dune

I wonder how many of those defending these yobs are hooligans/hooligan wannabee's themselves.

I wonder if Stu's attitude woould be different if students had damaged his car, or thrown a projectile and cut his granddads head....

I hope they scrap that stupid child trust fund.

He shouldn't have been throwing a plastic chair. How you can defend those morons is beyond me. They weren't kids - they were adults, and they did it right in front of a film crew.

Stu, do you believe these sentences will act as a detterent?

I don't know about you Johnny, but I was a big critic of George Osborne prior to the election but have to say i've been very impressed with him since he became chancellor.

The thing is these convictions will refresh the memories of those who forgot about Maze Hill. We won't be seeing a repeat of the trouble around the stadium for a very long time because of those sentences. Surely you must agree this is a good thing.

The windscreen technician has smoked since he was 18, regularly puffing 20 a day. Within the first ten days of quitting, Coombes estimated he had saved £150. A packet of fags is about £6 so how does he come to that figure?

Good point! It's bad enough with the ticket tax and the membership tax without having to pay a yobs tax aswell.

I expect the stories about Pompey thugs joining up with the Bournemouth thugs will soon start doing the rounds.

Drop a penny off the top of the Eifel Tower and it'll kill a human if it hits them on the head.

Wasn't senior citizens head cut? How would those defending the vandals feel if it had been their grandad?

When you drive over the speed limit it's not a premeditated attempt to kill a child, but when vandals throw coins or basically engage in thuggery it's a pre meditated act to cause harm to others. That said both incidents are breaking the law.

I was there too and for those on the coaches or on the trains they had an escort, but for those who had driven in their cars it created the potential for innocent people to have their heads kicked in.

They did the right thing. It's my view that the priority of the police should be the protection of the innocent and by letting the Pompey fans out at the same time it allowed innocent Skates that wanted no part in the trouble to zip up their jackets and get to their cars safely. If they'd been held in for 30 minutes they'd stand out like sore thumbs. Your whole stance is in favour of the vandals, try thinking about the law abiding majority for a second.

Didn't the vandals have a duty somewhere in all this?

99% of those in attendance went home/down the pub after the game. We're talking about a tiny minority who chose to engage in vandalism. It's my view that the police did the right thing in allowing the Pompey fans out at the same time because it's the polices civic duty to protect the public and by holding the Pompey fans in it would have made them sitting ducks when they made their way to their cars when everyone else had vacated the vicinity.

This. When we played Leeds a few years back and they started throwing hot dogs and plastic bottles it was not a safe environment of children. What if amongst those items someone had thrown a dart and it'd lodged in the head of a child?

Until we've seen a more detailed account of the prosecution we really cannot quantify the level of guilt. I'm sure that the police had plenty of video evidence.

To be fair they should have known what was coming.. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3693885.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3695393.stm

Take away the football element and if a group of adults, note the word adults - not kids, went onto a garage fourcourt and vandalised some cars and i'm sure you'd agree that the sentence fits the crime. I feel sorry for them as it was clearly a drink/drug fueled moment of tribal madness, but that doesn't mitigate the act according to the law.

That's a fair point.

12 men sentence to a combined 13 years put's the average sentence at 1 year. That does seem extreme, but does send out a message which is clearly the thinking behind the sentencing.

I notice that terms such as "retard" and "mong" are used by you a lot. I'm sure there must be forum members that have children and relations with mental and physical handicaps that find such derogatory remarks hurtful and offensive. May I suggest you tone down your prejudice in future because such terms hark back to the attitudes of the NAZI's and are as discriminatory as racism. You come accross as being very two faced and selective in your application and condemnation of predjudice and to that end you show the same characteristics as those you choose to crucify. No doubt you will come back with some clever and repitive remark, and will remain in denial of your own prejudice. I will leave it to others to judge whether your NAZI attitude to the disabled is acceptable or not.

Can you expand on this please and sumarise a little of the Liebherr family history.