Section 27 - Stay sober !!

[McCanary 0]

I`ve noticed on the thread about ticketing for Col who that one of their gys keeps quoting section 27...ogf the violent crime legislation.

As I see it, if you stay sober then it can`t be used!!

http://www.fsf.org.uk/news/So-what-is-Section-27.php?id=

[McCanary 0]

Also from another thread.

http://www.fsf.org.uk/news/Section-27-been-served-on-you.php

In case you get one!!

[The Fish Seller 0]

In theory you are quite correct and interpreting the law in the spirit with which it was written McC. Unfortunately inventing the 5000+ new crimes since 1997 has caused the New labour statute writers some considerable overloading of work resulting in some rather hastily assembled and poorly drafted legislation being brought into statute. The Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 is simply yet another example of such ambiguously written statute. Written with the intention of awarding the police powers to remove potential troublemakers who are under the influence from a particular place, this poorly written law fails to stipulate that the ''target to be removed'' should themselves be under the influence, simply that their removal should be conducive to the avoidance of alcohol related disorder. This gives the police the (unintentional) argument that the removal of one stone cold sober Norwich fan from an area populated by imbibed Colchester fans would have the net result of averting an alcohol related disturbance ergo it is justifiable to issue the sober fan with a sec27.Not quite the usage of this order that was anticipated by the lawmakers but you have to grudgingly accept that the polices logic is at least correct here even if their strict application of the law as it was written is open to question. If served an order and charged you would have some small defence if stone cold sober but the ambiguity of the law itself means you would be facing the Magistrates lottery with the odds stacked against you. IMO A Judge would be less likely to find against you in such circumstances but these fast track offences tend to be heard by the amateurs who are inclined to go with the flow although there are some good and learned Magistrates out there, they do tend to do as iinstructed in the guidance (ie the police are always right in matters of population control) the Judge would take on board the fact the law was poorly written and further take on board the fact that the Police are effectively ''misusing'' the statute for their own ends. I''d say if charged go for trial by Judge and Jury but of course your right to that was taken away by the same lawmakers.[:S]

[William Darby 0]

[quote user="McCanary"]

I`ve noticed on the thread about ticketing for Col who that one of their gys keeps quoting section 27...ogf the violent crime legislation.

As I see it, if you stay sober then it can`t be used!!

http://www.fsf.org.uk/news/So-what-is-Section-27.php?id=

[/quote]That''s why on derby days against the binners, the police would wait for the binners to arrive at the coach parks and railway station.  And if anyone looked elephant''s trunk they''d send them back home, or hold them if they were extremely elephant''s.

[Shaun Tilly Lace 0]

Ah....but what if they were Brahms and Liszt?

[Hard Cell 0]

Section 27s have indeed been used on City supporters when attending games where the Police believe there is a liklihood of trouble i.e. being turned round at Liverpool St when sober as the proverbial judge.

Several instances of their use last season but again only where violence was likely to occur. Sober or not didn''t make any difference it was all about avoidance of any possible incident by ''known'' supporters.

[Hard Cell 0]

By last season I mean other more high risk clubs not Norwich.

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="Buckethead"]In theory you are quite correct and interpreting the law in the spirit with which it was written McC. Unfortunately inventing the 5000+ new crimes since 1997 has caused the New labour statute writers some considerable overloading of work resulting in some rather hastily assembled and poorly drafted legislation being brought into statute. The Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 is simply yet another example of such ambiguously written statute. Written with the intention of awarding the police powers to remove potential troublemakers who are under the influence from a particular place, this poorly written law fails to stipulate that the ''target to be removed'' should themselves be under the influence, simply that their removal should be conducive to the avoidance of alcohol related disorder. This gives the police the (unintentional) argument that the removal of one stone cold sober Norwich fan from an area populated by imbibed Colchester fans would have the net result of averting an alcohol related disturbance ergo it is justifiable to issue the sober fan with a sec27.

Not quite the usage of this order that was anticipated by the lawmakers but you have to grudgingly accept that the polices logic is at least correct here even if their strict application of the law as it was written is open to question. If served an order and charged you would have some small defence if stone cold sober but the ambiguity of the law itself means you would be facing the Magistrates lottery with the odds stacked against you. IMO A Judge would be less likely to find against you in such circumstances but these fast track offences tend to be heard by the amateurs who are inclined to go with the flow although there are some good and learned Magistrates out there, they do tend to do as iinstructed in the guidance (ie the police are always right in matters of population control) the Judge would take on board the fact the law was poorly written and further take on board the fact that the Police are effectively ''misusing'' the statute for their own ends.
I''d say if charged go for trial by Judge and Jury but of course your right to that was taken away by the same lawmakers.[:S]
[/quote]

If you want a misused law how about the recent terroriam act:

Forget about potential terrorist lets:

a) Hound people near a political conference

b) lets stop people taking photographs

c) lets seize  Icelandic bank assets in the UK

and so on..............