guilty of indecent chanting

**Red_Lizard2** · 05-15-09, 03:01 PM

haha trying to figure out if this is worse then the coffee lawsuit

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20090515...l-6323e80.html

A man and a boy have been found guilty of shouting "shocking and disgusting" homophobic chants at a football match. Skip related content
Related photos / videos
Sol Campbell said he felt victimised and disgusted by the chanting from Tottenham fans

Ian Trow, 42, of Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire, and the 14-year-old had denied the charge of indecent chanting but were convicted at Portsmouth Magistrates' Court.

The charges relate to chants made at Portsmouth Football Club defender Sol Campbell during a match against Tottenham Hotspur at Fratton Park, Portsmouth, on September 28 last year.

After a three-hour trial, Georgette Holbrook, chairwoman of the panel, found the two defendants had chanted words which were "in extremely bad taste, they were inappropriate, shocking and disgusting, and as such they were indecent."

Sophie Stevens, prosecuting, said: "The police and members of the public considered there was significant abuse from the travelling Tottenham supporters, abuse above what is perhaps wrongly accepted at a football match."

The magistrates were shown a DVD of footage recorded by police showing Tottenham fans at the match. In a statement read to the court, Campbell said he felt "victimised" and "disgusted" by the chanting.

He said: "I felt absolutely disgusted at this and I didn't react because of my profile and I feared I might make the situation worse and cause problems. I felt totally victimised and helpless by the abuse I received on this day. It has had an effect on me personally and I do not want it to continue. I support the police in their action."

Following the match, Hampshire Police released images of 16 people wanted in connection with the chants.

A total of 11 were arrested and four men pleaded guilty to the offence in January and were sentenced to a three-year football banning order and a fine. Three men and two 15-year-old boys have been given police cautions, according to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).

While cases of racist chanting have been prosecuted before, this was the first case of indecent chanting to be brought to the courts, the CPS said.

**MotoZ** · 05-15-09, 04:02 PM

hehe. Reminds me of the "Cussing Canoeist" case here in Michigan.

http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/1...s20020401.html

**Arreo** · 05-15-09, 04:04 PM

Originally Posted by MotoZ

hehe. Reminds me of the "Cussing Canoeist" case here in Michigan.

http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/1...s20020401.html

AHAHAH... that is the best legal case ever... sounds like a Hardy Boys novel... "The Curse of the Cussing Canoeist"

**MotoZ** · 05-15-09, 04:10 PM

Michigan has some funny cases. Here is an opinion from the Michigan State Court of Appeals. The Justices wrote it as a poem. That is, the poem is the legal opinion.

Fisher v. Lowe

A wayward Chevy struck a tree
Whose owner sued defendants three.
He sued car's owner, driver, too,
And insurer for what was due
For his oak tree that now may bear
A lasting need for tender care.
The Oakland County Circuit Court,
John N. O'Brian, J., set forth
The judgment that defendants sought,
And quickly an appeal was brought.
Court of Appeals, J. H. Gillis, J.,
Gave thought and then had this to say:
1) There is no liability,
Since No-Fault grants immunity,
2) No jurisdiction can be found
Where process service is unsound;
And thus the judgment, as it's termed
Is due to be, and is
Affirmed.

[1] AUTOMOBILES k251.13
Defendant's Chevy struck a tree,
There was no liability.
The No-Fault Act comes into play,
As owner and the driver say.
Barred by the act's immunity,
No suit in tort will aid the tree.
Although the oak's in disarray,
No court can make defendants pay.

[2] PROCESS k4
No jurisdiction could be found,
Where process service is unsound.
In personam jurisdiction
Was not even legal fiction
Where plaintiff failed to well comply
With rules of court that did apply.

* * *

J. H. GILLIS, Judge.
We thought that we would never see
A suit to compensate a tree.
A suit whose claim in tort is prest,
Upon a mangled tree's behest;
A tree whose battered trunk was prest
Against a Chevy's crumpled crest;
A tree that faces each new day
With bark and limb in disarray;
A tree that may forever bear
A lasting need for tender care.
Flora lovers though we three,
We must affirm the court's decree.

Affirmed.

-- Michigan Court of Appeals