Psycrow

Great result and performance by the sound of it. Stats say we played them off the park, reserves or not

Can I ask if the various confirmations above are "Yeah, I was there and I heard it was Barnard" or are they "I saw it happen, it was definitely Barnard" Because the first could be the result of a rumour spreading in a pub. Big Dave Watson says above that his mate was told it was Barnard by a cop, who for instance could have been wrong or taking the **** or whatever... and it definitely would have spread around the pub from there. I'm not accusing anybody of telling porky pies, I'm just saying this could just be a rumour that got out of hand, and all the confirmations could have come from that.

St Landrew can't reply to tell us why he's leaving... or else that previous post wouldn't have been his last post... so if someone else could shed some light. Best of luck St L. Good result today. Don't know much about the match, was watching the golf

we were making love on the wednesday, thursday, friday, saturday That rohypnol is great stuff

My favourite MLT goal without a doubt

Home to Bolton

Wow. Just Wow. RIP Mr. Liebherr. We'll be forever thankful

Wow. Just Wow. RIP Mr. Liebherr. We'll be forever thankful

I see Sky Sports took this to a whole new level this morning.... ".....after they announced it was time for the prediction of 'British born' Paul the psychic octopus."

Yeah, he's just notcied the crossdresser sitting over his shoulder

Is that a transvestite sitting behind Morgan and Jose???

Yes, ye did. Ye just happened to win the game.

Its not only that he's not funny, but he relies way too much on jokes about being fat himself... but as soon as someone else does it (Patrick Stewart) he has a problem with it.

People pay to see Roy Chubby Brown. Case Rested

I have him in the back of the van. Where do you want him?

Good old RTE are doing a great job. The usual John Giles and Eamonn Dunphy who are not the sycophantic commentators that you get on Sky Sports but can sometimes just be negative for the sake of it, are joined by the awful Ronnie Whelan and Ray Houghton who are trying to be negative in the same way as they know its popular, but don't have any football knowledge behind their negativity. Graeme Souness has also been on, but last night was his last match for some reason. Best pundit in UK/Ireland for my money. He gets regular gigs more than Whelan and Houghton on Prem coverage too. They've also had Dietmar Hamann and Ozzie Ardiles for the Germany and Argentina games respectively. Hamann isn't great, but I like Ozzie.

Then why throw it? Seriously, I'm not trying to pick a fight, I normally ignore these things on here. But why throw a chair into a group of people if your intention isn't to harm? I also said before that I don't think some of the sentences are justified, I'm trying to play devil's advocate. I just really believe that the fact that there were hundreds of people involved has led to much bigger sentences than would normally apply for these offences.

I presumed they were out of shot, apologies if I was wrong. It was thrown into an area with quite a number of police though. I replied about the incitement bit already. I didn't mean it as a legal term or something they had been charged with.

I never said they did. But the crime of Violent disorder doesn't carry a set punishment. The punishment ranges and the judge has discretion to choose the punishment for each specific case. My point is that the fact that there was a risk of riot because of their actions was surely taken into account and a heavier than normal charge increased. I'll ignore the patronising "You think you're clever" statement.

Just because they were out on probation when you dealing with them doesn't mean they hadn't served lengthy sentences.

A violent political protest is still a different situation in the main. There would rarely be 2 opposing groups of people at a political protest, the only exception I can think of offhand would be the Orange Marches in NI.

The fact that he hit an empty road is irrelivant. He threw it in the direction of a group of people, possibly inciting a riot. I've said this twice already now, so I'll put it in caps this time because its being conveniently ignored. IT IS INCITEMENT. THE PUNISHMENT IS MORE THAN IT WOULD BE IN A NORMAL SITUATION BECAUSE OF THE POTENTIAL OF A RIOT BECAUSE OF THE LARGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE INVOLVED. If he threw that chair, on camera, onto a road at 3am after a niteclub, he'd get the fine you're talking about. But he didn't did he? He threw it in the direction of hundreds of angry opposing fans and cops. He didn't hit anybody... but not for the want of trying.

Stu, burgling a house, drink driving, nicking a car, fighting in town and putting someing in hospital and mugging a granny are all different to what these lads were put away for 1 simple reason. They don't involve huge crowds. As has been said many times in this thread and others, football violence is always going to be punished much more severly by the law. The reason that is the case is because of the potential for huge riots that can come from small actions. It can't even be compared to other violent crimes in that respect. Its the POTENTIAL they're trying to prevent by making an example of these guys trying to deter future incidents. However the majority of those jailed weren't simply jailed for "grabbing a fence" or "throwing a bottle top". Only 2 of them were. Others threw missiles, coins, stones, a chair. You're playing down what they're actual actions were way too much. Through this thread you've gone from say they "Just threw a stone" to "They just threw pieces of wood" and now "They just grabbed a fence and throw a bottle top" They were throwing objects with the intention of harming others. If the reporter in the article you posted has his facts right and some of them only grabbed at a fence, then yes maybe the sentences are too severe. I have a feeling more details may emerge though. As we've all seen in the last couple of months, reporters aren't always the most accurate people in the world. You can't refer to failures in punishing offenders of other crimes adequately as a means of justifying your claim that their sentences are too harsh either. 2 wrongs don't make a right. If a mugger/rapist/murderer doesn't get a sentence that you consider fair, you can't let all other people convicted of crimes off lightly simply because of it. The examples that have been given on this thread are spurious and self serving also. For every "kiddie fiddler" (not your post above I know) that has gotten 6 months in jail, there are 100 who were jailed for years.

I'm sure they make recommendations, and they have targets for the crimes they are investigating. But that doesn't mean that the courts will even pay heed to them

That one's for free folks, but he's here all week. Try the Beef.