Man U fans jailed in Italy

Thanx 4 The Fish

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/manchester/7155776.stm

A number of Man U fans were jailed today for 2 and a bit years for offenses committed while traveling to the game last week. Purposely heading to the bar of the opposing ultras and then rioting, fully justified. Seems that there will be some nature of intervention by the Uk government (again) and they may serve part of their sentence in jail here.

GuanYin

Dontcha know it was just a bit of banter by them :rolleyes:

justfortherecor

Any word on whether they've caught and prosecuted the Italian fans who stabbed the 5 united supporters?

mike65

Fans and players, what a rabble they all are.

Mike.

Peyton Manning

*ahem* michael shields *ahem*

Arc.

Dave!

Obviously a set-up.

MagicMarker

If only our justice system were as thorough.

smemon

great week for utd off the field then :rolleyes:

good to see these guys get nailed anyway, deserve everything they get.

anyone with a scarf wrapped around their face should automatically be barred from football matches/pubs.

(apart from the asian dudes and dudettes of course, but there's a difference )

Guy:Incognito

smemon wrote: »

anyone with a scarf wrapped around their face should automatically be barred from football matches/pubs.

The Italians are struggling enough with attendances, they dont need to be playign behind closed doors.

Thanx 4 The Fish

I had a scarf around my face at anfield last week, was fncking freezing up there. I hope they do not see that and ban me from the ground.

If people go looking for trouble then they deserve all that they get TBH.

And as for Michael Shields, regardless of whether he did it or not (many witnesses have come forward and said he did not do it) the justice system over there has punished him and he is not serving his time in a british prison the way it seems these lads will be..

Chardee MacDennis

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

the justice system over there has punished him and he is not serving his time.

em yes he is....

Unearthly

Typo for now perhaps?

Thanx 4 The Fish

Call_me_al wrote: »

em yes he is....

Well spotted call me al, anything else to add ? Left off the last bit of the sentence, mea culpe.

cournioni

They deserve everything they get, they were there for trouble and they got it and are now rightfully being punished for it... But again as someone else has already said, what are the Italian police doing about the Roma fans that stabbed the United fans?! Absolutely nothing by the sound of things.

It seems as though there is one rule for Italians and another for non-Italians, as the very same thing happened last year and the only ones that ended up battered by the police were United fans. Thats hardly going to solve Italy's hooligan problems...

Mr Alan

Archimedes wrote: »

*ahem* michael shields *ahem*

Arc.

in case you are genuinely interested, he passed a lie detector test yesterday saying he had nothing to do with it.

he does seem to be a genuine miscarraige of justice (in a serious way) as opposed to these lads, who are just hooligans who deserve everything they get

Drag00n79

The mother of one of the United fans was on 5Live defending his character today. It was sad listening - "sad" in the "I'm like Dot Cotton and my son does no wrong" kind of way! At one stage she said he was "technically blind", five minutes later she said he was sightseeing in Rome that afternoon and how he phoned his girlfriend to tell her he would show her around the city in a few months.

Chardee MacDennis

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

Well spotted call me al, anything else to add ?

nothing to add for now.

PHB

Mr Alan wrote: »

in case you are genuinely interested, he passed a lie detector test yesterday saying he had nothing to do with it.

he does seem to be a genuine miscarraige of justice (in a serious way) as opposed to these lads, who are just hooligans who deserve everything they get

Just as a side note, lie detector tests are notoriously unreliable and really aren't accepted in a court of law anymore.

Mr Alan

PHB wrote: »

Just as a side note, lie detector tests are notoriously unreliable and really aren't accepted in a court of law anymore.

actually depending on wat ya read they are between 87%-99% reliable, and are still accepted in numerous states in the US. So in reality they are not "notoriously unreliable". Along with all the other factors it simply strenghtens his case.

_blank_

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

I had a scarf around my face at anfield last week, was fncking freezing up there. I hope they do not see that and ban me from the ground.

Are you a known Hoolie?

Are policemen going to point you out as a known troublemaker?

Gavin "shels"

Wonder now if the same Policeman who wanted Roma kicked out of the Champions League will rise up and now want Man U kicked out, some how I doubt it:rolleyes:

Guy:Incognito

DesF wrote: »

Are you a known Hoolie?

Are policemen going to point you out as a known troublemaker?

They wouldnt be able to even if he was if his face was covered.

Guy:Incognito

Gavin shels wrote: »

Wonder now if the same Policeman who wanted Roma kicked out of the Champions League will rise up and now want Man U kicked out, some how I doubt it:rolleyes:

Bit of a different situation. We're talking about 4 blokes here, not the entire away support or even a large group of them.

Either way I'm completely opposed to club sanctionbs because fo fans. If someone really wants to cause trouble theres not much a club can do to prevent it inside a ground, nevermind outside it. The best you can really hope for is a visual deterrent (police) and to catch people after they do something.

_blank_

Stekelly wrote: »

They wouldnt be able to even if he was if his face was covered.

ORLY?

Did you read the story at all?

Here it is, just in case.

The four men, who were dressed in black with scarves wrapped around their faces, were all identified by Greater Manchester Police spotters outside the ground.

Vokes

Mr Alan wrote: »

actually depending on wat ya read they are between 87%-99% reliable, and are still accepted in numerous states in the US. So in reality they are not "notoriously unreliable".

I would call that notoriously unreliable.

Guy:Incognito

DesF wrote: »

ORLY?

Did you read the story at all?

Here it is, just in case.

Thats like identifying muslim women wearing burkhas. I assume by identify they mean "pulled them and checked who they were".

Mr Alan

SofaKing wrote: »

I would call that notoriously unreliable.

ok, i wouldnt.

I'd call it, at worst, right 85 times out of 100.

zing

Dunno about you but if a decision of innocent or guilty came down to something with a 15% error rate then I certainly wouldn't be happy taking a chance on it. If it's not accurate to at least 3 zeros beyond the decimal point then I'd consider it unreliable.

Guy:Incognito

zing wrote: »

Dunno about you but if a decision of innocent or guilty came down to something with a 15% error rate then I certainly wouldn't be happy taking a chance on it. If it's not accurate to at least 3 zeros beyond the decimal point then I'd consider it unreliable.

I'd sya you'd take you chances if you were the one relying on it as your last hope.

astrofool

Mr Alan wrote: »

ok, i wouldnt.

I'd call it, at worst, right 85 times out of 100.

The problem with polygraph's is that it's quite easy to train yourself to pass it. At best they can be used negatively (i.e. prove that he is lying when he answers), but never to prove that a person is telling the truth.

PHB

While they may be accepted in the US, and this is under very very very strict circumstances except in New Mexico, they are pretty much dismissed as non-scientific in Europe. Within the US there is a huge movement to stamp out lie detector tests as valid. Aside from the fact that they don't measure lies they measure stress, and the assumption is that lies lead to stress, and aside from the fact that even the stress they measure is easily avoidable, the only use it has is in detecting the stress levels of people who don't understand what is going on, normally those with a guilty conscience so that they are actually stressed about lying, and even then, they aren't hugely accurate, and in reality can never real prove innocence, only guilt, in rare cases.

Mr Alan

my point was that the lie detector test, although not infallible, when taken into account along with all the other information pointing to him having nothing to do with it, just shows further how much of a joke his conviction is.

PHB

in all fairness he was identified by the guy himself, yes there are some legal issues, but in all fairness, it was held up by the European High Court.

Mr Alan

Tbh PHB, we'd best not get into it, it will end up in a fierce argument, needless to say, i disagree with you 100000000%

the fact that another man has already admitted to the crime seems to be lost on you, along with all the other info, i advise you look further into it-please

PHB

The other man admitted the crime, wow. While he was in full knowledge of the fact that it wouldn't hurt him whatsoever, he admitted to the crime. Gee I wonder why.
Honestly, that's like some randomer in England saying, oh no, it wasn't that teacher who called the teddie Mohammad, it was me! Set her free! What, you want me to go to Iran? Jesus christ no, I retract my confession. (which is btw, exactly what happen in the Sheild case)

Mr Alan

PHB-I advise you look into the entire case in more detail, rather than just picking up on the little bits here and there you've probably heard on hate filled united sites.

The conviction is a joke.

Dub13

This thread is not about Michael Shields.

Thanx 4 The Fish

Treu Dub, PHB has already proven that....

therecklessone

Dub13 wrote: »

This thread is not about Michael Shields.

Indeed.

It's about scumbags who've caused trouble at football matches abroad.

And who've been convicted of same.

Mr Alan

apologies lads, you're right, wayyy off topic.....i am just unable to not respond.

Apologies again!