Everton fan jailed for 'toddler' incident against Lyon

There appears to be no questions about the players' behaviour in this incident which may have been a contributory factor in the fans reaction.

Like I said, it seems harsh.

By the way, I love that third parargraph. He's banned from football for 6 years and banned from Everton for life – recognition then that there is no link between football and what goes on at Goodison Park.

A child can be grievously injured by a parent's mad moment.

I think this moron deserves everything he's getting and then some.

He drops the kid, injures the kid? The lynch squad would be out.

I think you can take that as read mate.

Not sure the punishment fits the crime. What did Rooney get for driving under the influence? A fine and a community service order, seems more appropriate sentence in this case too.

Durkheim would regard this as 'deviancy' - ie criminalise the persons which are easiest to make a criminal than to criminalise the players (Williams) who started it, with his 'cock of the baths' demeanour. Criminal law is aid and abetting.

NB: Had this been a street fight and not in the bourgeois bastards ground then Williams would have been doing time as well. Yes I support Everton but when they use their capital to criminalise something trivial, they're bourgeois bastards. His lawyer probably doesn't even have a law degree or the magistrate has little brain power. Disgraceful. that fella has a criminal record now because of Williams. It is so difficult to perceive another's misery just because he acted what he believed was a 'live' and immediate threat to Williams. The fella likely thought he was helping Williams. His perception seems quite abnormal insofar as he believed, in his perception, that he was doing nothing wrong.

The child is just a distraction. The child was no where near in the vicinity of being harmed, as I recall from that video. The fan also did not strike any body so there is no assault, ie no actus reus (criminal act). It was likely 'assault' - ie threatening behaviour.

Caveat: I have been limited to 5 posts because I got carried away and posted 20. I will continue any such debate on the live forum. I am not going to waste my 4 responses on trivial crap. NB: My qualifications are bachelor of science in sociology and psychology and LLB (honours) law degree. I despair of this bourgeois criminal justice system I really do.

As for comments about RS. This is, for those with less legal knowledge, covered by the "Knobhead in Red Act 1962".

This was originally brought in to combat a plethora of fake Santas stealing from houses in the home counties back in the 1960s.

Disgracefully it has become a legal loophole exploited by RS, Manure and modern day Santas for crimes ranging from arson to assault and civil proceedings against the Department of Education for missing performance targets.

Your choice!

?

I have 3 more responses out of my 5. I can't waste them. I'd rather not respond anymore than me limited in my TW responses. But if any of you want to debate this on the live forum on the above link, I can do that.

The fact is it's a deterrent sentence. The location and the presence of the child are significant aggravating features that would lift this out of what would normally be a Category 2 or Category 3 offence and be dealt with by no more than a community penalty. What we aren't told is his record of antecedents.

I would have told him to bring a bag and expect the worst. The District Judge was always going to make an example of him and an 8 week sentence will be easily upheld on appeal.

To some Duncan is a legend for a few onfield assaults. Suarez is fine for vampire work.

Does seem a bit 'us and them'...

A less creative thinker might have gotten the impression that this moron ran all the way down from his seat to the barrier – at least eight steps visible on the video – with his little boy in one arm, waving the other and screaming, and then throwing two punches, because he was a fucking psycho trying to get in a cheap shot at an opposing player.

But your more sympathetic/heroic version lends a whole new perspective to this poor, misunderstood daddy's perception.

I wonder if his lawyer tried that.

Hell, the Atalanta and Arsenal home games would meet the international definition of torture.

I also think he was an absolute moron for rushing to get involved in anything with a small boy in his hands. Surely anyone with a brain cell would be looking to protect a child, or at least stop them from seeing anything happening in circumstances like that? Never mind racing to the front to get involved! So I have got no sympathy for this guy – hopefully he will learn from it though.

Why not get the child put into care and just fucking hang him? Probably not enough for some. He is a half-witted idiot, it seems, who did something really, really stupid. Let's build a few more prisons if that is enough to get jailed.

Football supporters disgust the judiciary. Why could that be?

http://ToffeeWeb.com/comment/live/

I have 2 (current) more responses out of my 5.

I'd rather not respond anymore to the points raised simply because I cannot owing to an earlier forum topic (Marco Silva one) where I posted 20 (I stopped posting for while previously). I will limit said responses to a repeat of 'use live forum' if you want to discuss things; I can do that if any of you want to?

I can't comment in a normal dialogue type of way. So making statements about my post is just pointless.

I'd rather waste my 2 responses than post anything substantive to the points raised as one comment leads to another but I do not have the response privileged that these others do. So, please read each and every word before you respond in open responses (ie, indicating a debate or a series of responses).

People like myself try to convince Magistrates that this is good for no one. I sincerely believe that a short custodial sentence of less than a month does no good for anyone, and government studies give credence to this argument. But it does not change the reality.

The fact of the matter is that the outraged daily tabloids stir up public fury and lead to constantly increasing sentences for a variety of offences. I could go on at length, but this is a football forum, and I come here to forget the pressure of work and I am not normally one for talking shop.

Steve, compared to your highly evolved country, mine is a goddamned prison camp. According to the latest statistics I can find, England has an incarceration rate of 148 per 100,000 population.

The US rate is five times that – 737 per 100,000.

And of course our figure is expected to rise sharply as corrupt Trump administration officials are perp-walked to the pen.

Surely to do a task like that you have to know what actually goes on in life outside their Cliff Richard, Rupert the Bear, Listen with Mother world.

Well done for having the courage and bravery for challenging the severity of this sentence which is ludicrous. It also exposes the double standards of Everton Football Club – who by taking their high minded approach over this incident should also sack Ashley Williams – they could also sack him for fraud (posing as a Premier League footballer).

Mike Gaynes – you will surely be delighted to welcoming Wayne Rooney to the USA – another criminal for to imprison?? – his crime was far more likely to cause damage to another person than the fan in this case.

The moral bankruptcy of the US justice and penal system beggars belief with the poorest at most risk – your opinion on this sentence resonates with much of the policy forwarded by your lunatic president. I laughed when you used the word 'evolved' as a good number of US states don't even recognise evolution as a scientific theory.

John Wilson – I would be careful about quoting Durkheim on here, as many may think he is a nippy continental wide player.

I may be a mile off the mark here and will own up if I am, I would suggest that a fair amount who put themselves in the job like to see the law take it's course.

Anyway, I know the editors frown on off Everton posts, so, to keep it on topic: Is there any Evertonian (John McFarlane, perhaps) who could put up an article on Tony Kay and the bribes scandal, or recommend a book on the subject.

That being said, there's no justification for his actions, they were idiotic. As to the players' actions, well that is for the club to control, and I think it's fair to say neither the club nor the players involved have covered themselves in glory.

District Judges are also used to prevent good defence solicitors from doing a bit of smoke and mirrors and peddling a good sob story and getting lenient sentences in these cases from the unqualified Magistrates. Make no mistake, the judge will have been told what he must do in these kind of cases, and eyebrows would have been raised by his superiors if he'd not jailed Mr Fitzgerald, regardless of his record.

I'm not saying the Judge is right or he's wrong, I'm just trying to explain how in our system the sentence was expected and how an appeal court would simply bat it away, or perhaps even increase the sentence slightly. He'll be out in four weeks so he won't bother appealing anyway.

Where are the police taking action about the RS assault on the Man City bus? That's gone quiet, hasn't it? Our police are all over the place right now, Tommy Robinson?

What I said was that your country is far more evolved than mine in the area of criminal justice. Which is exactly what you said, albeit much less politely. So I believe my use of the word "evolved" was correct.

Your facts are also a little off target. For the record, there is no state in America that does not recognize evolution as science. (Not "scientific theory", Ed.) There are, however, far too many individual Americans who do dismiss evolution. Also, the lunatic president of my country is, in fact, doing everything he can to dismantle our legal system (particularly the agencies targeting him) and hastening to pardon all his friends for their crimes. He supports harsh law enforcement only for those with opposing political views, brown skin and foreign accents.

On a more serious note, however – if you really think that Rooney's drink driving was "far more likely to cause damage to another person" than a guy deliberately carrying his toddler into a brawl between professional athletes and throwing punches at them, then I would suggest you use the word "lunatic" a bit more carefully, because that's nonsense.

And as I said in post #15, I think some sort of community service might have been appropriate for the guy – but I strongly support Everton's decision to ban him. Going to Goodison is a privilege, not a right, and he has forfeited the privilege permanently.

I can't believe the number of people defending the mindless idiot or attempting to justify it by comparing it to acts of violence which have carried a lesser punishment. It changes nothing.

So a sentence was called for. There are arguments one way or the other as to the leniency or severity of the sentence, and the nature of sentence (jail, community service etc). But I just wonder what we would be saying if this was an action from a Liverpool fan at Anfield. Well, I don't wonder, I know (always the victims etc).

I read your post very carefully and I know you alluded to the fact that UK model of justice is more highly evolved or advanced.– so what?You still advance an argument that the guy was treated equitably or reasonably.

As a professional Scientist and Science educator for over 38 years, I think you will find that the teaching of evolution is often eschewed in favour of creationism in a number of US states. You reveal your own ignorance of the topic when you can't attach the word 'theory' to 'evolution'. Perhaps you don't believe the theory of gravity either – because you can't touch it, feel it either – try jumping out of the window, then. I am sure you heard of the Scopes trial?

I would take my chance getting a punch off someone rather than facing a car being driven with someone with alcohol in their blood every time.

I am not defending him, no-one rational could. Sending him to prison is utterly fucking ludicrous. Yes, it will deter toddler carrying assailants, and no doubt that is good because they are fucking rife.

Also, it will give him a criminal record making it highly unlikely that he will support his family again. That is really good. Most importantly, it will make the sanctimonious feel good.

He needs someone to have a word in his ear. To be with people who don't carry toddlers into battle. Not to spend a month with people who do.

There's also the not-so-small point of the risk to the toddler getting hurt here, not just the person on the receiving end of a possible punch.

And your point is? A car driven by someone who is over the limit is going to pose more threat to anyone – adult or child – whether they are a passenger or pedestrian

The guy in question might be a dick but I think the sentence handed down and the club's stance is harsh and not equitable

And I didn't introduce or comment on the hypothetical case and comparison of a drunk driver. My point is solely that there was a risk to the kid – which there was, surely. That's my point. No more nor less. I thought I'd already made it?

I'm not condoning the guy's behaviour as acceptable – what I am saying is the sentence is harsh and will damage the guy's family and child, perhaps for a lifetime.

"You reveal your own ignorance of the topic when you can't attach the word 'theory' to 'evolution'."

First, your application of the word "ignorance" is beyond inappropriate. It is also inaccurate. Withdraw it.

Second, it may be a linguistic difference between British and American English, but here, Theory of Evolution means it is fact, not "scientific theory", which would mean less than fully proven.

Third, accept that I may know a bit more about the American public school system than you do when I say that Creationism is not taught in any public school here. It is taught in private and charter schools that do receive some public monies (for special programs supporting disabled students, scholarships for the poor, lunch programs and the like). And some public schools in Tennessee and Louisiana do teach that evolution is unproven "theory" and can be debated alongside ideas like intelligent design, which walks close to the line. But again, no US public school teaches creationism.

Based on the level of violence involved, then Eric Cantona should have spent years behind bars.

I'm with Gaynes. Maybe an American thing?

Who in the name of all that is holy would do that?

A bust-up! Let's go toss in a haymaker while I hold MY CHILD!

You gotta be kidding me?

Punishment fits the crime. Bringing in, "well Rooney does this" and a bit of, "well such and such does this" is not only disingenuous, but contradicts my Mum:

"If everyone jumped off a bridge, would you?"

And another immortal Mum line:

"We're not talking about THEM, we're talking about YOU."

How can you ever justify the actions of a father who jumps into a fight while holding his young boy in the crowd versus a player on a pitch seeing red mist and losing his shit??

I'm with Gaynes. Punishment fits the crime.

Deflect the blame, bring up a completely unrelated matter, create a loose parallel, and have at it.

TRUMP IS SO PROUD!

In terms of football, the long ban sends exactly the right message. Deserves what he's getting.

In a criminal context? There'll be much worse incidents all over Liverpool tonight. Are they all getting more than 8 weeks for it? Seems ridiculously heavy handed unless he's got all sorts of previous.

Ultimately, the decision to incarcerate depends on how you view the obligations of the criminal justice system. Is it society's job to punish, rehabilitate... or both?

In the good old USA, your imprison more people per head of population than any country in the world – that's a statistic to be proud of because it's really working for you, isn't it? Stopping crime?

Your arcane gun laws are a joke – the latest wheeze from your President is to arm teachers to stop school shootings, FFS.

Mike are you a trained, qualified Scientist? Perhaps you think the Earth is flat as well. FFS

Your arrogant and ignorant assumption that I have no knowledge of or close colleagues who work in the American education system is wrong.

As I said initially, the sentencing was inappropriate and will do more damage than any good.

Can't spell, can't read correctly, can't comprehend, touts with his educational background with incorrect grammar, spouts about a country he has no first-hand experience with, and falls back on deflection and non sequitor to cover for attempting to justify criminal child endangerment.

And still insists, beyond all reason or rationality and with the stubbornness of a thumb-sucking four-year-old, that a drunken Wayne Rooney was more of a danger to a child like that than the daddy who deliberately carried him into the middle of a brawl involving eight or ten very large angry men.

Whoever the Trump equivalent is in Britain, I guarantee Fitzgerald is wearing his hat.

The guy needed to be punished. The kid didn't.

The kid already had his bad luck. His dad's a dickhead. Unfortunately there are plenty of kids in that position.

Now his dad's a dickhead with a prison record, it's difficult enough to get work without being an ex-con. Very few people will employ him.

I'm no social expert, I just think this was the wrong punishment, it's one which has to be to the disadvantage of his entire family.

I would also point out that there's a lot we don't know. As mentioned by a previous poster, we don't know if this is Dad's first offence, or whether he has a history of misconduct or even violence. We don't know exactly where he was sitting or how far he had to run to get involved (although we do know he had at least eight seconds to change his mind about throwing punches into the melee). And we don't know if he was sitting alone with the child, or whether he had the chance to hand him off to another family member before involving himself. The magistrate would have had all that information. We do not.

What we do know is that he did something that nobody else in Goodison did, what very few fans in any sporting event have ever done, or that anyone on this board would remotely consider justifiable or rational. (I have had a considerable temper myself, and I've thrown more punches than I care to recall, but in my worst red mist I'd never even conceive of doing what he did.) And we also know for certain that his child was, at least briefly, in considerable danger.

I would also suggest that the criminal conviction itself – plus the very public display of idiocy – already likely impacted Dad's employability far more than the punishment.

In the future he may find it a little harder to pick up a job. In my experience it's easier for ex-offenders if they have a good employment record or if they have good qualifications. If they have neither it's tough, but then it is for anyone in that predicament.

Our prison population is little different in nature from that of the US I suspect. The majority of those inside come from poor backgrounds, have few educational qualifications, have mental health problems, literacy problems and dependency problems. Locking them up is cheaper than facing and dealing with those problems. It also panders to the majority voter view that "prison works", "it's too soft inside", etc.

A life ban from football, an appropriate fine and a community sentence that didn't impact on employment would do the trick. I'd also allow the possibility of an appeal against the ban at some future date.

Regarding science. Generally, those ideas which appear to be generally correct are described as "hypotheses". If tested and not found wanting they translate to a "theory". Being cautious people, scientists are usually happy to leave it at that. After all, Einstein was content to describe his theory of relativity. Latest research shows that this may not apply in certain circumstances. Note " may".

Those phenomena which lend themselves to a simpler treatment via equations are sometimes described as "laws". Even these are often far from perfect.

I've worked with unemployed ex-offenders and the problem is that, if they are in prison, form 'connections' while inside and struggle to get work when they're released, it can be easier to go back to crime to pay the bills. Some may argue that's a good thing, others wouldn't.

The deeper issue is whether a custodial sentence is for the greater good and I'm not convinced that's the case here.

As too was Peter's and Paul`s. You three clearly know what you are talking about. I have little more than gut reaction to add to this debate.

As others have said, surely Ashley Williams was far more guilty and has not been charged by the police or banned by EFC.

I wouldn't even ban the fan for life, perhaps a year would be enough to make him think twice in a similar situation.

Here in the US there's no time limit – the typical job application asks "Have you ever been convicted of a crime?" – but the actual sentence has little impact on subsequent job prospects.

The get-a-job-or-go-back-to-crime issue is the same in the US, although vastly multiplied since we have so many more people incarcerated for longer periods.

If Dad is a first offender, I'd agree that jail might not be appropriate, but we have no way of knowing if he is or not. And I don't know if psychological counseling or anger management is typically part of a judge's order in Britain, but this guy obviously needs professional help, because what he did was crazy.

Who on here in their lives has not done something stupid that warranted punishment? He may be a total dickhead or he just had a crazy moment but to put someone in jail and then you see drug dealers, burglars and other good-for-nothing criminals getting light sentences or none at all then the system makes you sick.

Coppers have a tough job but there are plenty of them who should have gone to jail with the hammering we took at a lot of away games. I guess that's okay though because these judges just see football fans in as all being of a thuggish nature.

(I actually find it sorta comforting.)

That's why we often see outcry about 'lenient' sentences, from people who combine lack of knowledge of the law and discretionary sentencing with their gut instinct of what 'should' be done.

Typing on an iPhone with poor eyesight late at night or early morning may result in the odd grammatical mistake, shoot me – you probably would in the USA.

I wasn't flouting anything – just providing the basis on which my views are formed.

In a similar vein, my views on Everton, Football, Fan behaviour etc have been formed having been a season ticket holder for over 45 years.

What good has it done imprisoning that fan? He might have done something idiotic but it's going to damage his family long term. I find the club's lifetime ban hypocritical given that we have employed the likes of Jeffers, Baxter, and Ferguson.

On certain threads on TW of late, I note a schism in posters' responses to a variety of issues. It's a little crude but those who live in the City (or Merseyside) tend to take a different line to those who do not originate from the city or no longer live in Merseyside. It was palpable on last week's Champions League Final thread. I guess I've become increasingly irritated by that and so, for that reason it's time to leave, TW.

The fact of the matter is we lock up more people, and at a higher rate than any other EU country. Is this because we have a severe problem with crime? No, not on what I've seen or read. It's a culture thing; in this country, we like to blame and punish.

I could go on at length about the issues I see on a daily basis with society, how there are certain people who are destined from childhood to have no prospects in life. However, this is a football forum, and that's deeply depressing stuff and most on here are on here for some escapism or entertainment.

I know I would not want this type of idiot working for and representing my company.

Community service would have been more appropriate and why not for EitC? That is precisely what a “People's Club” should be doing. Yes, work him hard in the service of others but also provide him with a place on a parenting course and work with him to become a better dad and man.

The double standard of the club banning him for life while their players who caused the melee receive no more than a ticking off at worst. The club sees fit to allow ex-players convicted of violence and drugs related offences to work at Finch Farm. If that's okay, then why is not okay also to attempt to rehabilitate a fan who looks like he hasn't got much else going in life apart from his love of Everton?

He is a fool, present tense. The club has the power to change that description and make a better future for him, his family and probably for society generally.

Ashley Williams should have gone to jail, the fucking idiot. Hopefully he will fuck off come the summer as he is a total liability.

Are we advocating only imprisoning the childless? He did the wrong thing – he gets punished for it. The kid doesn't come into it.

This might alter some people's opinion of the offence and sentence.

That is the point and I had read that and so I simply say again 8 weeks for your first offence is fucking ridiculous!! End of story!

There was a piece of graffiti that said life was like a shit sandwich: the more bread you have, the less shit you have to take.

But, seeing how a hell of a lot of people on this thread seemingly have no idea whatsoever about the concept of personal responsibility, let's go ahead and bring the players into the discussion. Even though they have nothig to do with this man's actions.

The players have a referee and are in a controlled environment. The dad is not allowed contact with the run of play or players, and he had a kid in his arms when he went to join a fracas that he is not allowed to join. And that action endangered the child!

So... 8 weeks jail time? Yup, adds up to me!

Maybe I'm wrong, but life is full of double standards imo, and I personally feel the lad needs help rather than jail.

I thought it was great the way Everton gave Jose Baxter the chance to get over his shame, so I think it's poor the way they have dealt with this man's stupidity.

Banned for life, so how is the young kid going to get to see Everton now? Hopefully after he's done his sentence, the club could help by giving him some rehabilitation.

Instead of wasting (lots of) money on getting Hope University to write glowing evaluations in a mutual back-scratching exercise, EitC should be looking at how to invest in helping lads (and girls) like this.

I don't know him but I'm guessing that only a charity carrying the Everton name would be able to bring this young man to a programme that could change his life. He's one of ours and needs help not banishment.

What gets me a bit fired up are the myriad of posts comparing what this man did with unrelated issues or the players themselves. You just can't compare them. This is an isolated incident which can't be diminished by saying, "Well what about the players?"

What about my Aunt Mary and her cousin's neighbor? Who gives a fart what my Aunt Mary, her cousin's neighbor, the players, or creationism have done – they've no relation to this man and his actions.

I don't understand how one can say, quite child-like, "Well what about them?!" We're talking about this man and the consequences of his actions on himself and his son. That's it.

Just drives me a bit nuts. I'll drop it. I've beaten the dead horse. Everyone have a great weekend.

Not sure about the split being local vs wider. How can you tell?

I didn't write about any split either. You must have mixed me up with somebody else's post.

He's been taken away from his family, who will probably suffer a lot more than he will over the next few weeks, so imagine getting out and being able to take his little boy back to Goodison again.

Everyone deserves a second chance but, unless we get one, then how can we ever be allowed to improve ourselves?

If so, then EitC must get involved. If they don't then surely it makes a mockery of them. And those bans for life are often overturned. He's banned for a set time by the courts (ancillary order, not double jeopardy; otherwise, drink drivers couldn't be banned!) and the club is free to reduce their ban down to match this (was it six years?).

The court can also reduce the ban on application (say if he doesn't offend and through work with EitC can demonstrate a positive change in attitude). It'll be interesting to see how EitC react to this.

Kay; 'Who are we playing next week'

2nd player; 'Ipswich'

Kay; 'We never get anything there'

3rd player; 'Give us 50 quid each and I'll put a bet on, I know a fella who will give us 2-1... at least we'll get something out of it. (I believe player 3's dad put the bet the but don't quote me)

Jimmy Faulds (who, adding Insult to injury, was an ex-Everton player too) tried to parley this information as mitigation for his own misdemeanors.

When the story broke in The People on Sunday morning, it all became a media circus. The FA, probably due to all the publicity, went to town on it to, correctly, if heavy-handedly, to discourage others from betting, especially on their own games, as this might cause them to throw the game. So the bet winnings was deemed a bribe. Though the actual link was tenuous at best.

The above is basically Kay's own version; I dare say there was and is more to it... it may even come out as time passes.

I can still remember the newspaper advertising plackard-carrying guys... "Everton player in bribes scandal". Various names were bandied about in the ground, the consensus near us was Denis Stevens, because not many liked him for replacing Collins... a belated "sorry", Denis.

I can't remember offhand if Kay was good, bad or indifferent in that game, but I suspect he was his usual self, from what I've gathered, anything else wasn't in his nature... but I am a bit biased.

The fact that he had a child in his hand muddies it a bit, but otherwise, on the basis that he had no prior convictions, the sentence is a joke.

I'm not sure how it is in the UK, but every sentence for serious assault in Ireland seems to be preceded by the line "the defendant, who had 60 odd previous convictions..." But this guy did it at a football game, the game that tolerates endless verbal assaults from the terraces, and he ends up with a custodial sentence for a bit of a slap.

He's an idiot, amongst seemingly endless idiots that attend football matches, but he's the only one heading to the slammer.

I knew it was bad last season, it didn't even qualify as football.

This is not as off topic as it may seem because I feel from the 1960s onwards, Everton were regularly involved in punishments and sanctions that were not evenly applied to other clubs. Compare Kay to Ferdinand missing a drugs test, for example, or Niasse the only player suspended for diving, or this lad now being punished twice over for one offence.

The sad truth is that the people at boardroom level are more anxious to please politicians than Evertonians; nobody will ever convince me that Philip Carter showed more loyalty to Thatcher than he ever did to us. As Chairman of the Liverpool Conservatives as well as Everton, his opposition could well have prevented the Heysel ban. He did not oppose it.

The treatment of the lad falls into a similar category of wanting to please those in political power. Yes, Steve (#112), it will be interesting to see how EitC reacts now, but don't hold your breath. And don't refer to her as 'DBB'; a blazer steward who politely opened a door for her and bid “Good afternoon, DBB” was sacked for ‘disrespect'.

Jimmy Gauld was the former Everton player involved with the betting and throwing of games. One of the main men in organising the betting and throwing of these matches; Peter Swan and "Bronco" Lane of Sheffield Wednesday were also heavily involved, along with a player connected to Tranmere Rovers.

Not a lot of money connected to the betting but the players were very silly to get themselves involved and fuckin' stupid in admitting their involvement. They basically gave themselves up.

The biggest losers financially were Everton after spending close to 㿨,000 on Tony Kay plus over ٠,000 on his defence in court fees.

Not a fan of the 'flog 'em hard and hang 'em high' sentencing some seem to be advocating.

Have many of you taken the time to read what the lad himself said?

He is 30-years-old. After the incident, "I was out of the police station inside half an hour with my solicitor. But I'm ashamed of what I've done. I already know. I'm not a fucking dickhead."

"It was not intentional but I'd been too concentrated on screaming abuse at the players for being shit." (Something a lot of us were doing last season!).

He confessed he go too close to the brawl after getting "carried away", and put himself and his son in what he called a "dangerous position".

Added to being ashamed of what he'd done, he also feared he would be banned from accessing his children.

The courts and the bizzies have ensured he will be separated from them for the term of his sentence.

I for one am also uncomfortable with the words of the Superintendent of Merseyside police, Dave Charnock:

“The majority of fans went to the game to enjoy it for what it was – a football match between two passionate clubs.

“The police will not tolerate the selfish and idiotic actions of a few attempting to spoil a game of football that the vast majority of people went along to enjoy.

Surely if he was truly intolerant of the "selfish and idiotic actions of a few attempting to spoil a game of football", then he needed to take a closer look at the conduct of nearly every player on the pitch involved in the melee that provoked Fitzpatrick's reaction.

Nor do I care for the almost gleeful comment the Police Super added: "Fitzpatrick will now have a criminal record and the consequences of this in the future could be significant.”

Well good for you, super. And thanks for protecting society from such an obvious villain.

This is a case for EiTC. Not the courts.

On the Tony Kay matter, it was said that it was the first example of secretly recording a conversation, that between Kay and The People reporter on Kay's front doorstep or in the reporter's car. Apparently, the recording was so poor that the conversation could be barely understood and it has been said that it would not have been allowed in evidence.

The kid made a mistake, showing a bit of frustration that's all.

Anyone praising the sentence would change their mind after the first day if they had the misfortune to be in the same situation through one mistake.

You simply can not have fans attacking or attempting to attack the players on the pitch or whatever playing surface of a given sporting event. And to do so while holding a young child was completely inexcusable.

A crime isn't solely judged as to whether the worst case scenario came to fruition. Just because he didn't land a significant blow to the player and his child wasn't severely injured because of his wreckless action, does not mean the episode is just brushed under the rug.

I completely disagree with the idiotic comments that gleefully say he's now going to have a difficult life because of a criminal conviction. That is incredibly unprofessional, to take joy in such matters. But let's not make as if this man's life has now been ruined. It hasn't, but he did this to himself and “it was a moment of madness” is never an acceptable excuse.

Once it gets to court, then police do no more than give witness statements and assist the prosecution with anything that may have gone amiss. The police could hardly do nothing in this situation, so having a pop at them is unfair.

He'll only do 4 weeks and we don't know if he's had previous convictions for assault which may have been taken into consideration.

I think he was later convicted of some minor crime concerning jewellery and might have entered one of the Queen's establishments again. What should have been a great football career and maybe a World Cup medal ended on his front doorstep that tragic Sunday morning.

Anyway, I did come up with this fascinating but rather sad letter we published from Tony Kay himself, about how he fell out with Everton goalkeeper Albert Dunlop, also through the malicious involvement of The People newspaper:

A Letter from Tony Kay of Sheffield Wednesday, Everton and England

I found that linked from the Wikipedia page on the 1964 British betting scandal, which shows the 'problem' of betting/match-fixing to have been much broader than I recall — with Tony Kay the biggest of the fish caught.

There is also this Interview with Tony Kay at the now defunct Blue Kipper.

The BBC Docudrama from 1997 was called The Fix, with Jason Issacs playing Kay, Steve Coogan as the obnoxious journo, Mike Gabbert, and Colin Welland as an enigmatic Harry Catterick.

If s player chomps on your neck in public? A three-month ban .

A bus gets wrecked by fans, multi million pound assets under attack from a pack-like mob with a history for tragedy and it gets blamed on Everton or Chelsea fans not their own.

A fan gets battered outside the Kop and there are calls for Roma to be kicked out,

Salad gets fouled, a petition against Ramos.

Racial abuse? Oh, speaking in Portuguese, Running kids over in cars?

The list goes on ...

Anything to do with Everton and we get slammed.

The Fix (Part 1 of 4):

The Fix (Part 2 of 4):

The Fix (Part 3 of 4):

The Fix (Part 4 of 4):

I can't remember Eric Cantona getting a custodial sentence for leaving the field of play and attacking a fan when the worst-case scenario did come to fruition. The only difference was he wasn't carrying a child, but he went into an area where children were sitting.

Double fucking standards! How many hooray Henry's were arrested and jailed at Ascot and Goodwood during the riots amongst families? Fuckin none probably...

No wonder people dislike them so much. Not a clue, honestly!

Players need to feel safe, and a strong message needed to be sent that under no circumstances will an attack/attempted attack on a player be tolerated.

The police press release was also a clear message designed to prevent it happening again. It's not bragging as someone else suggested. It's a clear message that there will be serious consequences to this type of behaviour. Due to the press/social media attention, it was always going to be dealt with like this.

Also from a financial point of view you can't have fans attacking players in a billion pound industry – reality is the need to protect the brand (even if was Europa League as opposed to Champions League or Premier League).

Players attack players regularly — they don't go to jail. What about Tosun the other night, if he'd of made it to the crowd, what might have happened?

The Cantona incident?

For me, a jail sentence was an absurdity considering the corruption that goes on at the top echelons of the game.

West Ham have come under sharp focus because of their appalling security at The London Stadium. Another incident could have seen them playing games behind closed doors.
Players' safety is paramount.

Anyone with half a brain would have moved away from such a melee when holding a child. This idiot moved forward, putting the kid in danger, so he could throw wild punches at someone he had never met and posed him no threat.

The law itself should be the deterrent – not the individual's sentence which should be dependent upon the punishment parameters within the legislation and the circumstances of the case as presented, the situation and the individual's record of misdemeanours with the aim of prevention through education and enlightenment, taking into account the probability of same.

I do wonder, though, how an individual carrying a child was able to scale his way onto the pitch avoiding crowd control measures.