Shark attack

[Norfolkbee]

I take it the Keystone Cops will be keeping a close watch on Timmy Mallett when he visits to watch Oxford United this season.

[BeesKnees]

I don't blame the poor guy wacked around the head several times by an inflatable so big it comes with plastic handles to carry it. I blame whoever was on the turnstyles and let him bring it in. One look at that photo tells you it was too big to be swung about in a confined space. Daft that it results in a conviction but the guy clearly wanted to be noticed for bringing the biggest inflatable he could find and guess what, it worked.

[beew]

A view from the Grimsby forum. It seems no CCTV.


While I would normally try not to comment on cases where I haven't seen or heard the evidence, there are several issues in this case that, from reading various social media accounts, deserve to be discussed.

According to the @FSF_Faircop Twitter account, which was tweeting from the case today, the bench deemed the evidence of the steward himself and a police officer more credible than that of "fans". It's not clear whether that just relates to Mr Meech himself (I don't know him personally) or any others that were called to give evidence on his behalf. But, if it simply relates to Mr Meech, that finding doesn't particularly surprise me, mainly as he has previously been reported in the media as saying he has no memory of the incident. In my job, I've spent enough time in courtrooms over the years to know that if a defendant can't remember an alleged incident, he or she is going to have a very hard time convincing magistrates of their innocence.

What concerns me more, however, is an earlier tweet from the same account which said the bench had ruled that CCTV evidence could not be shown. It's not clear which side was seeking to rely on it (though I presume it was the defence), but I'm concerned that key evidence which may have led to a different outcome has not been presented. Whatever the truth, I just hope that Mr Meech has been and is being properly advised and the FSF are supporting him as much as they possibly can.

Having been at the game, I find this whole case particularly difficult to accept because my overwhelming impression was of how sensibly the stewards fulfilled their duties. Following the testimony of this individual, in which he is reported to have said he was only working at his second match on that day, I think there have to be questions for his employers, be that Barnet FC or any third party, about how they handled their staff. Given what was being planned and the numbers expected to travel were known some days in advance of the match, it was surely unwise for such an inexperienced steward to be placed on duty in that section of the ground. I doubt that will ever be properly addressed, though. I just feel very sad that what was a great day for our club has been soured in such an unnecessary and costly manner.

Seems odd that the shark guy isn't making reference to the cctv.

From reading the post there's 3 explanations.

1 the prosecution refused it
2 the defence refused it
3. There wasn't any.

I know which one my money would be on.

[BeesKnees]

A view from the Grimsby forum. It seems no CCTV.


While I would normally try not to comment on cases where I haven't seen or heard the evidence, there are several issues in this case that, from reading various social media accounts, deserve to be discussed.

According to the @FSF_Faircop Twitter account, which was tweeting from the case today, the bench deemed the evidence of the steward himself and a police officer more credible than that of "fans". It's not clear whether that just relates to Mr Meech himself (I don't know him personally) or any others that were called to give evidence on his behalf. But, if it simply relates to Mr Meech, that finding doesn't particularly surprise me, mainly as he has previously been reported in the media as saying he has no memory of the incident. In my job, I've spent enough time in courtrooms over the years to know that if a defendant can't remember an alleged incident, he or she is going to have a very hard time convincing magistrates of their innocence.

What concerns me more, however, is an earlier tweet from the same account which said the bench had ruled that CCTV evidence could not be shown. It's not clear which side was seeking to rely on it (though I presume it was the defence), but I'm concerned that key evidence which may have led to a different outcome has not been presented. Whatever the truth, I just hope that Mr Meech has been and is being properly advised and the FSF are supporting him as much as they possibly can.

Having been at the game, I find this whole case particularly difficult to accept because my overwhelming impression was of how sensibly the stewards fulfilled their duties. Following the testimony of this individual, in which he is reported to have said he was only working at his second match on that day, I think there have to be questions for his employers, be that Barnet FC or any third party, about how they handled their staff. Given what was being planned and the numbers expected to travel were known some days in advance of the match, it was surely unwise for such an inexperienced steward to be placed on duty in that section of the ground. I doubt that will ever be properly addressed, though. I just feel very sad that what was a great day for our club has been soured in such an unnecessary and costly manner.

Seems odd that the shark guy isn't making reference to the cctv.

From reading the post there's 3 explanations.

1 the prosecution refused it
2 the defence refused it
3. There wasn't any.

I know which one my money would be on.

4 there was so many inflatables and so much jumping around that the cctv was inconclusive

[beew]

A view from the Grimsby forum. It seems no CCTV.


While I would normally try not to comment on cases where I haven't seen or heard the evidence, there are several issues in this case that, from reading various social media accounts, deserve to be discussed.

According to the @FSF_Faircop Twitter account, which was tweeting from the case today, the bench deemed the evidence of the steward himself and a police officer more credible than that of "fans". It's not clear whether that just relates to Mr Meech himself (I don't know him personally) or any others that were called to give evidence on his behalf. But, if it simply relates to Mr Meech, that finding doesn't particularly surprise me, mainly as he has previously been reported in the media as saying he has no memory of the incident. In my job, I've spent enough time in courtrooms over the years to know that if a defendant can't remember an alleged incident, he or she is going to have a very hard time convincing magistrates of their innocence.

What concerns me more, however, is an earlier tweet from the same account which said the bench had ruled that CCTV evidence could not be shown. It's not clear which side was seeking to rely on it (though I presume it was the defence), but I'm concerned that key evidence which may have led to a different outcome has not been presented. Whatever the truth, I just hope that Mr Meech has been and is being properly advised and the FSF are supporting him as much as they possibly can.

Having been at the game, I find this whole case particularly difficult to accept because my overwhelming impression was of how sensibly the stewards fulfilled their duties. Following the testimony of this individual, in which he is reported to have said he was only working at his second match on that day, I think there have to be questions for his employers, be that Barnet FC or any third party, about how they handled their staff. Given what was being planned and the numbers expected to travel were known some days in advance of the match, it was surely unwise for such an inexperienced steward to be placed on duty in that section of the ground. I doubt that will ever be properly addressed, though. I just feel very sad that what was a great day for our club has been soured in such an unnecessary and costly manner.

Seems odd that the shark guy isn't making reference to the cctv.

From reading the post there's 3 explanations.

1 the prosecution refused it
2 the defence refused it
3. There wasn't any.

I know which one my money would be on.

4 there was so many inflatables and so much jumping around that the cctv was inconclusive

So in a day of beach balls and smaller inflatables you won't see a guy with a 6ft shark???? Try again.

[beew]

We all know the CCTV in north and south isnt there otherwise the Cambridge flare thrower would of been brought to justice

[GenkiDev]

Wasn't there an incident at FGR involving the same scenario? As I understood it, the reason they [Grimsby] bought so many Inflatables for the match at the Hive was in support of the FGR incident...

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j& ... 3015,d.ZGU

[BeesKnees]

A view from the Grimsby forum. It seems no CCTV.


While I would normally try not to comment on cases where I haven't seen or heard the evidence, there are several issues in this case that, from reading various social media accounts, deserve to be discussed.

According to the @FSF_Faircop Twitter account, which was tweeting from the case today, the bench deemed the evidence of the steward himself and a police officer more credible than that of "fans". It's not clear whether that just relates to Mr Meech himself (I don't know him personally) or any others that were called to give evidence on his behalf. But, if it simply relates to Mr Meech, that finding doesn't particularly surprise me, mainly as he has previously been reported in the media as saying he has no memory of the incident. In my job, I've spent enough time in courtrooms over the years to know that if a defendant can't remember an alleged incident, he or she is going to have a very hard time convincing magistrates of their innocence.

What concerns me more, however, is an earlier tweet from the same account which said the bench had ruled that CCTV evidence could not be shown. It's not clear which side was seeking to rely on it (though I presume it was the defence), but I'm concerned that key evidence which may have led to a different outcome has not been presented. Whatever the truth, I just hope that Mr Meech has been and is being properly advised and the FSF are supporting him as much as they possibly can.

Having been at the game, I find this whole case particularly difficult to accept because my overwhelming impression was of how sensibly the stewards fulfilled their duties. Following the testimony of this individual, in which he is reported to have said he was only working at his second match on that day, I think there have to be questions for his employers, be that Barnet FC or any third party, about how they handled their staff. Given what was being planned and the numbers expected to travel were known some days in advance of the match, it was surely unwise for such an inexperienced steward to be placed on duty in that section of the ground. I doubt that will ever be properly addressed, though. I just feel very sad that what was a great day for our club has been soured in such an unnecessary and costly manner.

Seems odd that the shark guy isn't making reference to the cctv.

From reading the post there's 3 explanations.

1 the prosecution refused it
2 the defence refused it
3. There wasn't any.

I know which one my money would be on.

4 there was so many inflatables and so much jumping around that the cctv was inconclusive

So in a day of beach balls and smaller inflatables you won't see a guy with a 6ft shark???? Try again.

No as he was obscured by the bloody great big shark. Your turn

[beew]

Yes there was. And at FGR the stewards did the complete opposite of us and alledgedly physically assualted the guy which also provoked anger on social media. Not sure which story is better tbh.give a fan a kicking for following his team of drag him through expensive court proceedings at great cost. If it were me id take a beating.

[BeesKnees]

Why would a guy so innocent take a small inflatable shark to court and tell the TV it was nearly identical to the 6ft one he took to the game?
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_ ... 95%2F&_rdr

[GenkiDev]

Yes there was. And at FGR the stewards did the complete opposite of us and alledgedly physically assualted the guy which also provoked anger on social media. Not sure which story is better tbh.give a fan a kicking for following his team of drag him through expensive court proceedings at great cost. If it were me id take a beating.

In light of that, it seems like the inflatable tension was brewing and the situation might have been unavoidable. I'm guessing the Grimsby fans were outraged by the FGR dilemma and were somewhat incensed to prove a point. Sillyness prevails.

[beew]

Barnet Steve.

In response to your rude reply which I see you deleted before I could reply.

So in a day of beach balls and smaller inflatables you won't see a guy with a 6ft shark???? Try again.[/quote]

No as he was obscured by the bloody great big shark. Your turn[/quote]


Obscured for the whole 2 hours of the match Steve? Your so gullible. When we went to Woking they filmed us going into the ground, not because we were unruly, but because if anything kicked off later they had our faces and clothes on record which helps in identifying people from later footage.

[antbfc]

Pathetic, hope this steward is no longer at the club.. Would hate for him to get scared again by all these nasty fans and their INFLATABLES

Hope he appeals and wins

[BeesKnees]

Barnet Steve.

In response to your rude reply which I see you deleted before I could reply.

So in a day of beach balls and smaller inflatables you won't see a guy with a 6ft shark???? Try again.

No as he was obscured by the bloody great big shark. Your turn


Obscured for the whole 2 hours of the match Steve? Your so gullible. When we went to Woking they filmed us going into the ground, not because we were unruly, but because if anything kicked off later they had our faces and clothes on record which helps in identifying people from later footage.

I haven't deleted anything and I don't recall making any rude response.

Interesting that for someone so supportive of the club you always assume away fans are right. As for gullible, I know from previous incidents that CCTV cameras don't always catch the action and so prove little or no evidence. I merely gave a fourth option that you got the hump over. The guy doesn't deny that he was the one holding the object the steward claims hit him so identity was never in doubt.

[John Hunt]

It's assault . They should have locked him up and thrown away the key