I think there's a world of difference between fans papping them onto the pitch behind the goal and someone kicking one into the crowd.They are either dangerous or not?
The verdict dictates if they will be allowed in stadiums
Despite wanting more imformation about the level of danger that this poses I have a feeling that who carried out the act will carry more weight.Pyro being a burning issue with helmetheed at the moment i think its unlikely that the crown will be seeking to reduce the charge against this scumbag.
What’s the difference? If anything throwing them into the pitch is safer than launching into hundreds of innocent victimsI think there's a world of difference between fans papping them onto the pitch behind the goal and someone kicking one into the crowd.
That was the point I was trying to make.What’s the difference? If anything throwing them into the pitch is safer than launching into hundreds of innocent victims
The judge seems to be offering a suggestion for the defense here. And quite a ludicrous one at that. It doesn’t give me much confidence that the wee nonce will be held to account.The trial was set for September after the court was told that Griffiths was likely to be "away" during July when it would normally have been set for.
Fiscal depute Dev Kapaldia said: "Having had a look at the case, the court might benefit from further inquiry into the flare.
"I know what they do, but I don't know how they operate. The significance is what the effect of it might be. It came from the crowd onto the pitch.
"I want to inquire further into what effect it might have within a crowded area if it comes back in. The Crown is intending to make this inquiry."
Sheriff George Way said: "Looking at it, it is kicking a smoke bomb or similar item. One would readily infer from that that the flare came from somewhere.
"How does it matter how it works? It is a description of a thing giving off flames, smoke or whatever, and the defence will be along the lines of 'this nasty thing came at me and I kicked it. The scary thing came flying at me and I kicked it.'
"Does it matter if it is a flare, or a smoke bomb, or a pot plant? I just wonder if you are wasting your own time and money?" he asked the prosecutor.
I'm sure that she was 15 mate.Because, though young, she wasn't under age.
I think that the SFA used the 'under police investigation' to avoid doing anything.Haven't been through the full thread but did Griffiths ever actually cop a ban for this?
Yes I think I've misremembered that.I'm sure that she was 15 mate.
I'm thinking the defence would be that it was a smoke bomb and not actually a flare. Not that I'm defending the idiot. If they want to call it a flare and has a more serious charge, then great.The judge is right in what he says. It is within the ken of judicial knowledge that such an object has the potential to cause danger to spectators.
What worries me is that the depute is seeking a report to say that the ‘object’ did not have the capacity to cause injury which could potentially see the case marked for no proceedings due to there being no chance it could cause injury.
The difficulty the rat has to overcome is he did not know whether or not the object could cause injury so no matter what the report says it was still reckless behaviour by the cretinous poltroon.
I don't think Griffiths, is capable of working that out, he would need help from a friend. Remember he's not the sharpest tool in the box. If he had to count past 10 , he would have to take his socks, and shoes off.Just do a runner like stokes to ROI.. Get arrested over there and no problem, you want be extradited, same as Stokes
So they accept he did it but they seem to be contesting the fact that it was a 'danger' seems to be the gist of that.
Exactly and it will be a free for all. His defence is actually saying Flares are not dangerous, what a joke.If the Crown decides there was no danger posed by the flare then the policy of holding fans to account for the dangerous act of bringing them into the stadium goes out the window.
Let's just discard the evidence of our own eyes.Leigh Griffiths has denied endangering fans by booting a flare into the crowd and will go on trial later this year. He appeared in the dock at Dundee Sheriff Court and pled not guilty to culpable and reckless conduct. The court was told that the police evidence was agreed in the case, but the Crown are seeking further information about the potential danger posed by the flare.
If the Crown decides there was no danger posed by the flare then the policy of holding fans to account for the dangerous act of bringing them into the stadium goes out the window.
If and at this stage it is a big IF the crown proceed then the wee tramp could not possibly use the defence that he knew when he kicked it that it was harmless.Precisely.
This one is going to be very interesting to see how Sheriff McTaguey gets himself out of this one to let poor wee abused Griffiths off with it.
Are you calling Griffiths an idiot?It's not like he slid on his knees in the penalty area after scoring a goal and shushed the crowd. Now that is dangerous and inciteful.
I think that the SFA used the 'under police investigation' to avoid doing anything.
Are you calling Griffiths an idiot?
Seems pretty clear.It is not even up for debate.
“The report concludes that there are significant health and safety risks arising from their use in close proximity to other people and in contravention of the safety distances which are specified on the pyrotechnic articles themselves. All pyrotechnic devices have a “safety” distance for good reason and which will exceed the available space within a crowded stand or stadium. It is not safe, therefore, for any pyrotechnic device to be used in spectator areas within football stadia.”
It will be interesting to see how this pans out.Precisely.
This one is going to be very interesting to see how Sheriff McTaguey gets himself out of this one to let poor wee abused Griffiths off with it.
Eh?Another denier, would would have tonight it.
Kinda seems obvious doesn’t it it’s not dangerous until discharged and i would assume it is covered in law as a dangerous item once It is .So are they going to argue the technicality of whether a smoke bomb is dangerous?
Launching one into a crowd would be dangerous, placing one on the floor or holding it up wouldn’t be
Who in their right mind could contest that kicking a lit flare into a crowd of people is dangerous?So they accept he did it but they seem to be contesting the fact that it was a 'danger' seems to be the gist of that.
So there we have it, I do wonder it will stand up under Scots law thoughIt is not even up for debate.
“The report concludes that there are significant health and safety risks arising from their use in close proximity to other people and in contravention of the safety distances which are specified on the pyrotechnic articles themselves. All pyrotechnic devices have a “safety” distance for good reason and which will exceed the available space within a crowded stand or stadium. It is not safe, therefore, for any pyrotechnic device to be used in spectator areas within football stadia.”
Nothing to see here. Move along please.