http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3823421.stm

Blunkett has stated that he his determined to 'nail' the rioting football fan freed despite a two-year jail term for rioting in Portugal.

I shall believe this when I see it. :shakes:

We ought to be wishing him good luck, and hoping he succeeds:thumbsup:

I agree - throw the book at him. Just when england fans start to get a good reputation, along come a group of idiots to spoil it all.

Can't see blunkett managing it though. UK laws do not allow us to put people away who have either served their allotted time already in a foreign country or had a suspended sentance as in this case.

For blunkett to put this man away will mean going against the law of the land just for this one guy. This has much wider constitutional issues............ Should an MP be able to veto the Law???

More importantly, should our Home Secretary be using the language of a linch mob / the tabloid press?

Originally posted by Jim
should our Home Secretary be using the language of a linch mob / the tabloid press?

Good point. I think it's an attempt by Blunkett to butch up his anti-chav image before the next General Election.

Once the election is over, the whole incident be forgotten about...

I hope he does 'nail' this man if only to make an example of him. However, the last I heard the man denied he was even anywhere near the rioting. I'm not suggesting he's telling the truth but it would be very bad publicity if it did turn out an inocent man had been specially targeted by the Home Sec.

Originally posted by slimsid2000
I I'm not suggesting he's telling the truth but it would be very bad publicity if it did turn out an inocent man had been specially targeted by the Home Sec.
A good point. My initial attitude was some anger about him "getting away with it" compounded by my prejudice that he looks like a thug. However it's quite clear that a number of innocent parties have been beaten, rounded up and expelled by the Portugese police. I understand that as far as the prosecutions are concerned, quite often interpreters are not being provided and the accused are not being allowed to speak on their own behalf in court, some aren't sure what the charges are and what evidence there is against them.
It just leaves me a little uneasy. On the other hand, if this man is undoubtedly guilty he should be extradited to serve his sentence in Portugal.... I still think he looks the part.
Do you think it's possible to take a look at someone and assess their character like that?

I kind of understand what you mean Ned.

It wouldn't surprise me to learn that this man had been proven guilty in nothing but a Kangaroo court.

Originally posted by Jim
More importantly, should our Home Secretary be using the language of a linch mob / the tabloid press?

Who does Blunkett think he is? I'd expect the words 'nail' from hardcore bent coppers not the Home Secretary.

Originally posted by Abdul
Good point. I think it's an attempt by Blunkett to butch up his anti-chav image before the next General Election.

Once the election is over, the whole incident be forgotten about...

I concur Abdul.

Court proceeding have already been attempted and failed due to a blunder. You can't just have another crack so Blunkett might escape without his reputation been tarnished.

This ranting of Blunkett is another one of his empty soundbites attempting to placate the public as a whole. Something he does regularly until he assumes it has been forgotten, I won't forget though. :mad:

Originally posted by Lickszz
I concur Abdul.

Court proceeding have already been attempted and failed due to a blunder. You can't just have another crack so Blunkett might escape without his reputation been tarnished.

This ranting of Blunkett is another one of his empty soundbites attempting to placate the public as a whole. Something he does regularly until he assumes it has been forgotten, I won't forget though. :mad:

Meh, they should pension Blunkett and his guide dog off IMO... He's friggin' useless, always has been even when he was Employment Secretary.

I still partially blame him, or rather his policies, for me not having a job.. Cos he did nothing to strengthen the anti-discrimination laws... But then again those laws have always meant sod all anyway :loopy:

there's no guarantee Blunket will even be an MP come next election let alone H/sec. Theres a strong undercurrent locally that he's sold his constituancy down the river and it might just sneak back to bite him in the rear end come voting time.

We were talking about this today in (yes!) my Sociology class (Always pops up doesn't it :wink:). My teacher pointed out that they only convicted this one guy, when the footage clearly shows tens of people doing whatever it was, (and the judge in Portugal, it seems, couldn't be arsed with putting them on trial so sent them home) and many of them, including him, could have been in the wrong place at the worng time.

The other point is that media portrayal is very selective - the footage is only 20 seconds long, so how can we know the seriousness of the incident? Another example I would give is of the pulling down of Saddam Hussein's statue. The footage most of us saw, from the inside of the immediate crowd, makes it look like there are hundreds of people, but later footage from a further observer shows that there where maybe 12 people there, and maybe it wasn't such a popular act after all...

Just something to think about. :smile:

Well apparently, the bloke insists that he was in as bar while the 'riot' took place and says that the court refused to look at the CCTV evidence that would prove it.

Might make Mr Blunkett eat his words. He shouldn't spout off so quickly to appease the tabloid feeding frenzy.

i'm digusted by his language exactly what kind of signal does that send out the fact that we should 'nail him' - someone who's not been properly tried and tested
idiot

It just proves what I've always said... David Blunkett is a dick 'ead!

The main point here is that he wasn't imprisoned on the basis of a technicality (they screwed up the extradition procedure).

ie He's not been freed because we don't trust the Portugese legal system, or anything to do with the circumstances of his arrest and detention by the Portugese authorities.

I thought that the main point is whether or not he has a cast iron alibi that has been ignored? :confused:

Originally posted by Rich
It just proves what I've always said... David Blunkett is a dick 'ead!

Oi! He is/was my local MP/Councillor/something or other.

A little more respect, young man :nono:

Having been on the receiving end of quite a few police batons,for the henious crime of following my favourite football team abroad,it seems that people who hav'nt been and followed an English team abroad hav'nt a clue what actually goes on.

Simply standing and waiting to enter the Bernabou Stadium in Madrid was deemed highly upsetting for the local police,who battered us with their batons.

In La Coruna (Nortern Spain) we were treated to the same kind of punishment for merely daring to sing a few Leeds songs while waiting for the turnstiles to open.

In Rome we were Tear gassed outside a bar,then battered with Batons by the Italian Police.........again for singing !!


Many things happen to English football fan's that don't get reported...........we're not all thugs and idiots !!


Certain members of the foreign police forces that i've encountered have taken delight in 'having a go' at english football fans.

Blunkett is bang out of order in what he say's..........the lad in question did'nt even get a chance to defend his self in any way,shape,or form in court........a kangaroo court !!

i hope he clears his name (provide he is actually as innocent as he say's he is).

Maybe a lapse of judgement from me, but I dont think he is a soccer thug. Perhaps a bit drunk on the night and vocal, so nothing you cant see in Sheffield CC on a friday night.

They shouldnt make an example of him for the sake of doing so, rathermore ensure people are aware of the facts of what will happen otherwise. Making an example of this guy will just do nothing more than brush the mess under the carpet as it is at the moment with there being little or no interaction between the Portugese and British judicial systems.

Maybe they should work on that before trying to 'nail' this guy.

Blunkett needs to take a long walk off a short pier... can leave his dog behind tho!

As to this guy's alibi... it's not corroborated by the bar ownwer who only saw him after the riot. The bar owner says his CCTV tapes are wiped after 24 hours routinely and haven't been destroyed as a result of a conspiracy.
What this amounts to is that the police have a duty to investigate each case in a proper manner and that the courts should scrutinise this evidence carefully. This clearly hasn't been happening in Portugal.
Is this guy guilty? Looks suspicious, he seems to have"previous" and his alibi doesn't stand up. On the other hand the Portugese seem to think "you'll do" if you happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. It's up to the Portugese to sort this out fairly

Originally posted by Tony
I thought that the main point is whether or not he has a cast iron alibi that has been ignored? :confused:

No, he has been found guilty by the Portugese legal system. Presumably if he had offered a cast iron alibi he wouldn't have been found guilty, or am I being very naive?

The point I'm making is that the reason he has been freed has got absolutely nothing to do with that.