Simon Dobbin Verdicts

[Oakley1]

if they have video proof then prosecute them, this happened a few years ago when we had the riots in London, many people had their trials based on video evidence only and they got put away

 

[gpd]

I have no legal or trial training. I am wondering that those convicted having been found guilty by a jury of their peers were hoping that in not giving evidence a jury would not risk finding them all guilty in case they got the wrong ones. However it appears the jury have effectively said "well then you are all guilty of something. Those who knew but did not want to point the finger are guilty of a conspiracy to obstruct justice. So we will find you all guilty of the charges brought against you...see if an appeal changes anything."

 

[Benfleet A1]

And for the third time I called the violent Cambridge fans pond scum if you check my original post. I will not be bullied into retracting a comment that I never made by you, Rigsby or anyone else with an axe to grind over this whole sorry mess.

Ok, re- read it and hands up, my mistake. But don't think of me as a bully, I might be a lot of things but a bully isn't one of them.

 

[Massimo Giovanni]

I know you wanted this thread closed but its not about you. Save this nonsense for your political posts.

When have I asked anyone to retract a comment on here? If you don't want people to reply don't point fingers at them or insinuate how morally superior you are.

So do you think the police should have tried to identify the mob from Cambridge and prosecute them ? Regardless of the Dobbin trial.

Yes; and how hard could it have been to find them/ they were there at the Spread and the Police were there too,just moving them on and getting abused. That was when a few arrests ought to have been made.
it is conjecture what would have transpired later if that had happened.

For me more of the yobbos, away fans and "our" own need to be dealt with, within the law, when the line is crossed. I expect that the Policing is subject to political and economic objectives however I do believe we have a growing problem at The Hall, at away games and across the leagues which needs firmer handling before worse incidents happen.

 

[Firestorm]

if they have video proof then prosecute them, this happened a few years ago when we had the riots in London, many people had their trials based on video evidence only and they got put away

There wasn't any cctv of the attack, and no eye witnsses could/would identify the attackers. Hence no charges

 

[Fairport]

On a related issue, the away fans pub, the Blue Boar has a "TO LET" sign outside, wouldn't be surprised if it shuts down. Away fans will probably go to the Last Post if that happens.

 

[Rob1920]

Isn't there a law in some countries whereby if you are present where an obvious crime is being commited, you yourself are liable for prosecution if you do nothing to try and help? I guess 'help' could be in a number of ways as not many of us would dive into an out of control mob to try and break things up but if you knew the actual perpetrators and could 'discourage' them, i.e. try and pull them off, or at least call the police / ambulance, or try and help the injured after the event, but instead do nothing and walk away, you become guilty by association? I don't think we have such a law here but I think we should. Then if 'innocent' bystanders are seen on cctv to do nothing before, during or after to try and help, people may think twice before assuming they're in the clear just because they didn't throw a punch. I suppose where I'm going with this is if you align yourself with a gang of thugs who do bad things while you are in their company, then you will be guilty along with the rest of them. If you're not someone who wants to inflict violence on others, don't hang around with those that do or you'll pay the price. In the SD case it appears some on here feel strongly that some of those present who got convicted didn't actually do anything, but my point is if they were there and did nothing to prevent it or at least try and diffuse things, then they are guilty anyway. The level of guilt is hard to determine when none of them would speak up, so they only have themselves to blame as silence should never be an acceptable defence, even if its their right.

 

[Massimo Giovanni]

I wonder how close CPS may have been to charging (those with blood on their clothing and some of the worse text messages, were to) GBH with intent charges.
And would that have separated them from the others and negatively impacted the evidence against the "also run" defendants.

 

[MK Shrimper]

Ok, re- read it and hands up, my mistake. But don't think of me as a bully, I might be a lot of things but a bully isn't one of them.

Fair enough, truce Benfleet. This thread has got too emotive and I'm ducking out - I've said my piece. If your mate and some of the others have suffered a miscarriage of justice then I would hope they appeal and have their names cleared.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Well for starters the CPS have sentenced four people to jail terms who were not directly involved with the actual physical attack on Simon Dobbin and were not proved to be so.

This is the whole point. Everyone has no issue with people being sent to prison for that actual physical attack. No-one on here has said that, but there's a huge grey area with some of these convictions and sentences for the people on the periphery and the point most are making is that if people are to serve lengthy terms, then the net should have been cast wider and maybe still should or that those convicted of 'conspiracy' should not have been so.

The CPS have sentenced no-one.

It was the jury who convicted them on the basis of the evidence and then the judge who passed sentence.

ps To those saying the perpetrators should have been charged with GBH I think 5 years is the most for a conviction for a s20 GBH anyway. For a s18 GBH which has a maximum of 7 years they'd have needed to prove intent to cause serious bodily harm (I expect they were probably reckless and didn't intend to beat him up quite so badly).

 

[AndyT]

The CPS have sentenced no-one.

Apologies, you're right.

It should have read "The CPS charged them and the judge sentenced them, after being convicted".

As you were, everyone.

 

[AndyT]

Not the judge being convicted, that is! :facepalm:

 

[Oakley1]

There wasn't any cctv of the attack, and no eye witnsses could/would identify the attackers. Hence no charges

there s videos on you tube of the Cambridge idiots using abusive language and violent conduct....that is enough for the Police if they had the balls to arrest them, but as there was no TV cameras around for them to pose on for a show in a few months time they felt it ok to let them carry on

 

[united we stand]

Isn't there a law in some countries whereby if you are present where an obvious crime is being commited, you yourself are liable for prosecution if you do nothing to try and help? I guess 'help' could be in a number of ways as not many of us would dive into an out of control mob to try and break things up but if you knew the actual perpetrators and could 'discourage' them, i.e. try and pull them off, or at least call the police / ambulance, or try and help the injured after the event, but instead do nothing and walk away, you become guilty by association? I don't think we have such a law here but I think we should. Then if 'innocent' bystanders are seen on cctv to do nothing before, during or after to try and help, people may think twice before assuming they're in the clear just because they didn't throw a punch. I suppose where I'm going with this is if you align yourself with a gang of thugs who do bad things while you are in their company, then you will be guilty along with the rest of them. If you're not someone who wants to inflict violence on others, don't hang around with those that do or you'll pay the price. In the SD case it appears some on here feel strongly that some of those present who got convicted didn't actually do anything, but my point is if they were there and did nothing to prevent it or at least try and diffuse things, then they are guilty anyway. The level of guilt is hard to determine when none of them would speak up, so they only have themselves to blame as silence should never be an acceptable defence, even if its their right.

I believe In the Netherlands you have a legal responsibility to try and help if someone is in mortal danger, Germany has something similar. I don't know if anyone is ever prosecuted . It also applies to giving first aid after an accident.

 

[MK Shrimper]

I believe In the Netherlands you have a legal responsibility to try and help if someone is in mortal danger, Germany has something similar. I don't know if anyone is ever prosecuted . It also applies to giving first aid after an accident.

Off topic, did you see that story of the disabled man left to drown whilst teenagers taunted & filmed him dying? They apparantly broke no laws in not coming to his aid. :angry:

 

[number11]

Read my original posts, I'm one of the few who hasn't said anything on the events leading up to the evening.

Yes, the one who I have been supporting told me he wasn't involved in the attack and I believe him. And it's been done to death as to why he didn't speak up and as I have continuely said, there was no conspiracy in the first place.

So for the third time, are you calling those not guilty of violent disorder pond scum as well?

Fair play to you for being even handed in an emotive debate and trying to present the alternative case. Now that the case has been decided are you able to explain how your friend did get tangled up in this? It may elicit more sympathy. Was he present when the attack happened?

 

[maninasuitcase]

I know you wanted this thread closed but its not about you. Save this nonsense for your political posts.

When have I asked anyone to retract a comment on here? If you don't want people to reply don't point fingers at them or insinuate how morally superior you are.

So do you think the police should have tried to identify the mob from Cambridge and prosecute them ? Regardless of the Dobbin trial.

Yes, me when I caught you making stuff up.

 

[rigsby]

Yes, me when I caught you making stuff up.

I asked you to watch the BBC 2 documentary with Ian Hislop. Which you obviously did but unfortunately Maninabubble your not Manenough to admit you are wrong and publicly apologise.

If your willing to put £100 against my £1000 (loser pays shrinperzone) I will even find the survey that backs my claim. You can pm me if you like.

Now back to Simon Dobbin.

 

[Benfleet A1]

Fair play to you for being even handed in an emotive debate and trying to present the alternative case. Now that the case has been decided are you able to explain how your friend did get tangled up in this? It may elicit more sympathy. Was he present when the attack happened?

He knows all of those involved and spent a lot of the day texting and making calls which is just a normal day really if you knew him, he needs the bloody thing surgecally removed from his ear twice a month. None of the calls lasted longer than a couple of seconds and none of the texts were incriminating unless you consider so and so is here or there etc. He was basicly found guilty of 'being fumeing' as was read out in court. He was outside for a matter of seconds.

He told me he wasn't part of the attack and I believe him which is why I will continue to back him up and fight his corner.

 

[rigsby]

Isn't there a law in some countries whereby if you are present where an obvious crime is being commited, you yourself are liable for prosecution if you do nothing to try and help? I guess 'help' could be in a number of ways as not many of us would dive into an out of control mob to try and break things up but if you knew the actual perpetrators and could 'discourage' them, i.e. try and pull them off, or at least call the police / ambulance, or try and help the injured after the event, but instead do nothing and walk away, you become guilty by association? I don't think we have such a law here but I think we should. Then if 'innocent' bystanders are seen on cctv to do nothing before, during or after to try and help, people may think twice before assuming they're in the clear just because they didn't throw a punch. I suppose where I'm going with this is if you align yourself with a gang of thugs who do bad things while you are in their company, then you will be guilty along with the rest of them. If you're not someone who wants to inflict violence on others, don't hang around with those that do or you'll pay the price. In the SD case it appears some on here feel strongly that some of those present who got convicted didn't actually do anything, but my point is if they were there and did nothing to prevent it or at least try and diffuse things, then they are guilty anyway. The level of guilt is hard to determine when none of them would speak up, so they only have themselves to blame as silence should never be an acceptable defence, even if its their right.

You can't change British law to suit each case. Under your guidelines then we are all guilty of not preventing Col U fans attacking our stewards and coining our fans. The only person who did act to prevent possible injury and potential assault was arrested fined and banned from RH.

Other countries obviously have different laws. In the US there has been cases where people who went to commit crime have been held culpable if someone dies etc even if it was not their actual doing. Under that law it would be possible to hold the Cambridge mob partially culpable for Simon Dobbins injuries.