der Berliner 3,247 Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 if its watch ashley take the stadium and the continuation of our destruction or violent action to remove them i know what i can live with and cant live with. just wish the staff didnt stand in front and protect them. the line in the sand is clearly defined. join the effort to save the club or stand with ashley and co in our destruction. There is no debate about that. Harming or frightening people who do their jobs and are by no means puppets of Ashley or the board needs to be addressed though. For obvious reasons, emotions ran high and people might very well got carried away. Nonetheless, an apology to those on the receiving end will not be out of place and would be regarded as a show of character and dignity. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Barristan Selmy 222 Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 (edited) Storm in a tea cup. If this had happened elsewhere a hell of a lot worse would have happened years ago. People sustain worse injuries standing in the crowd at festivals. The usual suspects do not care less about this woman and it's just being used to push agendas. Edited January 18, 2015 by Ser Barristan Selmy 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mountain Bear 0 Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 If the word assault hadn't been mentioned by folk who were neither there nor have video evidence of such a thing happening, then there would have been no need for it to be debated. Why do you think that it's ok for premature accusations to be levelled at Rangers supporters? How can you say there's no video evidence? If your point is that we shouldn't rush to judgement regarding criminality, fine, I accept that. However, I still condemn what I saw on that uTube video, whether it turns out to be assault or otherwise. Do you? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Barristan Selmy 222 Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 How can you say there's no video evidence? If your point is that we shouldn't rush to judgement regarding criminality, fine, I accept that. However, I still condemn what I saw on that uTube video, whether it turns out to be assault or otherwise. Do you? Never go to the Rome derby http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2305961/Roma-v-Lazio-Fans-stabbed-brutal-clashes-police-mar-Rome-derby.html 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,247 Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 One evil does not make another evil any better, as the saying goes. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mountain Bear 0 Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Never go to the Rome derby http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2305961/Roma-v-Lazio-Fans-stabbed-brutal-clashes-police-mar-Rome-derby.html No, I'm not a big fan of the way they do things in Rome. [emoji6] 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trublusince1982 243 Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 There is no debate about that. Harming or frightening people who do their jobs and are by no means puppets of Ashley or the board needs to be addressed though. For obvious reasons, emotions ran high and people might very well got carried away. Nonetheless, an apology to those on the receiving end will not be out of place and would be regarded as a show of character and dignity.think everyone agrees on that. If it happened. That is in reference to any assault on staff. if you are talking in reference to fans entering the stadium without permission sorry don't agree. The staff should have removed themselves from the situation if there was any indication of aggression they then phone security and the police. Not decide to scream obscenities and forcefully push the crowd to bodily block the door.There was plenty of police around, I understand they might have believed they were doing what is best for the club, but I fail to see how that is the case. Would have been far better if they had left the police to deal with the situation as it does not fall under the job description for a receptionist to act as crowd control/body guard same goes for 80 year old members of staff. There is no doubt there was behaviour that was not acceptable but its a bit like the pot calling the kettle black at this point until further evidence can be produced. Did anyone try to gain access before the video? if so in what fashion? How did it all start? as said not to be confused with physical violence against staff. If anyone pulled her hair or purposefully shoved her then they should be dealt with. who was in charge? where was head of security? Who decided the best coarse of action was to push the police out the way and have a receptionist and 80 year old deal with a crowd which has been suggested was in the hundreds? Who decided after notice the day before of protests to have one security guy on the door? they had 20 mins grace according to the ref to get stewards in place for the game ending early. After the protest at the front nobody thought "might be a good idea to put some stewards on the door?" we have our own security company do we not? Why not let the situation diffuse itself by giving them the foyer to hold up their banner? no director was at risk they were nowhere near. obviously its easy in hindsight but some common sense should have prevailed on both sides. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barca72 440 Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 If the word assault hadn't been mentioned by folk who were neither there nor have video evidence of such a thing happening, then there would have been no need for it to be debated. Why do you think that it's ok for premature accusations to be levelled at Rangers supporters? From Wikipedia, "In common law, assault is the act of creating apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact with a person. "An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm. It is both a crime and a tort and, therefore, may result in either criminal and/or civil liability. Generally, the common law definition is the same in criminal and tort law. There is, however, an additional criminal law category of assault consisting of an attempted but unsuccessful battery. The term is often confused with battery, which involves physical contact. The specific meaning of assault varies between countries, but can refer to an act that causes another to apprehend immediate and personal violence, or in the more limited sense of a threat of violence caused by an immediate show of force. Assault in Scotland is defined more broadly still as any intentional physical contact with another person without their consent; "In Scots Law, assault is defined as an "attack upon the person of another". There is no distinction made in Scotland between assault and battery (which is not a term used in Scots law), although, as in England and Wales, assault can be occasioned without a physical attack on another's person, as demonstrated in Atkinson v. HM Advocate wherein the accused was found guilty of assaulting a shop assistant by simply jumping over a counter wearing a ski mask. The court said: "An assault may be constituted by threatening gestures sufficient to produce alarm. "—Atkinson v. HM Advocate (1987)." I think you can see from the above definition of 'assault' that both the old man and the lady were given cause to be alarmed when the fans broke through the glass door uninvited. They should all be charged with assault. Further, the person(s) - if a successful identification can be made of the culprit(s) - who gave the lady her physical injuries should be charged with aggravated assault. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 How can you say there's no video evidence? If your point is that we shouldn't rush to judgement regarding criminality, fine, I accept that. However, I still condemn what I saw on that uTube video, whether it turns out to be assault or otherwise. Do you? There is nothing to condemn from that footage. If someone got hurt, then that is unfortunate. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 (edited) From Wikipedia,"In common law, assault is the act of creating apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact with a person. "An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm. It is both a crime and a tort and, therefore, may result in either criminal and/or civil liability. Generally, the common law definition is the same in criminal and tort law. There is, however, an additional criminal law category of assault consisting of an attempted but unsuccessful battery. The term is often confused with battery, which involves physical contact. The specific meaning of assault varies between countries, but can refer to an act that causes another to apprehend immediate and personal violence, or in the more limited sense of a threat of violence caused by an immediate show of force. Assault in Scotland is defined more broadly still as any intentional physical contact with another person without their consent; "In Scots Law, assault is defined as an "attack upon the person of another". There is no distinction made in Scotland between assault and battery (which is not a term used in Scots law), although, as in England and Wales, assault can be occasioned without a physical attack on another's person, as demonstrated in Atkinson v. HM Advocate wherein the accused was found guilty of assaulting a shop assistant by simply jumping over a counter wearing a ski mask. The court said: "An assault may be constituted by threatening gestures sufficient to produce alarm. "—Atkinson v. HM Advocate (1987)." I think you can see from the above definition of 'assault' that both the old man and the lady were given cause to be alarmed when the fans broke through the glass door uninvited. They should all be charged with assault. Further, the person(s) - if a successful identification can be made of the culprit(s) - who gave the lady her physical injuries should be charged with aggravated assault. I'm afraid I can't agree with you on anything that I have seen. What gestures threatening violence were aimed at either of them? In Scots Law it is generally accepted that a verbal attack does not amount to an assault. Macdonald in 'Criminal Law of Scotland' states "Mere words cannot constitute an assault". However, "gestures threatening violence so great as to put another in bodily fear, whether accompanied by words of menace or not, constitute assault" (Atkinson v HM Advocate). This demonstrates that actual injury is not required in those special circumstances. I'm not a legal eagle, so there may be a lot more to that particular case. Edited January 18, 2015 by Rangersitis 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.