Simon Dobbin Verdicts

[Firestorm]

The local Cambridge paper gives a proper fair trail report, compare that to the echo

I got the impression that the Echo lost interest when it became obvious that the Southend was going to be shown in a poor light

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Fair enough - it's the Cambridge paper whose coverage I've been following.

Same here.

My initial thoughts before the trial was that I didn't think the CPS would manage to get convictions there being no CCTV of the incident in question and so many defendants. However the defendants seem to have convicted themselves with their text messages.

 

[Ricey]

Blimey kick off after the sentencing as well

http://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/154...f_convicted_men_outside_Basildon_Crown_Court/

With that sort of reaction do we think it's wise to have a friendly against Cambridge?

 

[fbm]

With that sort of reaction do we think it's wise to have a friendly against Cambridge?

It'll more likely be an unfriendly...

 

[Beefy]

I can only go on what was in the press , but I thought no one identified the person/persons who smashed the window.

And tbh, if the individuals concerned don't even speak up in their own defence in court, calling provocation after the case is not really going to swing anyone

It was the early days of the trial so I'd need to go back and check the reporting but the timeline presented to the court and backed up by the CCTV in the Railway was that the window of the pub was smashed a minute or two after the attack in retaliation.

If I've got that wrong then someone say but I'm certain that is what the court heard.

 

[Jam_Man]

I agree but I don't buy the whole story about him just sitting in the railway that day minding his own business. I know their are some sick people out there but why would a large group of blokes follow someone and beat the hell out of them for no apparent reason.

Believe me when I say, even if there was a reason its still not justified behaviour but it doesn't sit well me with him being painted like an angel. Even where he stood in the north bank where his picture was taken (which we have seen a lot of) that's where Cambridge fans were causing trouble in the ground.

Being caught up in the trouble that day I saw first hand Cambridge fans attacking anyone in sight. The old bill saw it too, especially in the spread before the game and on vic avenue when it spilled in to the street.

If you read the Echo story and the account of what actually occurred he had nothing to do with any of the trouble. They have CCTV, they would know if he wasnt in there.

The actions of other fans have no bearing on him.

It doesnt sit well on you he is painted like an angel yet you are perfectly happy to tar him with the same brush of other supporters.

REad this and you may change your mind, although I think some people are too biased and cant see beyond "Southend" and "Cambridge"

http://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/154...ter_with_serious_brain_injuries/?ref=mrb&lp=2

 

[Beefy]

With that sort of reaction do we think it's wise to have a friendly against Cambridge?

It beggars belief that administrators at both clubs felt that this game was a good idea.

 

[mattytheshrimper]

The Cambridge attack might have provoked the attack but it did not cause it.

The guilty need to take the consequences of their actions. It's disappointing how many (not necessarily you 70sNB) seemed prepared to excuse their actions.

I hope your not aiming that at me??? If so, you clearly cannot read as I clearly stated in my posts on this thread that I do not agree with anything that happened.

The only thing I have stated is that I personally do not believe that this bloke is the angel that he has been painted to be through out numerous media sources.

 

[Ricey]

It beggars belief that administrators at both clubs felt that this game was a good idea.

Especially so close to after the verdicts have been given. It's lunacy!

 

[Voice of Reason]

Blimey kick off after the sentencing as well

http://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/154...f_convicted_men_outside_Basildon_Crown_Court/

Well that just sums up what these scumbags are all about.I don't want anyone like that associated with the club I have loved for almost 50 years.my thoughts are with Simon and his family

 

[mattytheshrimper]

If you read the Echo story and the account of what actually occurred he had nothing to do with any of the trouble. They have CCTV, they would know if he wasnt in there.

The actions of other fans have no bearing on him.

It doesnt sit well on you he is painted like an angel yet you are perfectly happy to tar him with the same brush of other supporters.

REad this and you may change your mind, although I think some people are too biased and cant see beyond "Southend" and "Cambridge"

http://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/154...ter_with_serious_brain_injuries/?ref=mrb&lp=2

Is there proof he had nothing to do with it? If so, I haven't seen that.

I don't know if you were there that day but it was not the type of day that it is wise to go to a pub after the game considering the trouble before and after the game. Now, I am not saying that it's right that someone go in to a pub after a game but IMO if I was a Cambridge fan or a SUFC fan at an away game and things had been very heated all game long and fights having been breaking out through out the day FOR ME PERSONALLY I would have gone home. That's all I'm saying.

 

[THE SEVENTIES NORTH BANK]

I struggle to see how it could have been considered as provocation given that only one of the accused was in the spread before the game and there was no evidence that those attacked were either . Probably explains why the defence didn't use it.

Provocation as mitigation is different to provocation as a lame excuse...

Because it's a tribal thing that goes back surprisingly to the early 1900s. They didn't have to be inside the Spread when it was attacked, they would have heard about it. They would have heard that a Cambridge mob has come down and targeted Southend supporters in a planned attack. In a small percentage of fans, that ignites an urge for revenge. I'm not condoning it, I'm just saying how it is.

 

[THE SEVENTIES NORTH BANK]

Especially so close to after the verdicts have been given. It's lunacy!

I agree Ricey. It really is crazy.

 

[Jam_Man]

Is there proof he had nothing to do with it? If so, I haven't seen that.

I don't know if you were there that day but it was not the type of day that it is wise to go to a pub after the game considering the trouble before and after the game. Now, I am not saying that it's right that someone go in to a pub after a game but IMO if I was a Cambridge fan or a SUFC fan at an away game and things had been very heated all game long and fights having been breaking out through out the day FOR ME PERSONALLY I would have gone home. That's all I'm saying.

Yes there is, they have detailed where he was.

Speaking after the hearing, Det Chief Insp Martin Passmore addressed the disgraceful scenes outside court.

He said: “I want to make it absolutely clear that there is no information and no evidence that remotely suggests that Simon Dobbin is anything other than a thoroughly decent, upstanding man and he had done absolutely wrong on that day.

“He was a totally innocent victim of a pre-planned attack.”

More importantly is there any evidence at all he was? No is the answer.

Again, you then go on about what is and isnt wise, that is irrelevant and has no bearing on him being attacked. He should be able to walk sit in a pub and watch a game.

Whether he should have gone home early or not is just mitigating what happened.

 

[mattytheshrimper]

Yes there is, they have detailed where he was.



More importantly is there any evidence at all he was? No is the answer.

Again, you then go on about what is and isnt wise, that is irrelevant that has no bearing on him being attacked. He should be able to walk sit in a pub and watch a game.

Whether he should have gone home early or not is just mitigating what happened.

I have read a lot about this as I was as shocked as the next person but I have never heard that before. Where did you see that?

I said he should be able to go to the pub if he wanted too!!! What is your problem????? I clearly said that! I'm getting the impression your trying to condemn me just to get a few browny points from the goody two shoes people on here. I am entitled to my opinion. Whether he was or wasn't innocent we'll never know but IMO there's something fishy. I am entitled to my opinion so don't pick out things I have said OUT OF CONTEXT and try and think you look clever.

Its obvious that no one deserves this but don't start calling me out on here and try and look big mate.

 

[rigsby]

The Cambridge attack might have provoked the attack but it did not cause it.

The guilty need to take the consequences of their actions. It's disappointing how many (not necessarily you 70sNB) seemed prepared to excuse their actions.

Can you explain that one.

 

[mattytheshrimper]

MODS are getting a bit too big for there boots these days. Seem to have seen a few people saying that recently.

The fact JAM MAN is one yet he is unfairly calling me out and taking things out of context is digusting

 

[Firestorm]

Is there proof he had nothing to do with it? If so, I haven't seen that.

.

You cant prove a negative.

However, there was no evidence brought forward by the defence which indicated that we had anything to do with the attack on the spread.

 

[wakes123]

There's no way I'm going to the Cambridge friendly. Very silly to arrange it so close to the trail with it still raw in people's minds.

 

[mattytheshrimper]

You cant prove a negative.

However, there was no evidence brought forward by the defence which indicated that we had anything to do with the attack on the spread.

errrrrrr JAM MAN said there was proof where he was so I think you can. jeez