Well he had two imbedded in his left knuckle, so that would take his teeth tally to....two

Yeah i watched the news on channel 10 too.

The camera's were following the mother of all 3 bashers (so the bashers are just part of one cowardly family).

Her response was stupid.

Filfthy mum: "He doesn't deserve this" (referring to her son being in court).

Reporter: "Why doesn't he derserve this?"

Filfthy mum: "Because...........he's.......he's.....a father...".

SO WAS THE MAN THEY ATTACKED DUH!!!!!

They do it in soccer quite regularly in Europe. I'm not sure of the mechanics of it, but I believe they use CCTV and reports from the public as well.

Generally if these people do something bad enough to warrant a banning order, they are recognisable enough that someone will notice and dob them in, even if they do get through the front gate.

I believe they would then be charged with criminal trespass as well. The English have additional legislation on top of this as I understand it for further penalties.

Could be facial recognition software, like they use in casinos... highly possible i've been watching too many movies though

Yeah i watched the news on channel 10 too.

The camera's were following the mother of all 3 bashers (so the bashers are just part of one cowardly family).

Her response was stupid.

Filfthy mum: "He doesn't deserve this" (referring to her son being in court).

Reporter: "Why doesn't he derserve this?"

Filfthy mum: "Because...........he's.......he's.....a father...".

SO WAS THE MAN THEY ATTACKED DUH!!!!!

The fact that he's a father means he deserves punishment for an even larger number of reasons.

If he can set upon a completely innocent man he's never met before, imagine what he could do to his kid when the kid misbehaves or gets on his nerves!

That every feral is allowed to breed is precisely the reason why we have so many mistreated and misguided children in the world, but that's a different story altogether :angry:

Such as.

Wasn't the bloke in the picture under your post driving around town with a bloke called Christopher Wayne Hudson. Then late last year suspended by his club for hiding from the truth when his drunk team mate smashed his car into two others.

What these sorts of examples accumulate to become is a culture which manifests in the simpletons who worship it.

Your not the sharpest tool but your one all right.

Wasn't the bloke in the picture under your post driving around town with a bloke called Christopher Wayne Hudson. Then late last year suspended by his club for hiding from the truth when his drunk team mate smashed his car into two others.

What these sorts of examples accumulte to become is a culture which manifests in the simpletons who worship it.

Your not the sharpest tool but your one all right.

There's many more stories than this floating around, but the fact that Didak is indirectly responsible for the death of another human is a pretty bad one.

Anyone see 10 news tonight?

Some filthy filth fan who was supporting his "mates" - "The melbourne guys started it, he got what he deserved."

Disgusting, absolutely disgusting. Hate these filthy humans who go out of their way to defend their disgraceful actions.

Probably not even "real" Collingwood fans, probably couldn't name 4 fans.

Just trying to be "tough" guys, far out it makes me angry.

The guy on the news who was supporting his mates was the third person involved. He was not an innocent bystander. He was one of the heroes that jumped in and beat the suitcase out of a bloke who was already down from a vicious headbut from the instigator

Yeah i watched the news on channel 10 too.

The camera's were following the mother of all 3 bashers (so the bashers are just part of one cowardly family).

Her response was stupid.

Filfthy mum: "He doesn't deserve this" (referring to her son being in court).

Reporter: "Why doesn't he derserve this?"

Filfthy mum: "Because...........he's.......he's.....a father...".

SO WAS THE MAN THEY ATTACKED DUH!!!!!

this is the same moron son who was already on bail for an assault on someone else which included an iron bar. Really nice family that one. DHS should take his child away from him. It is clear from his behaviour on the weekend that he simply cant control his rage and ignites at the drop of a hat. He was clearly looking for someone to fight on the weekend and the smallest thing was going to set him off.

Could be facial recognition software, like they use in casinos... highly possible i've been watching too many movies though

Not science fiction Enforcer24, its reality, and there is even technology that can, using biometric sensors, identify terrorists within a crowd.

http://www.navon.com.au/news/allnews/08-05...terrorists.aspx

Cool stuff.

Yeah i watched the news on channel 10 too.

The camera's were following the mother of all 3 bashers (so the bashers are just part of one cowardly family).

Her response was stupid.

Filfthy mum: "He doesn't deserve this" (referring to her son being in court).

Reporter: "Why doesn't he derserve this?"

Filfthy mum: "Because...........he's.......he's.....a father...".

SO WAS THE MAN THEY ATTACKED DUH!!!!!

I believe she said something similar in 1985 on behalf of her first husband, the father of the son now in custody:

Filthy wife: "He doesn't deserve this" (referring to her husband being in court for blowing off half a woman's face with a shotgun).

Reporter: "Why not?"

Filthy wife: "Because ........he's.........he's.......a father" (like father like son)

http://www.theage.com.au/national/collingw...o7.html?page=-1

This guy was a complete idiot, on bail for a previous offense!!!

And it was his brothers in the fight too, notice the fact they have a different surname - consistant with being a Collingwood supporter

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree:

http://www.theage.com.au/national/brumby-c...90406-9uv3.html

Maggots! Good thing what goes around comes around.....

I'd be angry too if I lived in Ferntree Gully

http://www.theage.com.au/national/collingw...o7.html?page=-1

This guy was a complete idiot, on bail for a previous offense!!!

And it was his brothers in the fight too, notice the fact they have a different surname - consistant with being a Collingwood supporter

Yeah seems Mrs Mallinder shacked up with some bloke called Siegle a couple of years after her husband Paul was locked up.

I'd be angry too if I lived in Ferntree Gully

Do they have caravan parks in ferntree gully

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,2...658-661,00.html

Just saw on ch10 news then that the 24 year old has been released on bail. Apparently he admitted using ecstasy during the day. He shed a tear as the magistrate put him on strict conditions where he can't attend any sporting events. He said his 5 days in custody had put the fear of god into him. Your not so tough when you don't have your mates there are you. Twit.

how can you be on bail for serious assault and be granted bail again, the [censored] shed a tear in court, thats a disgrace, sends a good message to the public, you can break bail conditions and we give you bail again.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,2...658-661,00.html

Just saw on ch10 news then that the 24 year old has been released on bail. Apparently he admitted using ecstasy during the day. He shed a tear as the magistrate put him on strict conditions where he can't attend any sporting events. He said his 5 days in custody had put the fear of god into him. Your not so tough when you don't have your mates there are you. Twit.

I worry about our legal system sometimes. I would have thought that his bail conditions for the original charge would have included not being involved in any more criminal offences, and not taking any illegal substances. Any breach of bail conditions should result in bail being revoked. To get bailed AGAIN when clearly he cannot stay out of trouble is just laughable. There's a twofold reason for denying someone bail - it's supposed to be denied if the person is considered a flight risk or if they are considered to be likely to reoffend prior to the trial. Clearly this man satisfies the second limb - how many people must he assault before someone pays attention to the risk he poses? I bet when his trial date rolls around he plays the 'I come from a bad background so feel sorry for me and give me a light sentence' card. As if it's not enough that his father is a coward who couldn't even look an unarmed woman in the eyes when he tried to kill her, but instead shot through a glass panelled door - Mum clearly has failed to raise her sons as decent members of the community.

To discover that his co-accused are also his brothers, what can you say? Mum must be so proud to have raised three such charmers. I wonder how many more there are at home waiting for their moment of infamy?

I'm no legal expert, but that's bloody mind-boggling. How can taking drugs and punching the sh!t out of someone not be a breach of bail? How can bail be granted again? I know they can't take the assault into account because it hasn't been proven yet, but he admitted to taking drugs. Surely this bloke's a danger to society?

I'm no legal expert, but that's bloody mind-boggling. How can taking drugs and punching the sh!t out of someone not be a breach of bail? How can bail be granted again? I know they can't take the assault into account because it hasn't been proven yet, but he admitted to taking drugs. Surely this bloke's a danger to society?

Perhaps there were Masonic (Collingwood) Handshakes going on. That club seems to get most of what it wants.

I would like to say I am surprised. Unfortunately our system sees this occur regularly for a number of reasons. In crimes of violence such as this one bail should not be granted in my opinion.

I can tell you that the defence would have put forward a number of arguments not the least being that the defendant's bail conditions will prevent him from being in situations where he will offend again. It is also likely that he was on bail for a different offence, probably drugs or dishonesty which may have made a difference. But I am only guessing

It may even be possible that the prosecution were less vigorous in thier opposition to bail because of co-operation of the defendant ie admissions and information regarding the co-offenders.

If operated properly, CCTV can and should be used to prevent incidents, stop those that are in progress, and to investigate the aftermath. And CCTV is one tool that is used along with the vigilance of security, police and to some degree, the general public.

As I've written previously, it is difficult but it is not impossible. The experience overseas shows us that.

Soccer Hooligan Article

Unfortunately this is a very long article, and some of the measures used are far in excess of what is required here, but it does highlight in particular the use of "spotters" and the assistance of supporter groups. Given the reaction of the vast majority of Collingwood fans to this particular incident, that is not unrealistic in my view.

When you have AFL crowds entering the ground from 360 degrees access then how can you legitimately scan up to 100,000 people. Impossible. Its a tool but not a fallible one.

Your argument regarding legislation is fallacious, and quite frankly disturbing. There are two rationales for criminal penalties, deterring the individual and deterring the rest of society. Even if the individual is not deterred, the majority of society will not act in this type of manner because of either their general lawfulness, or the fear of the penalty. Those that do are punished accordingly.

Its not the majority of society that is the problem. Most rules/laws would not be necessary because the great majority would never think or act in manner that would make the necessary. However the issue is the fringe minority or the feckless individual who is quite likely to thumb his nose at the law. Many laws pander to people's biases (like the NSW bikie laws) rather than deal with the issue.

We don't know for certain if Peter Hore has subsequently attended venues from which he has been banned. But when was the last time you saw an article or news report showing him making a nuisance of himself?

And that's my whole point. The same comment could be made about anyone who has been banned from a sporting event. We have no way of preventing or knowing if they have attended in breach of the ban. So why except for the PR coverage "ban" anyone? It cant be policed.

I would like to say I am surprised. Unfortunately our system sees this occur regularly for a number of reasons. In crimes of violence such as this one bail should not be granted in my opinion.

I can tell you that the defence would have put forward a number of arguments not the least being that the defendant's bail conditions will prevent him from being in situations where he will offend again. It is also likely that he was on bail for a different offence, probably drugs or dishonesty which may have made a difference. But I am only guessing

It may even be possible that the prosecution were less vigorous in thier opposition to bail because of co-operation of the defendant ie admissions and information regarding the co-offenders.

From what I have read, the previous offence that he has been charged with was an assault in which he used an iron bar. So that is the same type of offence - and yet he was granted bail a second time.

Anyway, I've probably said more than enough on this topic.

After reading all the vitriol and rhetoric attacking supporters of another club. Everyone needs to understand that these type of morons are involved with every club. A small minority are out there to spoil it for the rest of us. If you believe no one supporting the Melbourne Football Club would ever do such a thing then you have your head in the sand. The facts are these guys are supporters of Collingwood not members. If you have a look around at the Feral’s websites they are in as much disgust as we are. The facts are the 24 year old was out on bail for another offence and then granted bail for his attack on Brad Jones. This is not an alcohol issue as he did not register a blood alcohol level as reported by the Victorian Police. He has allegedly stated he took ecstasy (I would suggest this is legal spin). The LAW has let everyone down in this matter. He should have never been bailed once, let alone twice. We have laws in place to lock these types of people away yet it never happens. They will wait for someone to die and then it’s too late.

I have never been attacked by a Collingwood person in 40+ years attending the football, abused & friendly banter every time and in saying that it was a two way street always. I have been assaulted at Kardina Park, Arden Street and Princess Park. Do I feel that because that happened all those supporters are feral? No I don’t.

My suggestion and this should be from every citizen not just supporters is to start a petition to the Government seeking tighter rules on breaking bail. He should still be in Jail. The same goes if he followed Melbourne as well.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,2...658-661,00.html

Just saw on ch10 news then that the 24 year old has been released on bail. Apparently he admitted using ecstasy during the day. He shed a tear as the magistrate put him on strict conditions where he can't attend any sporting events. He said his 5 days in custody had put the fear of god into him. Your not so tough when you don't have your mates there are you. Twit.

That shocks me. I can't believe a magistrate thought he was worthy of bail.

And I don't believe his remorse either.

When you have AFL crowds entering the ground from 360 degrees access then how can you legitimately scan up to 100,000 people. Impossible. Its a tool but not a fallible one.

Its not the majority of society that is the problem. Most rules/laws would not be necessary because the great majority would never think or act in manner that would make the necessary. However the issue is the fringe minority or the feckless individual who is quite likely to thumb his nose at the law. Many laws pander to people's biases (like the NSW bikie laws) rather than deal with the issue.

And that's my whole point. The same comment could be made about anyone who has been banned from a sporting event. We have no way of preventing or knowing if they have attended in breach of the ban. So why except for the PR coverage "ban" anyone? It cant be policed.

Presumably you meant to use the word "infallible" when describing it as a tool. I didn't say it was infallible, but rather that it can be successful if used correctly. Old Trafford has a capacity of about 76 000, the Camp Nou has a capacity of about 98 000, and the Millenium Stadium has a capacity of about 73 000. What you have described as impossible is utilised at all three.

If what you said about laws was correct, then we wouldn't have any. It is the penalty that has both the deterrent and the punishment aspect. Either people obey the law, or they are punished repeatedly and more severely each time. That is how the whole legal system works. Otherwise you may as well throw your arms in the air and live as a hermit in the Alaskan wilderness.

As for the last point, you highlighted one sentence while completely ignoring the following one which qualified it. Also see that you didn't answer that particular question.

Even a cursory search of the internet will show you instances in the UK where people have been charged and convicted of breaching "banning orders".