrote:Haven't got time for the fairies who play football..... RUGBY a real man's sport!!!! Get kicked, get bruised, get cut and even lose a bollock but still play on.

Probably lost a brain before taking up the sport ;)
"Keep Smilin'"

Posted 23 Oct 2012, 11:58 #6