Shark attack

[John_c]

I'm assuming there was video evidence. You can't fart at a football ground these days without being caught on camera.

Also, I'm guessing it's the police/cps who prosecute and not the steward in question.

[beew]

I'm assuming there was video evidence. You can't fart at a football ground these days without being caught on camera.

Also, I'm guessing it's the police/cps who prosecute and not the steward in question.

It is the police who interview and pass the findings to the CPS who decide if there's a case to answer. I don't know the seriousness of the offence but its hard to see how a 6ft inflatable shark could be used as a weapon to hurt someone. It does seem to me that the club runs a zero tolerance campaign which seems to target away fans. I just hope that this doesn't encourage clubs to go after us on our away days this year. I went to BR last year and there were a couple of incidents that could of resulted in arrest but thankfully were dealt with sensibly by stewards/police.

[buzzzzinbee]

Regardless of who pressed charges it's pretty embarrassing that the steward opted to go along with the whole thing.

[John_c]

Has anyone here ever been slapped on the head with a 6 foot inflatable shark before?

Don't think we're in a position to judge.

Besides. He's a Grimsby fan. They weren't using inflatables as weapons the year they went down. It was bottles and bricks if I recall.

[Norfolkbee]

Seems to have more than a bit of this about it https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_FkI69t9eIY

[DerekRocholl]

Has anyone here ever been slapped on the head with a 6 foot inflatable shark before?

Don't think we're in a position to judge.

Besides. He's a Grimsby fan. They weren't using inflatables as weapons the year they went down. It was bottles and bricks if I recall.

When i was a lad when we were beaten on porpoise with real sharks - it was luxury.

[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.

[Mikel Bee]

... what was a great day for our club has been soured in such an unnecessary and costly manner.

In what way was it a great day? We lost and our lead slashed from 4 points 1.

What has it cost the club?

[beew]

... what was a great day for our club has been soured in such an unnecessary and costly manner.

In what way was it a great day? We lost and our lead slashed from 4 points 1.

What has it cost the club?

Read the first line from the post!!!

[John_c]

Has anyone here ever been slapped on the head with a 6 foot inflatable shark before?

Don't think we're in a position to judge.

Besides. He's a Grimsby fan. They weren't using inflatables as weapons the year they went down. It was bottles and bricks if I recall.

When i was a lad when we were beaten on porpoise with real sharks - it was luxury.

[Mikel Bee]

... what was a great day for our club has been soured in such an unnecessary and costly manner.

In what way was it a great day? We lost and our lead slashed from 4 points 1.

What has it cost the club?

Read the first line from the post!!!

Ah. Remember quotes help the easily confused.

[John_c]

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.

[Mickbee]

Was it a Hammerhead Shark? If so they are known to be very aggressive and its no surprise it attacked a human.

Seriously though, if they guy was being persistent in whacking people with it he should have been warned and then ejected from the ground. No need to arrest him.

[John_c]

Was it a Hammerhead Shark? If so they are known to be very aggressive and its no surprise it attacked a human.

Seriously though, if they guy was being persistent in whacking people with it he should have been warned and then ejected from the ground. No need to arrest him.

It was a 6 foot dangerous weapon! He could have killed someone.

[DerekRocholl]

Was it a Hammerhead Shark? If so they are known to be very aggressive and its no surprise it attacked a human.

Seriously though, if they guy was being persistent in whacking people with it he should have been warned and then ejected from the ground. No need to arrest him.

It was a 6 foot dangerous weapon! He could have killed someone.

To have created that much terror surely it was at least a Megalodon Shark if not bigger

http://www.sharksider.com/megalodon-shark/