Andrew Lee sentenced to four years for paralysing John Jones for life

Daily Echo: Bouncer sentenced to four years for paralysing student Bouncer sentenced to four years for paralysing student

ONE moment he was a fun-loving student with his whole life in front of him.

The next he was lying on a nightclub floor, injured by a reckless doorman who has left him paralysed from the neck down.

Confined to a specially-adapted wheelchair, John Jones looked on yesterday as the man responsible for shattering his life was jailed.

The moment Lee brutally seized John Jones in the Kaos night club.

His reaction was to wish that he could swap places with Andrew Lee,who was convicted last month of causing him grievous bodily harm.

Sipping a bottle of water through a straw held by his girlfriend Aslihan, John told the Daily Echo: “I’d gladly swap what he’s got for what I’ve got in a second – I’d happily do four years in prison.”

What the Judge said about Andrew Lee - click here

Having someone with him to tend to his every need 24 hours a day – from scratching an itch to cleaning his teeth – is now the reality for the 22-year-old who had been studying a degree at Southampton Solent University and had aspirations to be a sports journalist.

John and Aslihan were out with their friends at KAOS nightclub in St Mary’s Road, Southampton, when tragedy struck in February last year – at the brutal hands of doorman Andrew Lee who grabbed him while the couple stood in a corridor and put him in a full nelson hold.

One of the four videos Andrew Lee posted on an Internet networking site.

John was marched towards the exit before they both fell, causing John to break his neck.

Southampton Crown Court heard that Lee was a martial arts obsessive who bragged and showed video footage on his web page of gratuitous violence he inflicted on others. He had denied responsibility for John’s injuries.

Yesterday, as the 31-year-old was sent down for four years for what the judge described as a “premeditated and reckless assault”, John told of his relief that such an enormous hurdle had passed.

The second of the four videos Andrew Lee posted on an Internet networking site.

Speaking exclusively to the Daily Echo, he said: “It’s been hard. It was especially frustrating listening to his lies day after day. I am pleased now that it is over and with the sentence he has got.

“Obviously I would swap what he’s got for what I’ve got in a second. I’d gladly do four years in prison compared to this.”

John’s mum Julie isn’t surprised by her eldest son’s calm and reflective nature – it’s how he has always been through his life.

In fact it’s his demeanour that helps her put on a brave face and attempt to keep her emotions in check.

The mum of three – John has two younger brothers Alex, 20, and Elly, 14, – said: “I still struggle to believe what has actually happened – it still seems quite surreal. You can only hope for the best for your children – all I ever wanted was for them to get a decent job and have a decent life.

“Since this happened I have changed as a person, I don’t have much patience with anyone except my boys. I try to be patient with them because of the situation we find ourselves in.”

The third video posted by Andrew Lee highlighting his aggressive treatment of people

Talking of how her tolerance levels are lower with other people, she said: “I will listen, but my mind keeps thinking ‘You don’t understand what it’s like’.

“I try to put myself in John’s position, this puts matters into perspective, but I worry a lot more about things – I worry about John and what the future holds for him, especially when I’m not here anymore.

“I would give anything to turn back the clock and make that man, the one who did this, make a different decision or a different choice of action.

“I would swap places in an instant so that he could get on with his degree, with his life.”

Since the accident, John has always been determined to live as independently as possible – despite needing a carer 24 hours a day.

Julie added: “I worried about that because I want to be able to take care of him. I know he’s a grown man but I can’t stop or help caring like a mum.

“I think I’m good at hiding my feelings in front of John and I try really hard not to show it if I’m upset. Alex and Elly always say ‘He’s going to walk again isn’t he?’ and I never tell them yes or no, I just say it will take a very long time.”

Only once has Julie allowed herself to break down in front of her two youngest children, when John’s hospital bed was delivered to the family home.

The third video posted by Andrew Lee highlighting his aggressive treatment of people

“It was the realisation it was real but it must have been horrible for them to see me like that.”

Julie added: “I don’t sleep well and I am constantly thinking of John and things I need to sort out for him. I can only describe my feelings as broken hearted.

John is a good kid, a typical boy but never been in trouble or hurt anyone. Nobody deserves to be going through this.

“It breaks my heart seeing him, who was so independent, unable to do anything, even the smallest thing like scratching an itch or moving his hands for himself. I have not felt anger yet, just real sadness. I just wish it had never happened.”

■ John and Julie Jones said they would like to thank family and friends for their support and in particular the efforts of officers from Hampshire police and prosecuting barrister William Mousley for their help in securing justice.

Comments (94)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:02pm Fri 17 Jul 09

jono1974 says...

He should have got longer, what a complete arsehole.
He should have got longer, what a complete arsehole. jono1974
  • Score: 0

8:26pm Fri 17 Jul 09

justiceforandy says...

He shouldn't have got sentenced in the first place actually. He is a wonderful person and accidents like this one are the hazards of the job. If he was a police officer taking the boy away from the scene and this happened you can be sure the courts would blame alcohol and assume no responsibility. No good will come of sentencing Andrew, he isn't a bad person. He never even knew the guy, why would he intentionally want to hurt him? Surely the sentence of GBH should be applied to someone who intentionally harmed another human being? I can't see how tripping outside a club breaks any laws. It was a tragic accident don't get me wrong, but the people involved are already trying to sue the club, why put a harmless guy in jail also? Seems like they just want more lives ruined if you ask me.
He shouldn't have got sentenced in the first place actually. He is a wonderful person and accidents like this one are the hazards of the job. If he was a police officer taking the boy away from the scene and this happened you can be sure the courts would blame alcohol and assume no responsibility. No good will come of sentencing Andrew, he isn't a bad person. He never even knew the guy, why would he intentionally want to hurt him? Surely the sentence of GBH should be applied to someone who intentionally harmed another human being? I can't see how tripping outside a club breaks any laws. It was a tragic accident don't get me wrong, but the people involved are already trying to sue the club, why put a harmless guy in jail also? Seems like they just want more lives ruined if you ask me. justiceforandy
  • Score: 0

8:31pm Fri 17 Jul 09

Reality-man says...

So the courts are saying he was at fault in causing these injuries yet he only gets 4 years, whilst his victim gets a life sentence??
So the courts are saying he was at fault in causing these injuries yet he only gets 4 years, whilst his victim gets a life sentence?? Reality-man
  • Score: 0

8:39pm Fri 17 Jul 09

stickmyoarin says...

While the "people involved might be trying to sue the club, they have no guarantee of success. Even if the claim was successful the club may well not have the assets to pay it. With reference to the point justiceforandy makes about the "GBH sentence being applied to someone who intentionally harmed another being"...then they would have been charged with GBH-with intent, and he'd have got a long longer than for years for that. "Tripping outside a club" doesn't break any laws, but the jury obviously decided that the force used was unreasonable in him taking the lad out in the manner he did. As for "putting a harmless guy in jail", well I'm not sure John Jones and his family would describe Lee as "harmless".
While the "people involved might be trying to sue the club, they have no guarantee of success. Even if the claim was successful the club may well not have the assets to pay it. With reference to the point justiceforandy makes about the "GBH sentence being applied to someone who intentionally harmed another being"...then they would have been charged with GBH-with intent, and he'd have got a long longer than for years for that. "Tripping outside a club" doesn't break any laws, but the jury obviously decided that the force used was unreasonable in him taking the lad out in the manner he did. As for "putting a harmless guy in jail", well I'm not sure John Jones and his family would describe Lee as "harmless". stickmyoarin
  • Score: 0

8:43pm Fri 17 Jul 09

Forest Resident says...

justiceforandy - may I suggest you get some perspective here, John Jones will never walk again. Had Lee used an appropriate hold as per the training for his job then this incident wouldn't have happened. The facts are Lee was out of line using the hold he did and as a direct result (trip or otherwise) he caused John Jones to beome paralysed. That in itself is a life sentence, Lee will only have to serve 2 years maximum, hardly justice at all in my view, and no amount of compensation will be enough. The one saving grace is that Lee will never again be granted an SIA licence to work in a position where he can put innocent members of public at risk with his dangerous actions. Lee may not be a bad person but he is ultimately responsible.
justiceforandy - may I suggest you get some perspective here, John Jones will never walk again. Had Lee used an appropriate hold as per the training for his job then this incident wouldn't have happened. The facts are Lee was out of line using the hold he did and as a direct result (trip or otherwise) he caused John Jones to beome paralysed. That in itself is a life sentence, Lee will only have to serve 2 years maximum, hardly justice at all in my view, and no amount of compensation will be enough. The one saving grace is that Lee will never again be granted an SIA licence to work in a position where he can put innocent members of public at risk with his dangerous actions. Lee may not be a bad person but he is ultimately responsible. Forest Resident
  • Score: 0

8:57pm Fri 17 Jul 09

wizard says...

Forest Resident wrote:
justiceforandy - may I suggest you get some perspective here, John Jones will never walk again. Had Lee used an appropriate hold as per the training for his job then this incident wouldn't have happened. The facts are Lee was out of line using the hold he did and as a direct result (trip or otherwise) he caused John Jones to beome paralysed. That in itself is a life sentence, Lee will only have to serve 2 years maximum, hardly justice at all in my view, and no amount of compensation will be enough. The one saving grace is that Lee will never again be granted an SIA licence to work in a position where he can put innocent members of public at risk with his dangerous actions. Lee may not be a bad person but he is ultimately responsible.
Your such a fountain of knowledge you just know everything,or there is another word for it,its ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmm

oh yeah A Loser
[quote][p][bold]Forest Resident[/bold] wrote: justiceforandy - may I suggest you get some perspective here, John Jones will never walk again. Had Lee used an appropriate hold as per the training for his job then this incident wouldn't have happened. The facts are Lee was out of line using the hold he did and as a direct result (trip or otherwise) he caused John Jones to beome paralysed. That in itself is a life sentence, Lee will only have to serve 2 years maximum, hardly justice at all in my view, and no amount of compensation will be enough. The one saving grace is that Lee will never again be granted an SIA licence to work in a position where he can put innocent members of public at risk with his dangerous actions. Lee may not be a bad person but he is ultimately responsible.[/p][/quote]Your such a fountain of knowledge you just know everything,or there is another word for it,its ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmm oh yeah A Loser wizard
  • Score: 0

9:07pm Fri 17 Jul 09

cowley says...

Is that all four years?! So much for justice!
Is that all four years?! So much for justice! cowley
  • Score: 0

9:12pm Fri 17 Jul 09

UTS says...

What a pathetic sentence. He will not do more than 2 years.
What a pathetic sentence. He will not do more than 2 years. UTS
  • Score: 0

9:19pm Fri 17 Jul 09

the medic says...

it sound as if Lee is a bitbof a thug
and just works as a door man to make i legal to thump people he should go down for longer than 4 years as he will be out soon and able to start his life again not like Joha he got LIFE
it sound as if Lee is a bitbof a thug and just works as a door man to make i legal to thump people he should go down for longer than 4 years as he will be out soon and able to start his life again not like Joha he got LIFE the medic
  • Score: 0

10:17pm Fri 17 Jul 09

LoobyWooWoo says...

This sentence is disgusting, he has ruined an innocent mans life and all he gets is 4 years of which he will probably only serve half of that. Everyone knows bouncers are mostly complete bas**rds who think they can beat up anyone that so much as looks at them in the wrong way. I hate them, they are scum.
This sentence is disgusting, he has ruined an innocent mans life and all he gets is 4 years of which he will probably only serve half of that. Everyone knows bouncers are mostly complete bas**rds who think they can beat up anyone that so much as looks at them in the wrong way. I hate them, they are scum. LoobyWooWoo
  • Score: 0

10:17pm Fri 17 Jul 09

dannyep says...

justiceforandy wrote:
He shouldn't have got sentenced in the first place actually. He is a wonderful person and accidents like this one are the hazards of the job. If he was a police officer taking the boy away from the scene and this happened you can be sure the courts would blame alcohol and assume no responsibility. No good will come of sentencing Andrew, he isn't a bad person. He never even knew the guy, why would he intentionally want to hurt him? Surely the sentence of GBH should be applied to someone who intentionally harmed another human being? I can't see how tripping outside a club breaks any laws. It was a tragic accident don't get me wrong, but the people involved are already trying to sue the club, why put a harmless guy in jail also? Seems like they just want more lives ruined if you ask me.
Im not sure how posting videos of your assaults on the internet (Including one called 'Bitchslap' in which he slaps a woman' tallys with being "A wonderful harmless person"

He was clearly proud of these videos or he would'nt have put them on his personal profile.
With a disposition like that mixed with doing the job he did some unfortunate was always going to cop it from him.

Somehow I dont think you would hold the same opinion of him if you did'nt know him and one of your friends or family was in the wheelchair.

He gives some doormen who do a difficult job, often very well so you and your pals can have a good time a bullying and cowardly name.
[quote][p][bold]justiceforandy[/bold] wrote: He shouldn't have got sentenced in the first place actually. He is a wonderful person and accidents like this one are the hazards of the job. If he was a police officer taking the boy away from the scene and this happened you can be sure the courts would blame alcohol and assume no responsibility. No good will come of sentencing Andrew, he isn't a bad person. He never even knew the guy, why would he intentionally want to hurt him? Surely the sentence of GBH should be applied to someone who intentionally harmed another human being? I can't see how tripping outside a club breaks any laws. It was a tragic accident don't get me wrong, but the people involved are already trying to sue the club, why put a harmless guy in jail also? Seems like they just want more lives ruined if you ask me.[/p][/quote]Im not sure how posting videos of your assaults on the internet (Including one called 'Bitchslap' in which he slaps a woman' tallys with being "A wonderful harmless person" He was clearly proud of these videos or he would'nt have put them on his personal profile. With a disposition like that mixed with doing the job he did some unfortunate was always going to cop it from him. Somehow I dont think you would hold the same opinion of him if you did'nt know him and one of your friends or family was in the wheelchair. He gives some doormen who do a difficult job, often very well so you and your pals can have a good time a bullying and cowardly name. dannyep
  • Score: 0

10:43pm Fri 17 Jul 09

Quite Frankly says...

dannyep wrote:
justiceforandy wrote: He shouldn't have got sentenced in the first place actually. He is a wonderful person and accidents like this one are the hazards of the job. If he was a police officer taking the boy away from the scene and this happened you can be sure the courts would blame alcohol and assume no responsibility. No good will come of sentencing Andrew, he isn't a bad person. He never even knew the guy, why would he intentionally want to hurt him? Surely the sentence of GBH should be applied to someone who intentionally harmed another human being? I can't see how tripping outside a club breaks any laws. It was a tragic accident don't get me wrong, but the people involved are already trying to sue the club, why put a harmless guy in jail also? Seems like they just want more lives ruined if you ask me.
Im not sure how posting videos of your assaults on the internet (Including one called 'Bitchslap' in which he slaps a woman' tallys with being "A wonderful harmless person" He was clearly proud of these videos or he would'nt have put them on his personal profile. With a disposition like that mixed with doing the job he did some unfortunate was always going to cop it from him. Somehow I dont think you would hold the same opinion of him if you did'nt know him and one of your friends or family was in the wheelchair. He gives some doormen who do a difficult job, often very well so you and your pals can have a good time a bullying and cowardly name.
Absolutely spot-on there.
[quote][p][bold]dannyep[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]justiceforandy[/bold] wrote: He shouldn't have got sentenced in the first place actually. He is a wonderful person and accidents like this one are the hazards of the job. If he was a police officer taking the boy away from the scene and this happened you can be sure the courts would blame alcohol and assume no responsibility. No good will come of sentencing Andrew, he isn't a bad person. He never even knew the guy, why would he intentionally want to hurt him? Surely the sentence of GBH should be applied to someone who intentionally harmed another human being? I can't see how tripping outside a club breaks any laws. It was a tragic accident don't get me wrong, but the people involved are already trying to sue the club, why put a harmless guy in jail also? Seems like they just want more lives ruined if you ask me.[/p][/quote]Im not sure how posting videos of your assaults on the internet (Including one called 'Bitchslap' in which he slaps a woman' tallys with being "A wonderful harmless person" He was clearly proud of these videos or he would'nt have put them on his personal profile. With a disposition like that mixed with doing the job he did some unfortunate was always going to cop it from him. Somehow I dont think you would hold the same opinion of him if you did'nt know him and one of your friends or family was in the wheelchair. He gives some doormen who do a difficult job, often very well so you and your pals can have a good time a bullying and cowardly name.[/p][/quote]Absolutely spot-on there. Quite Frankly
  • Score: 0

10:48pm Fri 17 Jul 09

st denys solja says...

WHAT A **** I BET WHEN HE GETS TO JAIL HE GET A GOOD BEATING. THE LITTLE PICK JUMPED ME FROM BEHIND. HE,S GONNA GET WHATS COMING TRUST
WHAT A **** I BET WHEN HE GETS TO JAIL HE GET A GOOD BEATING. THE LITTLE PICK JUMPED ME FROM BEHIND. HE,S GONNA GET WHATS COMING TRUST st denys solja
  • Score: 0

11:07pm Fri 17 Jul 09

mels says...

I'm not usually one to comment on here but after watching the video etc then Lee deserves a far longer sentance then the four years that he got. Some bouncers do their job & do it well, others think that the job itself gives them power & protection. At the end of the day this person has ruined another persons life - nothig, be it job or otherwise, gives him the right!
I'm not usually one to comment on here but after watching the video etc then Lee deserves a far longer sentance then the four years that he got. Some bouncers do their job & do it well, others think that the job itself gives them power & protection. At the end of the day this person has ruined another persons life - nothig, be it job or otherwise, gives him the right! mels
  • Score: 0

11:17pm Fri 17 Jul 09

Ozmosis says...

justiceforandy wrote:
He shouldn't have got sentenced in the first place actually. He is a wonderful person and accidents like this one are the hazards of the job. If he was a police officer taking the boy away from the scene and this happened you can be sure the courts would blame alcohol and assume no responsibility. No good will come of sentencing Andrew, he isn't a bad person. He never even knew the guy, why would he intentionally want to hurt him? Surely the sentence of GBH should be applied to someone who intentionally harmed another human being? I can't see how tripping outside a club breaks any laws. It was a tragic accident don't get me wrong, but the people involved are already trying to sue the club, why put a harmless guy in jail also? Seems like they just want more lives ruined if you ask me.
You make me laugh! The fact he posted videos of himself assaulting people on YouTube for kicks assures me he isn't a bad person. No, really.

Perhaps the sentence will go some way to showing the few "hitlers" that plague the doorman/woman area that a badge doesn't give you the right to ****-slap who you like.

S/W - post-even... not by a long shot...
[quote][p][bold]justiceforandy[/bold] wrote: He shouldn't have got sentenced in the first place actually. He is a wonderful person and accidents like this one are the hazards of the job. If he was a police officer taking the boy away from the scene and this happened you can be sure the courts would blame alcohol and assume no responsibility. No good will come of sentencing Andrew, he isn't a bad person. He never even knew the guy, why would he intentionally want to hurt him? Surely the sentence of GBH should be applied to someone who intentionally harmed another human being? I can't see how tripping outside a club breaks any laws. It was a tragic accident don't get me wrong, but the people involved are already trying to sue the club, why put a harmless guy in jail also? Seems like they just want more lives ruined if you ask me.[/p][/quote]You make me laugh! The fact he posted videos of himself assaulting people on YouTube for kicks assures me he isn't a bad person. No, really. Perhaps the sentence will go some way to showing the few "hitlers" that plague the doorman/woman area that a badge doesn't give you the right to ****-slap who you like. S/W - post-even... not by a long shot... Ozmosis
  • Score: 0

11:25pm Fri 17 Jul 09

Bemused reader says...

justiceforandy wrote:
He shouldn't have got sentenced in the first place actually. He is a wonderful person and accidents like this one are the hazards of the job. If he was a police officer taking the boy away from the scene and this happened you can be sure the courts would blame alcohol and assume no responsibility. No good will come of sentencing Andrew, he isn't a bad person. He never even knew the guy, why would he intentionally want to hurt him? Surely the sentence of GBH should be applied to someone who intentionally harmed another human being? I can't see how tripping outside a club breaks any laws. It was a tragic accident don't get me wrong, but the people involved are already trying to sue the club, why put a harmless guy in jail also? Seems like they just want more lives ruined if you ask me.
You wouldn't be saying any of this if it had happened to you and not someone else. I think he should have got longer.
[quote][p][bold]justiceforandy[/bold] wrote: He shouldn't have got sentenced in the first place actually. He is a wonderful person and accidents like this one are the hazards of the job. If he was a police officer taking the boy away from the scene and this happened you can be sure the courts would blame alcohol and assume no responsibility. No good will come of sentencing Andrew, he isn't a bad person. He never even knew the guy, why would he intentionally want to hurt him? Surely the sentence of GBH should be applied to someone who intentionally harmed another human being? I can't see how tripping outside a club breaks any laws. It was a tragic accident don't get me wrong, but the people involved are already trying to sue the club, why put a harmless guy in jail also? Seems like they just want more lives ruined if you ask me.[/p][/quote] You wouldn't be saying any of this if it had happened to you and not someone else. I think he should have got longer. Bemused reader
  • Score: 0

11:56pm Fri 17 Jul 09

damien thorn says...

lets hope th big brave hardman bounces off a few cell walls ,licenced thugs for hire.
lets hope th big brave hardman bounces off a few cell walls ,licenced thugs for hire. damien thorn
  • Score: 0

9:10am Sat 18 Jul 09

Redhat says...

justiceforandy wrote:
He shouldn't have got sentenced in the first place actually. He is a wonderful person and accidents like this one are the hazards of the job. If he was a police officer taking the boy away from the scene and this happened you can be sure the courts would blame alcohol and assume no responsibility. No good will come of sentencing Andrew, he isn't a bad person. He never even knew the guy, why would he intentionally want to hurt him? Surely the sentence of GBH should be applied to someone who intentionally harmed another human being? I can't see how tripping outside a club breaks any laws. It was a tragic accident don't get me wrong, but the people involved are already trying to sue the club, why put a harmless guy in jail also? Seems like they just want more lives ruined if you ask me.
what a complete loser you are too, how can you defend such an a$$hole for what he did..
you're a piece of low life sh1t,just like ur bum chum buddy is...
talking of bums, someone may well take a liking to his now and give him a "beating" and i so hope it scars him for life...
[quote][p][bold]justiceforandy[/bold] wrote: He shouldn't have got sentenced in the first place actually. He is a wonderful person and accidents like this one are the hazards of the job. If he was a police officer taking the boy away from the scene and this happened you can be sure the courts would blame alcohol and assume no responsibility. No good will come of sentencing Andrew, he isn't a bad person. He never even knew the guy, why would he intentionally want to hurt him? Surely the sentence of GBH should be applied to someone who intentionally harmed another human being? I can't see how tripping outside a club breaks any laws. It was a tragic accident don't get me wrong, but the people involved are already trying to sue the club, why put a harmless guy in jail also? Seems like they just want more lives ruined if you ask me.[/p][/quote]what a complete loser you are too, how can you defend such an a$$hole for what he did.. you're a piece of low life sh1t,just like ur bum chum buddy is... talking of bums, someone may well take a liking to his now and give him a "beating" and i so hope it scars him for life... Redhat
  • Score: 0

9:18am Sat 18 Jul 09

mr.southampton says...

justiceforandy wrote:
He shouldn't have got sentenced in the first place actually. He is a wonderful person and accidents like this one are the hazards of the job. If he was a police officer taking the boy away from the scene and this happened you can be sure the courts would blame alcohol and assume no responsibility. No good will come of sentencing Andrew, he isn't a bad person. He never even knew the guy, why would he intentionally want to hurt him? Surely the sentence of GBH should be applied to someone who intentionally harmed another human being? I can't see how tripping outside a club breaks any laws. It was a tragic accident don't get me wrong, but the people involved are already trying to sue the club, why put a harmless guy in jail also? Seems like they just want more lives ruined if you ask me.
You're totally deluded. He got a fair trial and was found guilty.
[quote][p][bold]justiceforandy[/bold] wrote: He shouldn't have got sentenced in the first place actually. He is a wonderful person and accidents like this one are the hazards of the job. If he was a police officer taking the boy away from the scene and this happened you can be sure the courts would blame alcohol and assume no responsibility. No good will come of sentencing Andrew, he isn't a bad person. He never even knew the guy, why would he intentionally want to hurt him? Surely the sentence of GBH should be applied to someone who intentionally harmed another human being? I can't see how tripping outside a club breaks any laws. It was a tragic accident don't get me wrong, but the people involved are already trying to sue the club, why put a harmless guy in jail also? Seems like they just want more lives ruined if you ask me.[/p][/quote]You're totally deluded. He got a fair trial and was found guilty. mr.southampton
  • Score: 0

9:54am Sat 18 Jul 09

St.DaveH says...

Reap what you sow – definition ….
Posting his thug antics on you tube says it all.

justiceforandy wrote:
He shouldn't have got sentenced …….He is a wonderful person…..he isn't a bad person…..why would he intentionally want to hurt him….

You obviously did not look at his uploads….
Reap what you sow – definition ….[a consequence of previous effort or action] Posting his thug antics on you tube says it all. justiceforandy wrote: He shouldn't have got sentenced …….He is a wonderful person…..he isn't a bad person…..why would he intentionally want to hurt him…. You obviously did not look at his uploads…. St.DaveH
  • Score: 0

9:56am Sat 18 Jul 09

echofactorfiction? says...

I'm still in 2 minds as if commenting hear is worthwhile but i do feel strongly about this.
The people on here calling Andrew scum, lowlife ect clearly do not know the facts of the case or the character. I can see why you may draw these conclusions as the reporting of this case shows why time and again newspapers cannot be trusted. I personally was in court everyday and the "news" stories in the echo have not repesented a balanced view of the facts.

As we all agree this is tragic incident with two lives now changed forever. There is a lot of emotion invovled but to judge someone on past video fotage and no other evidence is ridiculous. Yes a Jury did find him Guilty (just I may add) however they were also sold on previous unrelated videos shown over and over in court in ultra slow motion. Sadly only a small portion of the evidence related to the incident at Kaos where by the majority of the time the Jury were sold a story of Andrew's "bad" character.

I welcome sensible debate but expect mindless insults.
I'm still in 2 minds as if commenting hear is worthwhile but i do feel strongly about this. The people on here calling Andrew scum, lowlife ect clearly do not know the facts of the case or the character. I can see why you may draw these conclusions as the reporting of this case shows why time and again newspapers cannot be trusted. I personally was in court everyday and the "news" stories in the echo have not repesented a balanced view of the facts. As we all agree this is tragic incident with two lives now changed forever. There is a lot of emotion invovled but to judge someone on past video fotage and no other evidence is ridiculous. Yes a Jury did find him Guilty (just I may add) however they were also sold on previous unrelated videos shown over and over in court in ultra slow motion. Sadly only a small portion of the evidence related to the incident at Kaos where by the majority of the time the Jury were sold a story of Andrew's "bad" character. I welcome sensible debate but expect mindless insults. echofactorfiction?
  • Score: 0

10:26am Sat 18 Jul 09

AdrianSmith says...

echofactorfiction? wrote:
I'm still in 2 minds as if commenting hear is worthwhile but i do feel strongly about this. The people on here calling Andrew scum, lowlife ect clearly do not know the facts of the case or the character. I can see why you may draw these conclusions as the reporting of this case shows why time and again newspapers cannot be trusted. I personally was in court everyday and the "news" stories in the echo have not repesented a balanced view of the facts. As we all agree this is tragic incident with two lives now changed forever. There is a lot of emotion invovled but to judge someone on past video fotage and no other evidence is ridiculous. Yes a Jury did find him Guilty (just I may add) however they were also sold on previous unrelated videos shown over and over in court in ultra slow motion. Sadly only a small portion of the evidence related to the incident at Kaos where by the majority of the time the Jury were sold a story of Andrew's "bad" character. I welcome sensible debate but expect mindless insults.
Obviosuly, if you were in court everyday and believe that Lee has been hard done by, you know him. Ergo, instantly, you cannot look at this dispassionately.

Your mate/son/brother/boy
friend whatever has been sent down - you're going to think he's hard done by.

Perhaps, rather than calling into question the Echo's reporting (they'll have legal issues to consider, so I'm certain we can trust their account of a court case) or other people's reactions, you should consider your own bias.

Reading the judge's comments, there is no doubt in my mind that Lee has got the absolute minimun he deserves.
[quote][p][bold]echofactorfiction?[/bold] wrote: I'm still in 2 minds as if commenting hear is worthwhile but i do feel strongly about this. The people on here calling Andrew scum, lowlife ect clearly do not know the facts of the case or the character. I can see why you may draw these conclusions as the reporting of this case shows why time and again newspapers cannot be trusted. I personally was in court everyday and the "news" stories in the echo have not repesented a balanced view of the facts. As we all agree this is tragic incident with two lives now changed forever. There is a lot of emotion invovled but to judge someone on past video fotage and no other evidence is ridiculous. Yes a Jury did find him Guilty (just I may add) however they were also sold on previous unrelated videos shown over and over in court in ultra slow motion. Sadly only a small portion of the evidence related to the incident at Kaos where by the majority of the time the Jury were sold a story of Andrew's "bad" character. I welcome sensible debate but expect mindless insults. [/p][/quote]Obviosuly, if you were in court everyday and believe that Lee has been hard done by, you know him. Ergo, instantly, you cannot look at this dispassionately. Your mate/son/brother/boy friend whatever has been sent down - you're going to think he's hard done by. Perhaps, rather than calling into question the Echo's reporting (they'll have legal issues to consider, so I'm certain we can trust their account of a court case) or other people's reactions, you should consider your own bias. Reading the judge's comments, there is no doubt in my mind that Lee has got the absolute minimun he deserves. AdrianSmith
  • Score: 0

10:41am Sat 18 Jul 09

KA says...

echofactorfiction? wrote:
I'm still in 2 minds as if commenting hear is worthwhile but i do feel strongly about this.
The people on here calling Andrew scum, lowlife ect clearly do not know the facts of the case or the character. I can see why you may draw these conclusions as the reporting of this case shows why time and again newspapers cannot be trusted. I personally was in court everyday and the "news" stories in the echo have not repesented a balanced view of the facts.

As we all agree this is tragic incident with two lives now changed forever. There is a lot of emotion invovled but to judge someone on past video fotage and no other evidence is ridiculous. Yes a Jury did find him Guilty (just I may add) however they were also sold on previous unrelated videos shown over and over in court in ultra slow motion. Sadly only a small portion of the evidence related to the incident at Kaos where by the majority of the time the Jury were sold a story of Andrew's "bad" character.

I welcome sensible debate but expect mindless insults.
As i understand it there were witnesses who gave evidence also, i don't believe he would be found guilty on video evidence alone.. yes two lives have been changed forever but he will be out soon john however will have to suffer for the rest of his life.
[quote][p][bold]echofactorfiction?[/bold] wrote: I'm still in 2 minds as if commenting hear is worthwhile but i do feel strongly about this. The people on here calling Andrew scum, lowlife ect clearly do not know the facts of the case or the character. I can see why you may draw these conclusions as the reporting of this case shows why time and again newspapers cannot be trusted. I personally was in court everyday and the "news" stories in the echo have not repesented a balanced view of the facts. As we all agree this is tragic incident with two lives now changed forever. There is a lot of emotion invovled but to judge someone on past video fotage and no other evidence is ridiculous. Yes a Jury did find him Guilty (just I may add) however they were also sold on previous unrelated videos shown over and over in court in ultra slow motion. Sadly only a small portion of the evidence related to the incident at Kaos where by the majority of the time the Jury were sold a story of Andrew's "bad" character. I welcome sensible debate but expect mindless insults. [/p][/quote]As i understand it there were witnesses who gave evidence also, i don't believe he would be found guilty on video evidence alone.. yes two lives have been changed forever but he will be out soon john however will have to suffer for the rest of his life. KA
  • Score: 0

11:19am Sat 18 Jul 09

Something to comment on says...

I am glad he was found guilty, from all the information it is clear that that was the only outcome. My opinions on the sentence are that it is too short, but I am not the one making the decisions here. As someone who practises a martial art, and knows a number of former door staff from this area and elsewhere, I am sure that Lee is in the minority but clearly, he should not have been anywhere near people as he is has his own issues about himself, indicated by the advertising of his 'skills'. One of the first things I was told when I first started training was that there is always someone better than you, no matter how good you are. I hope he comes across a couple of them in prison.
My best wishes to the Jones family.
I am glad he was found guilty, from all the information it is clear that that was the only outcome. My opinions on the sentence are that it is too short, but I am not the one making the decisions here. As someone who practises a martial art, and knows a number of former door staff from this area and elsewhere, I am sure that Lee is in the minority but clearly, he should not have been anywhere near people as he is has his own issues about himself, indicated by the advertising of his 'skills'. One of the first things I was told when I first started training was that there is always someone better than you, no matter how good you are. I hope he comes across a couple of them in prison. My best wishes to the Jones family. Something to comment on
  • Score: 0

11:35am Sat 18 Jul 09

Redback says...

Utter scum. Those defending him have misplaced their moral compass.

One of my best mates was a doorman for a long time. Despite the fact that he was a decent bloke the rest of the time, I was always shocked at what at the nasty thuggish attitude he took, and was expected to take, whilst on the door.

It's no defence at all for the individuals - they choose to do what they do - but the entire racket needs some serious sorting out. Indiscriminate unaccountable violence is the name of the game, hidden behind lip service codes of conduct and council licencing. Many (not all) of these 'hard men' revel in getting their hands dirty, usually outnumbering their victim 4 to 1. I wonder how hard they'd look if the odds were reversed.
Utter scum. Those defending him have misplaced their moral compass. One of my best mates was a doorman for a long time. Despite the fact that he was a decent bloke the rest of the time, I was always shocked at what at the nasty thuggish attitude he took, and was expected to take, whilst on the door. It's no defence at all for the individuals - they choose to do what they do - but the entire racket needs some serious sorting out. Indiscriminate unaccountable violence is the name of the game, hidden behind lip service codes of conduct and council licencing. Many (not all) of these 'hard men' revel in getting their hands dirty, usually outnumbering their victim 4 to 1. I wonder how hard they'd look if the odds were reversed. Redback
  • Score: 0

11:42am Sat 18 Jul 09

StEmmosfire says...

This isnt anything new, I have been going to town since I was 18, I am now 26 and I would see this kind of behaviour by bouncers every night. Most of them are jumped up above the thugs that go looking for trouble and enjoy dishing out this kind of violence. This is the main reason why I dont go out to clubs anymore.
This isnt anything new, I have been going to town since I was 18, I am now 26 and I would see this kind of behaviour by bouncers every night. Most of them are jumped up above the thugs that go looking for trouble and enjoy dishing out this kind of violence. This is the main reason why I dont go out to clubs anymore. StEmmosfire
  • Score: 0

11:46am Sat 18 Jul 09

calimarti says...

Redhat wrote:
justiceforandy wrote: He shouldn't have got sentenced in the first place actually. He is a wonderful person and accidents like this one are the hazards of the job. If he was a police officer taking the boy away from the scene and this happened you can be sure the courts would blame alcohol and assume no responsibility. No good will come of sentencing Andrew, he isn't a bad person. He never even knew the guy, why would he intentionally want to hurt him? Surely the sentence of GBH should be applied to someone who intentionally harmed another human being? I can't see how tripping outside a club breaks any laws. It was a tragic accident don't get me wrong, but the people involved are already trying to sue the club, why put a harmless guy in jail also? Seems like they just want more lives ruined if you ask me.
what a complete loser you are too, how can you defend such an a$$hole for what he did.. you're a piece of low life sh1t,just like ur bum chum buddy is... talking of bums, someone may well take a liking to his now and give him a "beating" and i so hope it scars him for life...
This tosser deserves longer than 4 poxy years. How can you say this is a good person. Hes so proud of his efforts of hurting other people he had a duty of care to he even posted it on the internet to show how wonderful he is. If you practice martial arts you know very well the consequences of what might happen.
The poor lad he chose to put in a full-nelson hold will never be able to do anything for himself again.
[quote][p][bold]Redhat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]justiceforandy[/bold] wrote: He shouldn't have got sentenced in the first place actually. He is a wonderful person and accidents like this one are the hazards of the job. If he was a police officer taking the boy away from the scene and this happened you can be sure the courts would blame alcohol and assume no responsibility. No good will come of sentencing Andrew, he isn't a bad person. He never even knew the guy, why would he intentionally want to hurt him? Surely the sentence of GBH should be applied to someone who intentionally harmed another human being? I can't see how tripping outside a club breaks any laws. It was a tragic accident don't get me wrong, but the people involved are already trying to sue the club, why put a harmless guy in jail also? Seems like they just want more lives ruined if you ask me.[/p][/quote]what a complete loser you are too, how can you defend such an a$$hole for what he did.. you're a piece of low life sh1t,just like ur bum chum buddy is... talking of bums, someone may well take a liking to his now and give him a "beating" and i so hope it scars him for life...[/p][/quote]This tosser deserves longer than 4 poxy years. How can you say this is a good person. Hes so proud of his efforts of hurting other people he had a duty of care to he even posted it on the internet to show how wonderful he is. If you practice martial arts you know very well the consequences of what might happen. The poor lad he chose to put in a full-nelson hold will never be able to do anything for himself again. calimarti
  • Score: 0

11:50am Sat 18 Jul 09

bumblysaint says...

He should have got forty years.
He's just an inadequate,bullying,

violent piece of s**t
he got away with it.
He's gotta come out though,then we'll see
come that day.
He should have got forty years. He's just an inadequate,bullying, violent piece of s**t he got away with it. He's gotta come out though,then we'll see come that day. bumblysaint
  • Score: 0

12:04pm Sat 18 Jul 09

hooligan says...

Well lets all learn something here....if you are asked/told to leave by a bouncer, don't argue or discuss it, get out and walk away and live to play another day!!. You have to be a dumb drunken idiot or naive to do anything else ……
Well lets all learn something here....if you are asked/told to leave by a bouncer, don't argue or discuss it, get out and walk away and live to play another day!!. You have to be a dumb drunken idiot or naive to do anything else …… hooligan
  • Score: 0

12:06pm Sat 18 Jul 09

COOPER PIKEY says...

Vile man with an awful reputation around his fellow doorstaff.

4 years is not enough for this vile piece of scum who should NEVER have been given a SIA badge as he was a convicted thug before this.

Please dont tar all doormen with the same brush, some of us are good guys who enjoy chatting to ours patrons much more than bashing them for egos sake.

Good luck John Jones and like ive said before, i apoligise on behalf of all the good doorstaff in Southampton for this fools actions.
Vile man with an awful reputation around his fellow doorstaff. 4 years is not enough for this vile piece of scum who should NEVER have been given a SIA badge as he was a convicted thug before this. Please dont tar all doormen with the same brush, some of us are good guys who enjoy chatting to ours patrons much more than bashing them for egos sake. Good luck John Jones and like ive said before, i apoligise on behalf of all the good doorstaff in Southampton for this fools actions. COOPER PIKEY
  • Score: 0

12:42pm Sat 18 Jul 09

echofactorfiction? says...

Did you read my comments before posting your reply? I havent actually given a view on the sentencing or even the verdict. My points simply relate to the reporting of the case by the Echo and to the way in which unrelated evidence was used in court to portray bad character.

On the first point if you truly beleive that newspapers report the truth then you really are deluded. It is clearly possible to stay within the rules legally and report a version of the facts, one example of many is by using quotes out of context and mixing different days into one acticle. Another is the use of the words "the prosection barrister suggested" Well of course he suggested something negative, its his job to do so and then try to prove it.

On the 2nd point I understand legally it is allowed but my concern is that we could all be painted in a bad light, it is very worrying that unrelated incidents recorded on video can be used to help convict someone. Surely you would hope to be tried on the facts of the incident? I know that i would.

Anyway the amount of hatred and venom here is clearly high so perhaps some of you commenting are relatives or freinds of the victim and if so I cannot possibly understand how you feel. For those with a neutral view...well just dont make your minds up on seeing a few video clips.
Did you read my comments before posting your reply? I havent actually given a view on the sentencing or even the verdict. My points simply relate to the reporting of the case by the Echo and to the way in which unrelated evidence was used in court to portray bad character. On the first point if you truly beleive that newspapers report the truth then you really are deluded. It is clearly possible to stay within the rules legally and report a version of the facts, one example of many is by using quotes out of context and mixing different days into one acticle. Another is the use of the words "the prosection barrister suggested" Well of course he suggested something negative, its his job to do so and then try to prove it. On the 2nd point I understand legally it is allowed but my concern is that we could all be painted in a bad light, it is very worrying that unrelated incidents recorded on video can be used to help convict someone. Surely you would hope to be tried on the facts of the incident? I know that i would. Anyway the amount of hatred and venom here is clearly high so perhaps some of you commenting are relatives or freinds of the victim and if so I cannot possibly understand how you feel. For those with a neutral view...well just dont make your minds up on seeing a few video clips. echofactorfiction?
  • Score: 0

12:47pm Sat 18 Jul 09

echofactorfiction? says...

COOPER PIKEY wrote:
Vile man with an awful reputation around his fellow doorstaff.

4 years is not enough for this vile piece of scum who should NEVER have been given a SIA badge as he was a convicted thug before this.

Please dont tar all doormen with the same brush, some of us are good guys who enjoy chatting to ours patrons much more than bashing them for egos sake.

Good luck John Jones and like ive said before, i apoligise on behalf of all the good doorstaff in Southampton for this fools actions.
You comments show you clearly have a problem with him personally.

If he had such a poor repution why did so many of his work colleagues turn up in court day in day out? That is in addition to the numerous doorstaff that gave evidence in his favour throughout the trail. If this reputation was so poor how would he continue to get work?
[quote][p][bold]COOPER PIKEY[/bold] wrote: Vile man with an awful reputation around his fellow doorstaff. 4 years is not enough for this vile piece of scum who should NEVER have been given a SIA badge as he was a convicted thug before this. Please dont tar all doormen with the same brush, some of us are good guys who enjoy chatting to ours patrons much more than bashing them for egos sake. Good luck John Jones and like ive said before, i apoligise on behalf of all the good doorstaff in Southampton for this fools actions.[/p][/quote]You comments show you clearly have a problem with him personally. If he had such a poor repution why did so many of his work colleagues turn up in court day in day out? That is in addition to the numerous doorstaff that gave evidence in his favour throughout the trail. If this reputation was so poor how would he continue to get work? echofactorfiction?
  • Score: 0

12:51pm Sat 18 Jul 09

KA says...

I don't know either of them.. Its not a case of believing the echos reports he has been found guilty by a jury, he had a fair trial now he will pay for his mistakes and rightly so.
I don't know either of them.. Its not a case of believing the echos reports he has been found guilty by a jury, he had a fair trial now he will pay for his mistakes and rightly so. KA
  • Score: 0

1:01pm Sat 18 Jul 09

echofactorfiction? says...

KA wrote:
I don't know either of them.. Its not a case of believing the echos reports he has been found guilty by a jury, he had a fair trial now he will pay for his mistakes and rightly so.
KA - from what I have seen your comments are balanced.

As you say he had a fair trial, was found guilty, will pay for his mistakes. That is a far cry from some on here who seem to think that jailhouse rape or 40 years is the correct punishment.
[quote][p][bold]KA[/bold] wrote: I don't know either of them.. Its not a case of believing the echos reports he has been found guilty by a jury, he had a fair trial now he will pay for his mistakes and rightly so.[/p][/quote]KA - from what I have seen your comments are balanced. As you say he had a fair trial, was found guilty, will pay for his mistakes. That is a far cry from some on here who seem to think that jailhouse rape or 40 years is the correct punishment. echofactorfiction?
  • Score: 0

1:08pm Sat 18 Jul 09

Redback says...

echofactorfiction:

Why did he post video of his brutal and volent behaviour on the internet if he wasn't proud of it?

That on its own is testiment to what a 'nice' guy he is.

COOPER PIKEY: Great post, well made.
echofactorfiction: Why did he post video of his brutal and volent behaviour on the internet if he wasn't proud of it? That on its own is testiment to what a 'nice' guy he is. COOPER PIKEY: Great post, well made. Redback
  • Score: 0

1:23pm Sat 18 Jul 09

AdrianSmith says...

hooligan wrote:
Well lets all learn something here....if you are asked/told to leave by a bouncer, don't argue or discuss it, get out and walk away and live to play another day!!. You have to be a dumb drunken idiot or naive to do anything else ……
Except none of what you've said happened in this case.

John Jones wasn't asked to leave. You can even watch the video of the incident (the top one on this story) that Lee grabs John Jones from behind.

If you want to stand-up for what Lee did, then go ahead.

Just don't make things up to fir your point of view.
[quote][p][bold]hooligan[/bold] wrote: Well lets all learn something here....if you are asked/told to leave by a bouncer, don't argue or discuss it, get out and walk away and live to play another day!!. You have to be a dumb drunken idiot or naive to do anything else …… [/p][/quote]Except none of what you've said happened in this case. John Jones wasn't asked to leave. You can even watch the video of the incident (the top one on this story) that Lee grabs John Jones from behind. If you want to stand-up for what Lee did, then go ahead. Just don't make things up to fir your point of view. AdrianSmith
  • Score: 0

1:27pm Sat 18 Jul 09

echofactorfiction? says...

Redback wrote:
echofactorfiction:

Why did he post video of his brutal and volent behaviour on the internet if he wasn't proud of it?

That on its own is testiment to what a 'nice' guy he is.

COOPER PIKEY: Great post, well made.
I don't know why anyone would post such material on the internet of themselves it would be exceptionally stupid to do so. It would also be crazy to leave them on the internet whilst an police were investigating an incident invovling you. Perhaps he is very stupid or perhaps as he has claimed they were not under his control. Sadly I do not know which is answer is correct.

I'm not sure why you ask though as I have not tried to defend any of the videos posted above just question the use of such unrelated videos in court and on this website.
[quote][p][bold]Redback[/bold] wrote: echofactorfiction: Why did he post video of his brutal and volent behaviour on the internet if he wasn't proud of it? That on its own is testiment to what a 'nice' guy he is. COOPER PIKEY: Great post, well made.[/p][/quote]I don't know why anyone would post such material on the internet of themselves it would be exceptionally stupid to do so. It would also be crazy to leave them on the internet whilst an police were investigating an incident invovling you. Perhaps he is very stupid or perhaps as he has claimed they were not under his control. Sadly I do not know which is answer is correct. I'm not sure why you ask though as I have not tried to defend any of the videos posted above just question the use of such unrelated videos in court and on this website. echofactorfiction?
  • Score: 0

1:33pm Sat 18 Jul 09

echofactorfiction? says...

AdrianSmith wrote:
hooligan wrote:
Well lets all learn something here....if you are asked/told to leave by a bouncer, don't argue or discuss it, get out and walk away and live to play another day!!. You have to be a dumb drunken idiot or naive to do anything else ……
Except none of what you've said happened in this case.

John Jones wasn't asked to leave. You can even watch the video of the incident (the top one on this story) that Lee grabs John Jones from behind.

If you want to stand-up for what Lee did, then go ahead.

Just don't make things up to fir your point of view.
An interesting point, I wonder why the version on this website has been shortened to the point at which Andrew grabs John? Its still the truth of course that he was grabbed, but why does it not show the build up which was available?

Anyhow, we differ in opinions thats fine by me my life will go on regardless.
[quote][p][bold]AdrianSmith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hooligan[/bold] wrote: Well lets all learn something here....if you are asked/told to leave by a bouncer, don't argue or discuss it, get out and walk away and live to play another day!!. You have to be a dumb drunken idiot or naive to do anything else …… [/p][/quote]Except none of what you've said happened in this case. John Jones wasn't asked to leave. You can even watch the video of the incident (the top one on this story) that Lee grabs John Jones from behind. If you want to stand-up for what Lee did, then go ahead. Just don't make things up to fir your point of view. [/p][/quote]An interesting point, I wonder why the version on this website has been shortened to the point at which Andrew grabs John? Its still the truth of course that he was grabbed, but why does it not show the build up which was available? Anyhow, we differ in opinions thats fine by me my life will go on regardless. echofactorfiction?
  • Score: 0

1:42pm Sat 18 Jul 09

AdrianSmith says...

I don't know why it starts where it does, however I assume that because it is in very top of the frame anything beforehand either a)wasn't caught on camera or b)it doesn't show anything.

I wasn't in court, so I didn't hear what was said about this video when it was used as evidence (if there is anything that shows Jones antagonising Lee, the defence would have jumped all over it, so we can assume it doesn't).

Regardless, Lee has been found guilty of GBH, he has similar previous convictions, he posts footage of himself hitting people on the Internet, by all accounts he has a 'reputation' and he has shown no remorse for his actions according to the Judge.

All-in-all, it doesn't stack up as the greatest endorsement of him as a human being.
I don't know why it starts where it does, however I assume that because it is in very top of the frame anything beforehand either a)wasn't caught on camera or b)it doesn't show anything. I wasn't in court, so I didn't hear what was said about this video when it was used as evidence (if there is anything that shows Jones antagonising Lee, the defence would have jumped all over it, so we can assume it doesn't). Regardless, Lee has been found guilty of GBH, he has similar previous convictions, he posts footage of himself hitting people on the Internet, by all accounts he has a 'reputation' and he has shown no remorse for his actions according to the Judge. All-in-all, it doesn't stack up as the greatest endorsement of him as a human being. AdrianSmith
  • Score: 0

1:50pm Sat 18 Jul 09

jansosborne says...

My heart goes out to John, Julie, Aslihan, Alex and Ellyse. They can never get over this. Their inner strength throughout this trial must have been so strong. I'm not sure there is anything I can do to help, but I wish I could.Best Wishes.
My heart goes out to John, Julie, Aslihan, Alex and Ellyse. They can never get over this. Their inner strength throughout this trial must have been so strong. I'm not sure there is anything I can do to help, but I wish I could.Best Wishes. jansosborne
  • Score: 0

1:56pm Sat 18 Jul 09

Reality-man says...

echofactorfiction? wrote:
COOPER PIKEY wrote: Vile man with an awful reputation around his fellow doorstaff. 4 years is not enough for this vile piece of scum who should NEVER have been given a SIA badge as he was a convicted thug before this. Please dont tar all doormen with the same brush, some of us are good guys who enjoy chatting to ours patrons much more than bashing them for egos sake. Good luck John Jones and like ive said before, i apoligise on behalf of all the good doorstaff in Southampton for this fools actions.
You comments show you clearly have a problem with him personally. If he had such a poor repution why did so many of his work colleagues turn up in court day in day out? That is in addition to the numerous doorstaff that gave evidence in his favour throughout the trail. If this reputation was so poor how would he continue to get work?
Of course his colleagues and fellow bouncers showed support. They're all in it together - protecting one of their own. He's clearly an immature deluded thug who's watched too many martial arts films and thinks he can copy the moves on young students out having a few drinks. I bet he's got a really small tadger too.
[quote][p][bold]echofactorfiction?[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]COOPER PIKEY[/bold] wrote: Vile man with an awful reputation around his fellow doorstaff. 4 years is not enough for this vile piece of scum who should NEVER have been given a SIA badge as he was a convicted thug before this. Please dont tar all doormen with the same brush, some of us are good guys who enjoy chatting to ours patrons much more than bashing them for egos sake. Good luck John Jones and like ive said before, i apoligise on behalf of all the good doorstaff in Southampton for this fools actions.[/p][/quote]You comments show you clearly have a problem with him personally. If he had such a poor repution why did so many of his work colleagues turn up in court day in day out? That is in addition to the numerous doorstaff that gave evidence in his favour throughout the trail. If this reputation was so poor how would he continue to get work?[/p][/quote]Of course his colleagues and fellow bouncers showed support. They're all in it together - protecting one of their own. He's clearly an immature deluded thug who's watched too many martial arts films and thinks he can copy the moves on young students out having a few drinks. I bet he's got a really small tadger too. Reality-man
  • Score: 0

2:39pm Sat 18 Jul 09

soton1980 says...

justiceforandy wrote:
He shouldn't have got sentenced in the first place actually. He is a wonderful person and accidents like this one are the hazards of the job. If he was a police officer taking the boy away from the scene and this happened you can be sure the courts would blame alcohol and assume no responsibility. No good will come of sentencing Andrew, he isn't a bad person. He never even knew the guy, why would he intentionally want to hurt him? Surely the sentence of GBH should be applied to someone who intentionally harmed another human being? I can't see how tripping outside a club breaks any laws. It was a tragic accident don't get me wrong, but the people involved are already trying to sue the club, why put a harmless guy in jail also? Seems like they just want more lives ruined if you ask me.
I've seen the videos/photographs of how this bouncer acted. It was completely unprofessional and as a result, a young man has been paralysed for the rest of his life.

Four years is nothing for ruining a man's life.


Sadly I don't think that Andy is the only bouncer who's standard of care towards people falls below what is required. Most bouncers are okay, but there are some who's power (over vulnerable drunk people) goes to their head. Just the other week I was in a pub in Southampton when the fire alarms went off and the pub was evacuated. Me and my friend took our glasses with us and were told by the dopey bouncer to either reenter the building and leave our glasses inside or stand on the steps blocking the fire exit! Unbelievable!!
[quote][p][bold]justiceforandy[/bold] wrote: He shouldn't have got sentenced in the first place actually. He is a wonderful person and accidents like this one are the hazards of the job. If he was a police officer taking the boy away from the scene and this happened you can be sure the courts would blame alcohol and assume no responsibility. No good will come of sentencing Andrew, he isn't a bad person. He never even knew the guy, why would he intentionally want to hurt him? Surely the sentence of GBH should be applied to someone who intentionally harmed another human being? I can't see how tripping outside a club breaks any laws. It was a tragic accident don't get me wrong, but the people involved are already trying to sue the club, why put a harmless guy in jail also? Seems like they just want more lives ruined if you ask me.[/p][/quote]I've seen the videos/photographs of how this bouncer acted. It was completely unprofessional and as a result, a young man has been paralysed for the rest of his life. Four years is nothing for ruining a man's life. Sadly I don't think that Andy is the only bouncer who's standard of care towards people falls below what is required. Most bouncers are okay, but there are some who's power (over vulnerable drunk people) goes to their head. Just the other week I was in a pub in Southampton when the fire alarms went off and the pub was evacuated. Me and my friend took our glasses with us and were told by the dopey bouncer to either reenter the building and leave our glasses inside or stand on the steps blocking the fire exit! Unbelievable!! soton1980
  • Score: 0

3:19pm Sat 18 Jul 09

Redback says...

Rubbish H21.

I used to work in Mental Health, where we were trained to deal with aggressive, violent people.

There are ways of holding and immobilising people that do not risk paralysing them for the rest of their life. Lee's actions are indefensible, and 4 years is too short.
Rubbish H21. I used to work in Mental Health, where we were trained to deal with aggressive, violent people. There are ways of holding and immobilising people that do not risk paralysing them for the rest of their life. Lee's actions are indefensible, and 4 years is too short. Redback
  • Score: 0

4:38pm Sat 18 Jul 09

freemantlegirl2 says...

echofactorfiction? wrote:
Did you read my comments before posting your reply? I havent actually given a view on the sentencing or even the verdict. My points simply relate to the reporting of the case by the Echo and to the way in which unrelated evidence was used in court to portray bad character.

On the first point if you truly beleive that newspapers report the truth then you really are deluded. It is clearly possible to stay within the rules legally and report a version of the facts, one example of many is by using quotes out of context and mixing different days into one acticle. Another is the use of the words "the prosection barrister suggested" Well of course he suggested something negative, its his job to do so and then try to prove it.

On the 2nd point I understand legally it is allowed but my concern is that we could all be painted in a bad light, it is very worrying that unrelated incidents recorded on video can be used to help convict someone. Surely you would hope to be tried on the facts of the incident? I know that i would.

Anyway the amount of hatred and venom here is clearly high so perhaps some of you commenting are relatives or freinds of the victim and if so I cannot possibly understand how you feel. For those with a neutral view...well just dont make your minds up on seeing a few video clips.
let's not forget he was also on bail on another assault charge when he committed this heinous crime! He had a trial, the judge summed it up. Echo are only doing their job, if he'd been found 'innocent' I daresay you wouldn't be complaining about their coverage then!

A nasty thug who is now behind bars. The guy he crippled for LIFE didn't even do anything to be manhandled out of the place. Think on it.... nice guy - yeah as long as you don't' upset him!

By all means stick by a mate but don't condone what he did, especially when a certain young guy is having to live day to day with the consequences of his thuggish actions :(
[quote][p][bold]echofactorfiction?[/bold] wrote: Did you read my comments before posting your reply? I havent actually given a view on the sentencing or even the verdict. My points simply relate to the reporting of the case by the Echo and to the way in which unrelated evidence was used in court to portray bad character. On the first point if you truly beleive that newspapers report the truth then you really are deluded. It is clearly possible to stay within the rules legally and report a version of the facts, one example of many is by using quotes out of context and mixing different days into one acticle. Another is the use of the words "the prosection barrister suggested" Well of course he suggested something negative, its his job to do so and then try to prove it. On the 2nd point I understand legally it is allowed but my concern is that we could all be painted in a bad light, it is very worrying that unrelated incidents recorded on video can be used to help convict someone. Surely you would hope to be tried on the facts of the incident? I know that i would. Anyway the amount of hatred and venom here is clearly high so perhaps some of you commenting are relatives or freinds of the victim and if so I cannot possibly understand how you feel. For those with a neutral view...well just dont make your minds up on seeing a few video clips. [/p][/quote]let's not forget he was also on bail on another assault charge when he committed this heinous crime! He had a trial, the judge summed it up. Echo are only doing their job, if he'd been found 'innocent' I daresay you wouldn't be complaining about their coverage then! A nasty thug who is now behind bars. The guy he crippled for LIFE didn't even do anything to be manhandled out of the place. Think on it.... nice guy - yeah as long as you don't' upset him! By all means stick by a mate but don't condone what he did, especially when a certain young guy is having to live day to day with the consequences of his thuggish actions :( freemantlegirl2
  • Score: 0

4:47pm Sat 18 Jul 09

H21 says...

freemantlegirl2 wrote:
echofactorfiction? wrote: Did you read my comments before posting your reply? I havent actually given a view on the sentencing or even the verdict. My points simply relate to the reporting of the case by the Echo and to the way in which unrelated evidence was used in court to portray bad character. On the first point if you truly beleive that newspapers report the truth then you really are deluded. It is clearly possible to stay within the rules legally and report a version of the facts, one example of many is by using quotes out of context and mixing different days into one acticle. Another is the use of the words "the prosection barrister suggested" Well of course he suggested something negative, its his job to do so and then try to prove it. On the 2nd point I understand legally it is allowed but my concern is that we could all be painted in a bad light, it is very worrying that unrelated incidents recorded on video can be used to help convict someone. Surely you would hope to be tried on the facts of the incident? I know that i would. Anyway the amount of hatred and venom here is clearly high so perhaps some of you commenting are relatives or freinds of the victim and if so I cannot possibly understand how you feel. For those with a neutral view...well just dont make your minds up on seeing a few video clips.
let's not forget he was also on bail on another assault charge when he committed this heinous crime! He had a trial, the judge summed it up. Echo are only doing their job, if he'd been found 'innocent' I daresay you wouldn't be complaining about their coverage then! A nasty thug who is now behind bars. The guy he crippled for LIFE didn't even do anything to be manhandled out of the place. Think on it.... nice guy - yeah as long as you don't' upset him! By all means stick by a mate but don't condone what he did, especially when a certain young guy is having to live day to day with the consequences of his thuggish actions :(
but condone a man pushing a woman around, and there is nothing saying that a full nelson hold is illegal, and any way that you remove an extremly drunk and threatning mannered person is going to have a risk, and if he had just left when asked or at the next stage not got out of the first arm hold. Also knowone has mentioned the fact that the ambulance turned up and put him in a wheelchair with no brace after him complaining of pain in his neck .

And to STUBS...

thats just ignorant and pathetic
[quote][p][bold]freemantlegirl2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]echofactorfiction?[/bold] wrote: Did you read my comments before posting your reply? I havent actually given a view on the sentencing or even the verdict. My points simply relate to the reporting of the case by the Echo and to the way in which unrelated evidence was used in court to portray bad character. On the first point if you truly beleive that newspapers report the truth then you really are deluded. It is clearly possible to stay within the rules legally and report a version of the facts, one example of many is by using quotes out of context and mixing different days into one acticle. Another is the use of the words "the prosection barrister suggested" Well of course he suggested something negative, its his job to do so and then try to prove it. On the 2nd point I understand legally it is allowed but my concern is that we could all be painted in a bad light, it is very worrying that unrelated incidents recorded on video can be used to help convict someone. Surely you would hope to be tried on the facts of the incident? I know that i would. Anyway the amount of hatred and venom here is clearly high so perhaps some of you commenting are relatives or freinds of the victim and if so I cannot possibly understand how you feel. For those with a neutral view...well just dont make your minds up on seeing a few video clips. [/p][/quote]let's not forget he was also on bail on another assault charge when he committed this heinous crime! He had a trial, the judge summed it up. Echo are only doing their job, if he'd been found 'innocent' I daresay you wouldn't be complaining about their coverage then! A nasty thug who is now behind bars. The guy he crippled for LIFE didn't even do anything to be manhandled out of the place. Think on it.... nice guy - yeah as long as you don't' upset him! By all means stick by a mate but don't condone what he did, especially when a certain young guy is having to live day to day with the consequences of his thuggish actions :( [/p][/quote]but condone a man pushing a woman around, and there is nothing saying that a full nelson hold is illegal, and any way that you remove an extremly drunk and threatning mannered person is going to have a risk, and if he had just left when asked or at the next stage not got out of the first arm hold. Also knowone has mentioned the fact that the ambulance turned up and put him in a wheelchair with no brace after him complaining of pain in his neck . And to STUBS... thats just ignorant and pathetic H21
  • Score: 0

5:09pm Sat 18 Jul 09

freemantlegirl2 says...

hmm this hasn't been sent from a certain prison has it?? the fact that door staff aren't permitted to use full-Nelson's should be enough for him to know that in carrying out his job, which is under licence, that he should not have used it, end of. Having footage of yourself slapping a woman and other thuggery is frankly bizarre! He got found guilty, he's ruined someone's life. He can come out after two years on good behaviour and return to his!

Drunk yes, deserving of being crippled by some over-active thug who thinks that it was appropriate - I don't think so!

btw, paramedics NEVER put anyone in wheelchairs (they use a special chair that supports the body or a body board/stretcher... so I don't know where you've got that one from either!
hmm this hasn't been sent from a certain prison has it?? the fact that door staff aren't permitted to use full-Nelson's should be enough for him to know that in carrying out his job, which is under licence, that he should not have used it, end of. Having footage of yourself slapping a woman and other thuggery is frankly bizarre! He got found guilty, he's ruined someone's life. He can come out after two years on good behaviour and return to his! Drunk yes, deserving of being crippled by some over-active thug who thinks that it was appropriate - I don't think so! btw, paramedics NEVER put anyone in wheelchairs (they use a special chair that supports the body or a body board/stretcher... so I don't know where you've got that one from either! freemantlegirl2
  • Score: 0

5:12pm Sat 18 Jul 09

freemantlegirl2 says...

Redback wrote:
Rubbish H21.

I used to work in Mental Health, where we were trained to deal with aggressive, violent people.

There are ways of holding and immobilising people that do not risk paralysing them for the rest of their life. Lee's actions are indefensible, and 4 years is too short.
spot on Redback....
[quote][p][bold]Redback[/bold] wrote: Rubbish H21. I used to work in Mental Health, where we were trained to deal with aggressive, violent people. There are ways of holding and immobilising people that do not risk paralysing them for the rest of their life. Lee's actions are indefensible, and 4 years is too short.[/p][/quote]spot on Redback.... freemantlegirl2
  • Score: 0

5:13pm Sat 18 Jul 09

H21 says...

freemantlegirl2 wrote:
hmm this hasn't been sent from a certain prison has it?? the fact that door staff aren't permitted to use full-Nelson's should be enough for him to know that in carrying out his job, which is under licence, that he should not have used it, end of. Having footage of yourself slapping a woman and other thuggery is frankly bizarre! He got found guilty, he's ruined someone's life. He can come out after two years on good behaviour and return to his! Drunk yes, deserving of being crippled by some over-active thug who thinks that it was appropriate - I don't think so! btw, paramedics NEVER put anyone in wheelchairs (they use a special chair that supports the body or a body board/stretcher... so I don't know where you've got that one from either!
well it was described only as a wheelchair in court.
have you ever met a thug?? sounds like you havnt!
and yes he did slap a woman, which i do feel was silly, but if you look at her, she is no woman, she was up in his face, pushed him, and hit him in the face more than a couple of times... if your going to comment, look properly.

and no knowone is deserving of what Jones is now going through, but it was an accident
[quote][p][bold]freemantlegirl2[/bold] wrote: hmm this hasn't been sent from a certain prison has it?? the fact that door staff aren't permitted to use full-Nelson's should be enough for him to know that in carrying out his job, which is under licence, that he should not have used it, end of. Having footage of yourself slapping a woman and other thuggery is frankly bizarre! He got found guilty, he's ruined someone's life. He can come out after two years on good behaviour and return to his! Drunk yes, deserving of being crippled by some over-active thug who thinks that it was appropriate - I don't think so! btw, paramedics NEVER put anyone in wheelchairs (they use a special chair that supports the body or a body board/stretcher... so I don't know where you've got that one from either![/p][/quote]well it was described only as a wheelchair in court. have you ever met a thug?? sounds like you havnt! and yes he did slap a woman, which i do feel was silly, but if you look at her, she is no woman, she was up in his face, pushed him, and hit him in the face more than a couple of times... if your going to comment, look properly. and no knowone is deserving of what Jones is now going through, but it was an accident H21
  • Score: 0

5:17pm Sat 18 Jul 09

H21 says...

i take it you feel strongly about this as you were one of the jury members, and the only people that were the the whole time would be John jones, his mum, and me.
i take it you feel strongly about this as you were one of the jury members, and the only people that were the the whole time would be John jones, his mum, and me. H21
  • Score: 0

5:21pm Sat 18 Jul 09

H21 says...

H21 wrote:
i take it you feel strongly about this as you were one of the jury members, and the only people that were the the whole time would be John jones, his mum, and me.
thats to echofactorfiction btw
[quote][p][bold]H21[/bold] wrote: i take it you feel strongly about this as you were one of the jury members, and the only people that were the the whole time would be John jones, his mum, and me. [/p][/quote]thats to echofactorfiction btw H21
  • Score: 0

5:25pm Sat 18 Jul 09

Forest Resident says...

H21 wrote:
freemantlegirl2 wrote:
hmm this hasn't been sent from a certain prison has it?? the fact that door staff aren't permitted to use full-Nelson's should be enough for him to know that in carrying out his job, which is under licence, that he should not have used it, end of. Having footage of yourself slapping a woman and other thuggery is frankly bizarre! He got found guilty, he's ruined someone's life. He can come out after two years on good behaviour and return to his! Drunk yes, deserving of being crippled by some over-active thug who thinks that it was appropriate - I don't think so! btw, paramedics NEVER put anyone in wheelchairs (they use a special chair that supports the body or a body board/stretcher... so I don't know where you've got that one from either!
well it was described only as a wheelchair in court.
have you ever met a thug?? sounds like you havnt!
and yes he did slap a woman, which i do feel was silly, but if you look at her, she is no woman, she was up in his face, pushed him, and hit him in the face more than a couple of times... if your going to comment, look properly.

and no knowone is deserving of what Jones is now going through, but it was an accident
Lee made the conscious decision to use a restraint on Jones that is widely known to be highly dangerous, so this is as far from accidental as you can get! Any decent and suitably trained door person would never act in the manner Lee did, the videos of Lee clearly show his mentality and demeanor at work is anything but that of someone who's primary concern is that of customer safety.
[quote][p][bold]H21[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freemantlegirl2[/bold] wrote: hmm this hasn't been sent from a certain prison has it?? the fact that door staff aren't permitted to use full-Nelson's should be enough for him to know that in carrying out his job, which is under licence, that he should not have used it, end of. Having footage of yourself slapping a woman and other thuggery is frankly bizarre! He got found guilty, he's ruined someone's life. He can come out after two years on good behaviour and return to his! Drunk yes, deserving of being crippled by some over-active thug who thinks that it was appropriate - I don't think so! btw, paramedics NEVER put anyone in wheelchairs (they use a special chair that supports the body or a body board/stretcher... so I don't know where you've got that one from either![/p][/quote]well it was described only as a wheelchair in court. have you ever met a thug?? sounds like you havnt! and yes he did slap a woman, which i do feel was silly, but if you look at her, she is no woman, she was up in his face, pushed him, and hit him in the face more than a couple of times... if your going to comment, look properly. and no knowone is deserving of what Jones is now going through, but it was an accident[/p][/quote]Lee made the conscious decision to use a restraint on Jones that is widely known to be highly dangerous, so this is as far from accidental as you can get! Any decent and suitably trained door person would never act in the manner Lee did, the videos of Lee clearly show his mentality and demeanor at work is anything but that of someone who's primary concern is that of customer safety. Forest Resident
  • Score: 0

5:54pm Sat 18 Jul 09

jono1974 says...

For this idiot to display himself on you tube just sums his personality up, he is on a power trip and thinks what he is doing is good and makes himself look hard, and the other end of the story he turns up in court wearing glasses feeling sorry for himself the old defence mecanism, im a nice bloke i didnt mean it look at me im wearing glasses, truth is you have paralised some one with your over the top showing off, you got less than what you deserved.
For this idiot to display himself on you tube just sums his personality up, he is on a power trip and thinks what he is doing is good and makes himself look hard, and the other end of the story he turns up in court wearing glasses feeling sorry for himself the old defence mecanism, im a nice bloke i didnt mean it look at me im wearing glasses, truth is you have paralised some one with your over the top showing off, you got less than what you deserved. jono1974
  • Score: 0

6:04pm Sat 18 Jul 09

loverboy says...

H21 wrote:
i take it you feel strongly about this as you were one of the jury members, and the only people that were the the whole time would be John jones, his mum, and me.
you mentioned in your first, extremely long, post that you are a student at one of the universities in Southampton. How were you able to sit through the whole trial? Did you not have any lessons during this lengthy period?
Your first rant seemed to be trying to place yourself to someone similar to John Jones but praising the doorworkers of the clubs in Southampton, most notably Andrew Lee. Are you sure you have no vested interest?

He had a fair trial and was found guilty, end of. No he probably didn't intend to put a young man with his whole life ahead of him in a wheelchair for the rest of his life, but I doubt those who kill pedestrians while speeding intended to do so either.
It's called consequences.
[quote][p][bold]H21[/bold] wrote: i take it you feel strongly about this as you were one of the jury members, and the only people that were the the whole time would be John jones, his mum, and me. [/p][/quote]you mentioned in your first, extremely long, post that you are a student at one of the universities in Southampton. How were you able to sit through the whole trial? Did you not have any lessons during this lengthy period? Your first rant seemed to be trying to place yourself to someone similar to John Jones but praising the doorworkers of the clubs in Southampton, most notably Andrew Lee. Are you sure you have no vested interest? He had a fair trial and was found guilty, end of. No he probably didn't intend to put a young man with his whole life ahead of him in a wheelchair for the rest of his life, but I doubt those who kill pedestrians while speeding intended to do so either. It's called consequences. loverboy
  • Score: 0

6:07pm Sat 18 Jul 09

loverboy says...

Also H21, I sincerely hope that if you are really taking a degree it's vocational rather than academic as your English Language leaves a lot to be desired.
Also H21, I sincerely hope that if you are really taking a degree it's vocational rather than academic as your English Language leaves a lot to be desired. loverboy
  • Score: 0

6:26pm Sat 18 Jul 09

Redback says...

H21 - your chum is scum. Do you think yourself a 'hard man', as Lee did? Southampton's chavtastic hard men should relocate to somewhere like Brixton; see how long you last there.

Petty-minded provincial tw*ts, the lot of you. Scum like Lee are the biggest problem Southampton has. As another poster put it "Southampton is full of angry faces" - try strutting around REALLY tough areas with that attitide. You'd last all of half an hour in somewhere like Devonport or Leith. Go **** y'self.
H21 - your chum is scum. Do you think yourself a 'hard man', as Lee did? Southampton's chavtastic hard men should relocate to somewhere like Brixton; see how long you last there. Petty-minded provincial tw*ts, the lot of you. Scum like Lee are the biggest problem Southampton has. As another poster put it "Southampton is full of angry faces" - try strutting around REALLY tough areas with that attitide. You'd last all of half an hour in somewhere like Devonport or Leith. Go **** y'self. Redback
  • Score: 0

6:51pm Sat 18 Jul 09

loverboy says...

Redback wrote:
H21 - your chum is scum. Do you think yourself a 'hard man', as Lee did? Southampton's chavtastic hard men should relocate to somewhere like Brixton; see how long you last there. Petty-minded provincial tw*ts, the lot of you. Scum like Lee are the biggest problem Southampton has. As another poster put it "Southampton is full of angry faces" - try strutting around REALLY tough areas with that attitide. You'd last all of half an hour in somewhere like Devonport or Leith. Go **** y'self.
I'd go for Stonehouse over Devenport, after all that's where he'd be plying his trade.
Funnily enough, the doorman on Union Street are more respectful towards their clients.
But then one must wonder if Andrew Lee would have used this type of aggression towards a non student type.
No slur on students, but they're hardly known for their fighting prowess, just a thought.
[quote][p][bold]Redback[/bold] wrote: H21 - your chum is scum. Do you think yourself a 'hard man', as Lee did? Southampton's chavtastic hard men should relocate to somewhere like Brixton; see how long you last there. Petty-minded provincial tw*ts, the lot of you. Scum like Lee are the biggest problem Southampton has. As another poster put it "Southampton is full of angry faces" - try strutting around REALLY tough areas with that attitide. You'd last all of half an hour in somewhere like Devonport or Leith. Go **** y'self.[/p][/quote]I'd go for Stonehouse over Devenport, after all that's where he'd be plying his trade. Funnily enough, the doorman on Union Street are more respectful towards their clients. But then one must wonder if Andrew Lee would have used this type of aggression towards a non student type. No slur on students, but they're hardly known for their fighting prowess, just a thought. loverboy
  • Score: 0

7:32pm Sat 18 Jul 09

echofactorfiction? says...

freemantlegirl2 wrote:
echofactorfiction? wrote:
Did you read my comments before posting your reply? I havent actually given a view on the sentencing or even the verdict. My points simply relate to the reporting of the case by the Echo and to the way in which unrelated evidence was used in court to portray bad character.

On the first point if you truly beleive that newspapers report the truth then you really are deluded. It is clearly possible to stay within the rules legally and report a version of the facts, one example of many is by using quotes out of context and mixing different days into one acticle. Another is the use of the words "the prosection barrister suggested" Well of course he suggested something negative, its his job to do so and then try to prove it.

On the 2nd point I understand legally it is allowed but my concern is that we could all be painted in a bad light, it is very worrying that unrelated incidents recorded on video can be used to help convict someone. Surely you would hope to be tried on the facts of the incident? I know that i would.

Anyway the amount of hatred and venom here is clearly high so perhaps some of you commenting are relatives or freinds of the victim and if so I cannot possibly understand how you feel. For those with a neutral view...well just dont make your minds up on seeing a few video clips.
let's not forget he was also on bail on another assault charge when he committed this heinous crime! He had a trial, the judge summed it up. Echo are only doing their job, if he'd been found 'innocent' I daresay you wouldn't be complaining about their coverage then!

A nasty thug who is now behind bars. The guy he crippled for LIFE didn't even do anything to be manhandled out of the place. Think on it.... nice guy - yeah as long as you don't' upset him!

By all means stick by a mate but don't condone what he did, especially when a certain young guy is having to live day to day with the consequences of his thuggish actions :(
Actually I would be complaining innocent.even more about the reporting had he been found innocent.

If you truly beleive that Jones did nothing and was grabbed from behind randomly then you have not listened to any facts of the case. Surely even someone so blinkered can see that he would have no reason to randomly grab someone in a club where he worked?
[quote][p][bold]freemantlegirl2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]echofactorfiction?[/bold] wrote: Did you read my comments before posting your reply? I havent actually given a view on the sentencing or even the verdict. My points simply relate to the reporting of the case by the Echo and to the way in which unrelated evidence was used in court to portray bad character. On the first point if you truly beleive that newspapers report the truth then you really are deluded. It is clearly possible to stay within the rules legally and report a version of the facts, one example of many is by using quotes out of context and mixing different days into one acticle. Another is the use of the words "the prosection barrister suggested" Well of course he suggested something negative, its his job to do so and then try to prove it. On the 2nd point I understand legally it is allowed but my concern is that we could all be painted in a bad light, it is very worrying that unrelated incidents recorded on video can be used to help convict someone. Surely you would hope to be tried on the facts of the incident? I know that i would. Anyway the amount of hatred and venom here is clearly high so perhaps some of you commenting are relatives or freinds of the victim and if so I cannot possibly understand how you feel. For those with a neutral view...well just dont make your minds up on seeing a few video clips. [/p][/quote]let's not forget he was also on bail on another assault charge when he committed this heinous crime! He had a trial, the judge summed it up. Echo are only doing their job, if he'd been found 'innocent' I daresay you wouldn't be complaining about their coverage then! A nasty thug who is now behind bars. The guy he crippled for LIFE didn't even do anything to be manhandled out of the place. Think on it.... nice guy - yeah as long as you don't' upset him! By all means stick by a mate but don't condone what he did, especially when a certain young guy is having to live day to day with the consequences of his thuggish actions :( [/p][/quote]Actually I would be complaining innocent.even more about the reporting had he been found innocent. If you truly beleive that Jones did nothing and was grabbed from behind randomly then you have not listened to any facts of the case. Surely even someone so blinkered can see that he would have no reason to randomly grab someone in a club where he worked? echofactorfiction?
  • Score: 0

7:35pm Sat 18 Jul 09

Redback says...

echofactorfiction? wrote:
freemantlegirl2 wrote:
echofactorfiction? wrote:
Did you read my comments before posting your reply? I havent actually given a view on the sentencing or even the verdict. My points simply relate to the reporting of the case by the Echo and to the way in which unrelated evidence was used in court to portray bad character.

On the first point if you truly beleive that newspapers report the truth then you really are deluded. It is clearly possible to stay within the rules legally and report a version of the facts, one example of many is by using quotes out of context and mixing different days into one acticle. Another is the use of the words "the prosection barrister suggested" Well of course he suggested something negative, its his job to do so and then try to prove it.

On the 2nd point I understand legally it is allowed but my concern is that we could all be painted in a bad light, it is very worrying that unrelated incidents recorded on video can be used to help convict someone. Surely you would hope to be tried on the facts of the incident? I know that i would.

Anyway the amount of hatred and venom here is clearly high so perhaps some of you commenting are relatives or freinds of the victim and if so I cannot possibly understand how you feel. For those with a neutral view...well just dont make your minds up on seeing a few video clips.
let's not forget he was also on bail on another assault charge when he committed this heinous crime! He had a trial, the judge summed it up. Echo are only doing their job, if he'd been found 'innocent' I daresay you wouldn't be complaining about their coverage then!

A nasty thug who is now behind bars. The guy he crippled for LIFE didn't even do anything to be manhandled out of the place. Think on it.... nice guy - yeah as long as you don't' upset him!

By all means stick by a mate but don't condone what he did, especially when a certain young guy is having to live day to day with the consequences of his thuggish actions :(
Actually I would be complaining innocent.even more about the reporting had he been found innocent.

If you truly beleive that Jones did nothing and was grabbed from behind randomly then you have not listened to any facts of the case. Surely even someone so blinkered can see that he would have no reason to randomly grab someone in a club where he worked?
Irrelevant.

Did he deserve to be maimed for life?
[quote][p][bold]echofactorfiction?[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freemantlegirl2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]echofactorfiction?[/bold] wrote: Did you read my comments before posting your reply? I havent actually given a view on the sentencing or even the verdict. My points simply relate to the reporting of the case by the Echo and to the way in which unrelated evidence was used in court to portray bad character. On the first point if you truly beleive that newspapers report the truth then you really are deluded. It is clearly possible to stay within the rules legally and report a version of the facts, one example of many is by using quotes out of context and mixing different days into one acticle. Another is the use of the words "the prosection barrister suggested" Well of course he suggested something negative, its his job to do so and then try to prove it. On the 2nd point I understand legally it is allowed but my concern is that we could all be painted in a bad light, it is very worrying that unrelated incidents recorded on video can be used to help convict someone. Surely you would hope to be tried on the facts of the incident? I know that i would. Anyway the amount of hatred and venom here is clearly high so perhaps some of you commenting are relatives or freinds of the victim and if so I cannot possibly understand how you feel. For those with a neutral view...well just dont make your minds up on seeing a few video clips. [/p][/quote]let's not forget he was also on bail on another assault charge when he committed this heinous crime! He had a trial, the judge summed it up. Echo are only doing their job, if he'd been found 'innocent' I daresay you wouldn't be complaining about their coverage then! A nasty thug who is now behind bars. The guy he crippled for LIFE didn't even do anything to be manhandled out of the place. Think on it.... nice guy - yeah as long as you don't' upset him! By all means stick by a mate but don't condone what he did, especially when a certain young guy is having to live day to day with the consequences of his thuggish actions :( [/p][/quote]Actually I would be complaining innocent.even more about the reporting had he been found innocent. If you truly beleive that Jones did nothing and was grabbed from behind randomly then you have not listened to any facts of the case. Surely even someone so blinkered can see that he would have no reason to randomly grab someone in a club where he worked?[/p][/quote]Irrelevant. Did he deserve to be maimed for life? Redback
  • Score: 0

7:35pm Sat 18 Jul 09

loverboy says...

echofactorfiction? wrote:
freemantlegirl2 wrote: hmm this hasn't been sent from a certain prison has it?? the fact that door staff aren't permitted to use full-Nelson's should be enough for him to know that in carrying out his job, which is under licence, that he should not have used it, end of. Having footage of yourself slapping a woman and other thuggery is frankly bizarre! He got found guilty, he's ruined someone's life. He can come out after two years on good behaviour and return to his! Drunk yes, deserving of being crippled by some over-active thug who thinks that it was appropriate - I don't think so! btw, paramedics NEVER put anyone in wheelchairs (they use a special chair that supports the body or a body board/stretcher... so I don't know where you've got that one from either!
I appreciate you may only be working with what you have been fed by the newspapers but your facts are just wrong. Two points that came out in court undisputed was that Jones was taken away in a wheel chair with no neck support (just paramedic supporting). Secondly as stated by the head of the company that provides training for the SIA (the governing body) they do not provide any training in holds / retraints or physically intervention. He also went on to say how he felt this was a big issue and would have included it if SIA has approved it. The full nelson nor any other hold is illegal. Just check your facts before talking rubbish.
Well H21, who claims to have been the only one who sat through the trial alongside the victims family says different, including the wheelchair business.
Maybe it's you who's going by the media, and your friends word.
The posters on here have merely been saying Lee should have got longer, he was found guilty in a fair trial and that he was overly aggressive, and maybe tellingly, on somebody who wasn't exactly threatening.
[quote][p][bold]echofactorfiction?[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freemantlegirl2[/bold] wrote: hmm this hasn't been sent from a certain prison has it?? the fact that door staff aren't permitted to use full-Nelson's should be enough for him to know that in carrying out his job, which is under licence, that he should not have used it, end of. Having footage of yourself slapping a woman and other thuggery is frankly bizarre! He got found guilty, he's ruined someone's life. He can come out after two years on good behaviour and return to his! Drunk yes, deserving of being crippled by some over-active thug who thinks that it was appropriate - I don't think so! btw, paramedics NEVER put anyone in wheelchairs (they use a special chair that supports the body or a body board/stretcher... so I don't know where you've got that one from either![/p][/quote]I appreciate you may only be working with what you have been fed by the newspapers but your facts are just wrong. Two points that came out in court undisputed was that Jones was taken away in a wheel chair with no neck support (just paramedic supporting). Secondly as stated by the head of the company that provides training for the SIA (the governing body) they do not provide any training in holds / retraints or physically intervention. He also went on to say how he felt this was a big issue and would have included it if SIA has approved it. The full nelson nor any other hold is illegal. Just check your facts before talking rubbish.[/p][/quote]Well H21, who claims to have been the only one who sat through the trial alongside the victims family says different, including the wheelchair business. Maybe it's you who's going by the media, and your friends word. The posters on here have merely been saying Lee should have got longer, he was found guilty in a fair trial and that he was overly aggressive, and maybe tellingly, on somebody who wasn't exactly threatening. loverboy
  • Score: 0

7:38pm Sat 18 Jul 09

echofactorfiction? says...

Redback wrote:
echofactorfiction? wrote:
freemantlegirl2 wrote:
Redback wrote:
Rubbish H21.

I used to work in Mental Health, where we were trained to deal with aggressive, violent people.

There are ways of holding and immobilising people that do not risk paralysing them for the rest of their life. Lee's actions are indefensible, and 4 years is too short.
spot on Redback....
Fact of the matter is that Doorstaff are not trained in any physical restraints. This was proved in court when the head of the training company the SIA uses explained that no restraint training is even touched on. No one in court said that the full nelson was illegal in fact everyone who was asked about it said that was widely used in the past and present, though cleary after this it may have been re-thought.
People are responsible for their actions.

Attempting to wriggle out of responsibility for maiming someone by bleating that they didn't have the right training is cowardly and pathetic.

If you don't have the necessary skills to do the job safely, don't bl**dy do it.
Redback you mention that you have had the benefit of training in restraints, in your training did it state a full nelson is never to be used?
[quote][p][bold]Redback[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]echofactorfiction?[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freemantlegirl2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Redback[/bold] wrote: Rubbish H21. I used to work in Mental Health, where we were trained to deal with aggressive, violent people. There are ways of holding and immobilising people that do not risk paralysing them for the rest of their life. Lee's actions are indefensible, and 4 years is too short.[/p][/quote]spot on Redback....[/p][/quote]Fact of the matter is that Doorstaff are not trained in any physical restraints. This was proved in court when the head of the training company the SIA uses explained that no restraint training is even touched on. No one in court said that the full nelson was illegal in fact everyone who was asked about it said that was widely used in the past and present, though cleary after this it may have been re-thought. [/p][/quote]People are responsible for their actions. Attempting to wriggle out of responsibility for maiming someone by bleating that they didn't have the right training is cowardly and pathetic. If you don't have the necessary skills to do the job safely, don't bl**dy do it.[/p][/quote]Redback you mention that you have had the benefit of training in restraints, in your training did it state a full nelson is never to be used? echofactorfiction?
  • Score: 0

7:54pm Sat 18 Jul 09

echofactorfiction? says...

WOMK wrote:
I was there the majority of u lot weren't. I knew them both you lot don't. So I don't care what you come back with to this.
Andy shouldn't have used that hold, doorman do use it everyday though when faced with violence.
John shouldn't haves acted like a tit. Grabbing girls and trying to get into the female loo's. And he shouldn't have kicked out with his feet as he was being ejected. This was the contributing factor to his own injuries.

For the record freemantle girl the paramedics did put him unsupported in a wheelchair. So your just flat out wrong
Strangly your brief account sums up a complex legal case well. Mistakes were made, tragedy has occured.
[quote][p][bold]WOMK[/bold] wrote: I was there the majority of u lot weren't. I knew them both you lot don't. So I don't care what you come back with to this. Andy shouldn't have used that hold, doorman do use it everyday though when faced with violence. John shouldn't haves acted like a tit. Grabbing girls and trying to get into the female loo's. And he shouldn't have kicked out with his feet as he was being ejected. This was the contributing factor to his own injuries. For the record freemantle girl the paramedics did put him unsupported in a wheelchair. So your just flat out wrong [/p][/quote]Strangly your brief account sums up a complex legal case well. Mistakes were made, tragedy has occured. echofactorfiction?
  • Score: 0

8:08pm Sat 18 Jul 09

Redback says...

echofactorfiction? wrote:
Redback wrote:
echofactorfiction? wrote:
freemantlegirl2 wrote:
Redback wrote:
Rubbish H21.

I used to work in Mental Health, where we were trained to deal with aggressive, violent people.

There are ways of holding and immobilising people that do not risk paralysing them for the rest of their life. Lee's actions are indefensible, and 4 years is too short.
spot on Redback....
Fact of the matter is that Doorstaff are not trained in any physical restraints. This was proved in court when the head of the training company the SIA uses explained that no restraint training is even touched on. No one in court said that the full nelson was illegal in fact everyone who was asked about it said that was widely used in the past and present, though cleary after this it may have been re-thought.
People are responsible for their actions.

Attempting to wriggle out of responsibility for maiming someone by bleating that they didn't have the right training is cowardly and pathetic.

If you don't have the necessary skills to do the job safely, don't bl**dy do it.
Redback you mention that you have had the benefit of training in restraints, in your training did it state a full nelson is never to be used?
Yes. Complete anathema to safe control and restraint.
[quote][p][bold]echofactorfiction?[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Redback[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]echofactorfiction?[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freemantlegirl2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Redback[/bold] wrote: Rubbish H21. I used to work in Mental Health, where we were trained to deal with aggressive, violent people. There are ways of holding and immobilising people that do not risk paralysing them for the rest of their life. Lee's actions are indefensible, and 4 years is too short.[/p][/quote]spot on Redback....[/p][/quote]Fact of the matter is that Doorstaff are not trained in any physical restraints. This was proved in court when the head of the training company the SIA uses explained that no restraint training is even touched on. No one in court said that the full nelson was illegal in fact everyone who was asked about it said that was widely used in the past and present, though cleary after this it may have been re-thought. [/p][/quote]People are responsible for their actions. Attempting to wriggle out of responsibility for maiming someone by bleating that they didn't have the right training is cowardly and pathetic. If you don't have the necessary skills to do the job safely, don't bl**dy do it.[/p][/quote]Redback you mention that you have had the benefit of training in restraints, in your training did it state a full nelson is never to be used?[/p][/quote]Yes. Complete anathema to safe control and restraint. Redback
  • Score: 0

8:13pm Sat 18 Jul 09

Redback says...

echofactorfiction? wrote:
Redback wrote:
echofactorfiction? wrote:
freemantlegirl2 wrote:
echofactorfiction? wrote:
Did you read my comments before posting your reply? I havent actually given a view on the sentencing or even the verdict. My points simply relate to the reporting of the case by the Echo and to the way in which unrelated evidence was used in court to portray bad character.

On the first point if you truly beleive that newspapers report the truth then you really are deluded. It is clearly possible to stay within the rules legally and report a version of the facts, one example of many is by using quotes out of context and mixing different days into one acticle. Another is the use of the words "the prosection barrister suggested" Well of course he suggested something negative, its his job to do so and then try to prove it.

On the 2nd point I understand legally it is allowed but my concern is that we could all be painted in a bad light, it is very worrying that unrelated incidents recorded on video can be used to help convict someone. Surely you would hope to be tried on the facts of the incident? I know that i would.

Anyway the amount of hatred and venom here is clearly high so perhaps some of you commenting are relatives or freinds of the victim and if so I cannot possibly understand how you feel. For those with a neutral view...well just dont make your minds up on seeing a few video clips.
let's not forget he was also on bail on another assault charge when he committed this heinous crime! He had a trial, the judge summed it up. Echo are only doing their job, if he'd been found 'innocent' I daresay you wouldn't be complaining about their coverage then!

A nasty thug who is now behind bars. The guy he crippled for LIFE didn't even do anything to be manhandled out of the place. Think on it.... nice guy - yeah as long as you don't' upset him!

By all means stick by a mate but don't condone what he did, especially when a certain young guy is having to live day to day with the consequences of his thuggish actions :(
Actually I would be complaining innocent.even more about the reporting had he been found innocent.

If you truly beleive that Jones did nothing and was grabbed from behind randomly then you have not listened to any facts of the case. Surely even someone so blinkered can see that he would have no reason to randomly grab someone in a club where he worked?
Irrelevant.

Did he deserve to be maimed for life?
How is it irrelevent? Irrelevent to you because you can see no other point of view?

It seems to me from your comments that you care nothing for facts, argument or points of view perhaps you should get a job with the Echo?

It's irrelevant because no matter what his behaviour was like on that night, it did not deserve permanent paralysis.

I'm astounded that anyone is attempting to defend this.
[quote][p][bold]echofactorfiction?[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Redback[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]echofactorfiction?[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freemantlegirl2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]echofactorfiction?[/bold] wrote: Did you read my comments before posting your reply? I havent actually given a view on the sentencing or even the verdict. My points simply relate to the reporting of the case by the Echo and to the way in which unrelated evidence was used in court to portray bad character. On the first point if you truly beleive that newspapers report the truth then you really are deluded. It is clearly possible to stay within the rules legally and report a version of the facts, one example of many is by using quotes out of context and mixing different days into one acticle. Another is the use of the words "the prosection barrister suggested" Well of course he suggested something negative, its his job to do so and then try to prove it. On the 2nd point I understand legally it is allowed but my concern is that we could all be painted in a bad light, it is very worrying that unrelated incidents recorded on video can be used to help convict someone. Surely you would hope to be tried on the facts of the incident? I know that i would. Anyway the amount of hatred and venom here is clearly high so perhaps some of you commenting are relatives or freinds of the victim and if so I cannot possibly understand how you feel. For those with a neutral view...well just dont make your minds up on seeing a few video clips. [/p][/quote]let's not forget he was also on bail on another assault charge when he committed this heinous crime! He had a trial, the judge summed it up. Echo are only doing their job, if he'd been found 'innocent' I daresay you wouldn't be complaining about their coverage then! A nasty thug who is now behind bars. The guy he crippled for LIFE didn't even do anything to be manhandled out of the place. Think on it.... nice guy - yeah as long as you don't' upset him! By all means stick by a mate but don't condone what he did, especially when a certain young guy is having to live day to day with the consequences of his thuggish actions :( [/p][/quote]Actually I would be complaining innocent.even more about the reporting had he been found innocent. If you truly beleive that Jones did nothing and was grabbed from behind randomly then you have not listened to any facts of the case. Surely even someone so blinkered can see that he would have no reason to randomly grab someone in a club where he worked?[/p][/quote]Irrelevant. Did he deserve to be maimed for life?[/p][/quote]How is it irrelevent? Irrelevent to you because you can see no other point of view? It seems to me from your comments that you care nothing for facts, argument or points of view perhaps you should get a job with the Echo? [/p][/quote]It's irrelevant because no matter what his behaviour was like on that night, it did not deserve permanent paralysis. I'm astounded that anyone is attempting to defend this. Redback
  • Score: 0

8:14pm Sat 18 Jul 09

loverboy says...

echofactorfiction? wrote:
loverboy wrote:
echofactorfiction? wrote:
loverboy wrote:
echofactorfiction? wrote:
freemantlegirl2 wrote: hmm this hasn't been sent from a certain prison has it?? the fact that door staff aren't permitted to use full-Nelson's should be enough for him to know that in carrying out his job, which is under licence, that he should not have used it, end of. Having footage of yourself slapping a woman and other thuggery is frankly bizarre! He got found guilty, he's ruined someone's life. He can come out after two years on good behaviour and return to his! Drunk yes, deserving of being crippled by some over-active thug who thinks that it was appropriate - I don't think so! btw, paramedics NEVER put anyone in wheelchairs (they use a special chair that supports the body or a body board/stretcher... so I don't know where you've got that one from either!
I appreciate you may only be working with what you have been fed by the newspapers but your facts are just wrong. Two points that came out in court undisputed was that Jones was taken away in a wheel chair with no neck support (just paramedic supporting). Secondly as stated by the head of the company that provides training for the SIA (the governing body) they do not provide any training in holds / retraints or physically intervention. He also went on to say how he felt this was a big issue and would have included it if SIA has approved it. The full nelson nor any other hold is illegal. Just check your facts before talking rubbish.
Well H21, who claims to have been the only one who sat through the trial alongside the victims family says different, including the wheelchair business. Maybe it's you who's going by the media, and your friends word. The posters on here have merely been saying Lee should have got longer, he was found guilty in a fair trial and that he was overly aggressive, and maybe tellingly, on somebody who wasn't exactly threatening.
Are you actually reading before commenting? H21 also says that Jones was carried out in a wheel chair. If you review my comments they are all based around the same points which is the way people are only told certain information to portray a bad image and to be made to look bad. The only reason I bother to comment here is in the distant hope that some of you realise that the picture being painted is not accurate both in Court and in the papers, well and in fact on here also. Unless im mistaken I have not justified anyones actions.
I have not said you are justifying anyones actions. H21 got quite defensive when the wheelchair isssue was raised, coming out with something along the lines of they didn't know what the thing was called and it may have been what they're supposed to use. The Echo is not known for it's accurate reporting, more distorted than most papers in fact. The picture painted to me is that a doorman over-reacted, a man was seriously injured and the doorman paid the price for that in a court of law. Out of interest, did Lee wear his glasses throughout the trial, maybe if he's been wearing them on the night he may not have misread the situation.
To answer your question yes Lee did where glasses throughout, i get the comment about wearing glasses on the night is it supposed to be funny? Even you must realise that he would not be able to wear glasses in such a job. This notion that by wearing his presciption glasses in court was an act is baffling by that logic should everyone where there work uniform or social clothes when on trial??? Madness.
You can wear glasses when working on the door.
[quote][p][bold]echofactorfiction?[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loverboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]echofactorfiction?[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loverboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]echofactorfiction?[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freemantlegirl2[/bold] wrote: hmm this hasn't been sent from a certain prison has it?? the fact that door staff aren't permitted to use full-Nelson's should be enough for him to know that in carrying out his job, which is under licence, that he should not have used it, end of. Having footage of yourself slapping a woman and other thuggery is frankly bizarre! He got found guilty, he's ruined someone's life. He can come out after two years on good behaviour and return to his! Drunk yes, deserving of being crippled by some over-active thug who thinks that it was appropriate - I don't think so! btw, paramedics NEVER put anyone in wheelchairs (they use a special chair that supports the body or a body board/stretcher... so I don't know where you've got that one from either![/p][/quote]I appreciate you may only be working with what you have been fed by the newspapers but your facts are just wrong. Two points that came out in court undisputed was that Jones was taken away in a wheel chair with no neck support (just paramedic supporting). Secondly as stated by the head of the company that provides training for the SIA (the governing body) they do not provide any training in holds / retraints or physically intervention. He also went on to say how he felt this was a big issue and would have included it if SIA has approved it. The full nelson nor any other hold is illegal. Just check your facts before talking rubbish.[/p][/quote]Well H21, who claims to have been the only one who sat through the trial alongside the victims family says different, including the wheelchair business. Maybe it's you who's going by the media, and your friends word. The posters on here have merely been saying Lee should have got longer, he was found guilty in a fair trial and that he was overly aggressive, and maybe tellingly, on somebody who wasn't exactly threatening.[/p][/quote]Are you actually reading before commenting? H21 also says that Jones was carried out in a wheel chair. If you review my comments they are all based around the same points which is the way people are only told certain information to portray a bad image and to be made to look bad. The only reason I bother to comment here is in the distant hope that some of you realise that the picture being painted is not accurate both in Court and in the papers, well and in fact on here also. Unless im mistaken I have not justified anyones actions.[/p][/quote]I have not said you are justifying anyones actions. H21 got quite defensive when the wheelchair isssue was raised, coming out with something along the lines of they didn't know what the thing was called and it may have been what they're supposed to use. The Echo is not known for it's accurate reporting, more distorted than most papers in fact. The picture painted to me is that a doorman over-reacted, a man was seriously injured and the doorman paid the price for that in a court of law. Out of interest, did Lee wear his glasses throughout the trial, maybe if he's been wearing them on the night he may not have misread the situation. [/p][/quote]To answer your question yes Lee did where glasses throughout, i get the comment about wearing glasses on the night is it supposed to be funny? Even you must realise that he would not be able to wear glasses in such a job. This notion that by wearing his presciption glasses in court was an act is baffling by that logic should everyone where there work uniform or social clothes when on trial??? Madness.[/p][/quote]You can wear glasses when working on the door. loverboy
  • Score: 0

8:22pm Sat 18 Jul 09

echofactorfiction? says...

Redback wrote:
echofactorfiction? wrote:
Redback wrote:
echofactorfiction? wrote:
freemantlegirl2 wrote:
echofactorfiction? wrote:
Did you read my comments before posting your reply? I havent actually given a view on the sentencing or even the verdict. My points simply relate to the reporting of the case by the Echo and to the way in which unrelated evidence was used in court to portray bad character.

On the first point if you truly beleive that newspapers report the truth then you really are deluded. It is clearly possible to stay within the rules legally and report a version of the facts, one example of many is by using quotes out of context and mixing different days into one acticle. Another is the use of the words "the prosection barrister suggested" Well of course he suggested something negative, its his job to do so and then try to prove it.

On the 2nd point I understand legally it is allowed but my concern is that we could all be painted in a bad light, it is very worrying that unrelated incidents recorded on video can be used to help convict someone. Surely you would hope to be tried on the facts of the incident? I know that i would.

Anyway the amount of hatred and venom here is clearly high so perhaps some of you commenting are relatives or freinds of the victim and if so I cannot possibly understand how you feel. For those with a neutral view...well just dont make your minds up on seeing a few video clips.
let's not forget he was also on bail on another assault charge when he committed this heinous crime! He had a trial, the judge summed it up. Echo are only doing their job, if he'd been found 'innocent' I daresay you wouldn't be complaining about their coverage then!

A nasty thug who is now behind bars. The guy he crippled for LIFE didn't even do anything to be manhandled out of the place. Think on it.... nice guy - yeah as long as you don't' upset him!

By all means stick by a mate but don't condone what he did, especially when a certain young guy is having to live day to day with the consequences of his thuggish actions :(
Actually I would be complaining innocent.even more about the reporting had he been found innocent.

If you truly beleive that Jones did nothing and was grabbed from behind randomly then you have not listened to any facts of the case. Surely even someone so blinkered can see that he would have no reason to randomly grab someone in a club where he worked?
Irrelevant.

Did he deserve to be maimed for life?
How is it irrelevent? Irrelevent to you because you can see no other point of view?

It seems to me from your comments that you care nothing for facts, argument or points of view perhaps you should get a job with the Echo?

It's irrelevant because no matter what his behaviour was like on that night, it did not deserve permanent paralysis.

I'm astounded that anyone is attempting to defend this.
Correct no ones actions deserve such an injury. But surely you can see that some actions would require a doorman to take hold of someone? If not then Doorstaff everynight in town are breaking the law? Had it been a different hold used other than full nelson and the same injury had occured after they tripped and fell would it be such a different story?
[quote][p][bold]Redback[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]echofactorfiction?[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Redback[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]echofactorfiction?[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freemantlegirl2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]echofactorfiction?[/bold] wrote: Did you read my comments before posting your reply? I havent actually given a view on the sentencing or even the verdict. My points simply relate to the reporting of the case by the Echo and to the way in which unrelated evidence was used in court to portray bad character. On the first point if you truly beleive that newspapers report the truth then you really are deluded. It is clearly possible to stay within the rules legally and report a version of the facts, one example of many is by using quotes out of context and mixing different days into one acticle. Another is the use of the words "the prosection barrister suggested" Well of course he suggested something negative, its his job to do so and then try to prove it. On the 2nd point I understand legally it is allowed but my concern is that we could all be painted in a bad light, it is very worrying that unrelated incidents recorded on video can be used to help convict someone. Surely you would hope to be tried on the facts of the incident? I know that i would. Anyway the amount of hatred and venom here is clearly high so perhaps some of you commenting are relatives or freinds of the victim and if so I cannot possibly understand how you feel. For those with a neutral view...well just dont make your minds up on seeing a few video clips. [/p][/quote]let's not forget he was also on bail on another assault charge when he committed this heinous crime! He had a trial, the judge summed it up. Echo are only doing their job, if he'd been found 'innocent' I daresay you wouldn't be complaining about their coverage then! A nasty thug who is now behind bars. The guy he crippled for LIFE didn't even do anything to be manhandled out of the place. Think on it.... nice guy - yeah as long as you don't' upset him! By all means stick by a mate but don't condone what he did, especially when a certain young guy is having to live day to day with the consequences of his thuggish actions :( [/p][/quote]Actually I would be complaining innocent.even more about the reporting had he been found innocent. If you truly beleive that Jones did nothing and was grabbed from behind randomly then you have not listened to any facts of the case. Surely even someone so blinkered can see that he would have no reason to randomly grab someone in a club where he worked?[/p][/quote]Irrelevant. Did he deserve to be maimed for life?[/p][/quote]How is it irrelevent? Irrelevent to you because you can see no other point of view? It seems to me from your comments that you care nothing for facts, argument or points of view perhaps you should get a job with the Echo? [/p][/quote]It's irrelevant because no matter what his behaviour was like on that night, it did not deserve permanent paralysis. I'm astounded that anyone is attempting to defend this.[/p][/quote]Correct no ones actions deserve such an injury. But surely you can see that some actions would require a doorman to take hold of someone? If not then Doorstaff everynight in town are breaking the law? Had it been a different hold used other than full nelson and the same injury had occured after they tripped and fell would it be such a different story? echofactorfiction?
  • Score: 0

8:24pm Sat 18 Jul 09

loverboy says...

Also echoetc. I didn't say people should wear their work outfit while on trial. But seeing as you can wear glasses while working the door, it seems funny that Lee chose to wear them during his trial, but then again, he chose to also grow his hair hmmm, maybe he was trying to make himself more gentle, nerdy even. Is that madness, certainly not when we're talking about a man who showed no remorse at putting a man in a wheelchair until after he was found guilty.
Also my point regarding the glasses must have been a valid one, after all, you're completely impartial as you said earlier, so the fact you know they were prescription glasses must mean the issue was raised in court, otherwise how do you know?
Also echoetc. I didn't say people should wear their work outfit while on trial. But seeing as you can wear glasses while working the door, it seems funny that Lee chose to wear them during his trial, but then again, he chose to also grow his hair hmmm, maybe he was trying to make himself more gentle, nerdy even. Is that madness, certainly not when we're talking about a man who showed no remorse at putting a man in a wheelchair until after he was found guilty. Also my point regarding the glasses must have been a valid one, after all, you're completely impartial as you said earlier, so the fact you know they were prescription glasses must mean the issue was raised in court, otherwise how do you know? loverboy
  • Score: 0

8:25pm Sat 18 Jul 09

echofactorfiction? says...

loverboy wrote:
echofactorfiction? wrote:
loverboy wrote:
echofactorfiction? wrote:
loverboy wrote:
echofactorfiction? wrote:
freemantlegirl2 wrote: hmm this hasn't been sent from a certain prison has it?? the fact that door staff aren't permitted to use full-Nelson's should be enough for him to know that in carrying out his job, which is under licence, that he should not have used it, end of. Having footage of yourself slapping a woman and other thuggery is frankly bizarre! He got found guilty, he's ruined someone's life. He can come out after two years on good behaviour and return to his! Drunk yes, deserving of being crippled by some over-active thug who thinks that it was appropriate - I don't think so! btw, paramedics NEVER put anyone in wheelchairs (they use a special chair that supports the body or a body board/stretcher... so I don't know where you've got that one from either!
I appreciate you may only be working with what you have been fed by the newspapers but your facts are just wrong. Two points that came out in court undisputed was that Jones was taken away in a wheel chair with no neck support (just paramedic supporting). Secondly as stated by the head of the company that provides training for the SIA (the governing body) they do not provide any training in holds / retraints or physically intervention. He also went on to say how he felt this was a big issue and would have included it if SIA has approved it. The full nelson nor any other hold is illegal. Just check your facts before talking rubbish.
Well H21, who claims to have been the only one who sat through the trial alongside the victims family says different, including the wheelchair business. Maybe it's you who's going by the media, and your friends word. The posters on here have merely been saying Lee should have got longer, he was found guilty in a fair trial and that he was overly aggressive, and maybe tellingly, on somebody who wasn't exactly threatening.
Are you actually reading before commenting? H21 also says that Jones was carried out in a wheel chair. If you review my comments they are all based around the same points which is the way people are only told certain information to portray a bad image and to be made to look bad. The only reason I bother to comment here is in the distant hope that some of you realise that the picture being painted is not accurate both in Court and in the papers, well and in fact on here also. Unless im mistaken I have not justified anyones actions.
I have not said you are justifying anyones actions. H21 got quite defensive when the wheelchair isssue was raised, coming out with something along the lines of they didn't know what the thing was called and it may have been what they're supposed to use. The Echo is not known for it's accurate reporting, more distorted than most papers in fact. The picture painted to me is that a doorman over-reacted, a man was seriously injured and the doorman paid the price for that in a court of law. Out of interest, did Lee wear his glasses throughout the trial, maybe if he's been wearing them on the night he may not have misread the situation.
To answer your question yes Lee did where glasses throughout, i get the comment about wearing glasses on the night is it supposed to be funny? Even you must realise that he would not be able to wear glasses in such a job. This notion that by wearing his presciption glasses in court was an act is baffling by that logic should everyone where there work uniform or social clothes when on trial??? Madness.
You can wear glasses when working on the door.
If you say so! I'm not a doorman but have never seen any wearing glasses and would imagine it extremely unwise in a job that may result in a blow to the face or even the risk of them getting knocked off.
[quote][p][bold]loverboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]echofactorfiction?[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loverboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]echofactorfiction?[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loverboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]echofactorfiction?[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freemantlegirl2[/bold] wrote: hmm this hasn't been sent from a certain prison has it?? the fact that door staff aren't permitted to use full-Nelson's should be enough for him to know that in carrying out his job, which is under licence, that he should not have used it, end of. Having footage of yourself slapping a woman and other thuggery is frankly bizarre! He got found guilty, he's ruined someone's life. He can come out after two years on good behaviour and return to his! Drunk yes, deserving of being crippled by some over-active thug who thinks that it was appropriate - I don't think so! btw, paramedics NEVER put anyone in wheelchairs (they use a special chair that supports the body or a body board/stretcher... so I don't know where you've got that one from either![/p][/quote]I appreciate you may only be working with what you have been fed by the newspapers but your facts are just wrong. Two points that came out in court undisputed was that Jones was taken away in a wheel chair with no neck support (just paramedic supporting). Secondly as stated by the head of the company that provides training for the SIA (the governing body) they do not provide any training in holds / retraints or physically intervention. He also went on to say how he felt this was a big issue and would have included it if SIA has approved it. The full nelson nor any other hold is illegal. Just check your facts before talking rubbish.[/p][/quote]Well H21, who claims to have been the only one who sat through the trial alongside the victims family says different, including the wheelchair business. Maybe it's you who's going by the media, and your friends word. The posters on here have merely been saying Lee should have got longer, he was found guilty in a fair trial and that he was overly aggressive, and maybe tellingly, on somebody who wasn't exactly threatening.[/p][/quote]Are you actually reading before commenting? H21 also says that Jones was carried out in a wheel chair. If you review my comments they are all based around the same points which is the way people are only told certain information to portray a bad image and to be made to look bad. The only reason I bother to comment here is in the distant hope that some of you realise that the picture being painted is not accurate both in Court and in the papers, well and in fact on here also. Unless im mistaken I have not justified anyones actions.[/p][/quote]I have not said you are justifying anyones actions. H21 got quite defensive when the wheelchair isssue was raised, coming out with something along the lines of they didn't know what the thing was called and it may have been what they're supposed to use. The Echo is not known for it's accurate reporting, more distorted than most papers in fact. The picture painted to me is that a doorman over-reacted, a man was seriously injured and the doorman paid the price for that in a court of law. Out of interest, did Lee wear his glasses throughout the trial, maybe if he's been wearing them on the night he may not have misread the situation. [/p][/quote]To answer your question yes Lee did where glasses throughout, i get the comment about wearing glasses on the night is it supposed to be funny? Even you must realise that he would not be able to wear glasses in such a job. This notion that by wearing his presciption glasses in court was an act is baffling by that logic should everyone where there work uniform or social clothes when on trial??? Madness.[/p][/quote]You can wear glasses when working on the door.[/p][/quote]If you say so! I'm not a doorman but have never seen any wearing glasses and would imagine it extremely unwise in a job that may result in a blow to the face or even the risk of them getting knocked off. echofactorfiction?
  • Score: 0

8:26pm Sat 18 Jul 09

loverboy says...

echofactorfiction? wrote:
loverboy wrote:
echofactorfiction? wrote:
loverboy wrote:
echofactorfiction? wrote:
loverboy wrote:
echofactorfiction? wrote:
freemantlegirl2 wrote: hmm this hasn't been sent from a certain prison has it?? the fact that door staff aren't permitted to use full-Nelson's should be enough for him to know that in carrying out his job, which is under licence, that he should not have used it, end of. Having footage of yourself slapping a woman and other thuggery is frankly bizarre! He got found guilty, he's ruined someone's life. He can come out after two years on good behaviour and return to his! Drunk yes, deserving of being crippled by some over-active thug who thinks that it was appropriate - I don't think so! btw, paramedics NEVER put anyone in wheelchairs (they use a special chair that supports the body or a body board/stretcher... so I don't know where you've got that one from either!
I appreciate you may only be working with what you have been fed by the newspapers but your facts are just wrong. Two points that came out in court undisputed was that Jones was taken away in a wheel chair with no neck support (just paramedic supporting). Secondly as stated by the head of the company that provides training for the SIA (the governing body) they do not provide any training in holds / retraints or physically intervention. He also went on to say how he felt this was a big issue and would have included it if SIA has approved it. The full nelson nor any other hold is illegal. Just check your facts before talking rubbish.
Well H21, who claims to have been the only one who sat through the trial alongside the victims family says different, including the wheelchair business. Maybe it's you who's going by the media, and your friends word. The posters on here have merely been saying Lee should have got longer, he was found guilty in a fair trial and that he was overly aggressive, and maybe tellingly, on somebody who wasn't exactly threatening.
Are you actually reading before commenting? H21 also says that Jones was carried out in a wheel chair. If you review my comments they are all based around the same points which is the way people are only told certain information to portray a bad image and to be made to look bad. The only reason I bother to comment here is in the distant hope that some of you realise that the picture being painted is not accurate both in Court and in the papers, well and in fact on here also. Unless im mistaken I have not justified anyones actions.
I have not said you are justifying anyones actions. H21 got quite defensive when the wheelchair isssue was raised, coming out with something along the lines of they didn't know what the thing was called and it may have been what they're supposed to use. The Echo is not known for it's accurate reporting, more distorted than most papers in fact. The picture painted to me is that a doorman over-reacted, a man was seriously injured and the doorman paid the price for that in a court of law. Out of interest, did Lee wear his glasses throughout the trial, maybe if he's been wearing them on the night he may not have misread the situation.
To answer your question yes Lee did where glasses throughout, i get the comment about wearing glasses on the night is it supposed to be funny? Even you must realise that he would not be able to wear glasses in such a job. This notion that by wearing his presciption glasses in court was an act is baffling by that logic should everyone where there work uniform or social clothes when on trial??? Madness.
You can wear glasses when working on the door.
If you say so! I'm not a doorman but have never seen any wearing glasses and would imagine it extremely unwise in a job that may result in a blow to the face or even the risk of them getting knocked off.
You obviously don't get out much.
[quote][p][bold]echofactorfiction?[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loverboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]echofactorfiction?[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loverboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]echofactorfiction?[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loverboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]echofactorfiction?[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freemantlegirl2[/bold] wrote: hmm this hasn't been sent from a certain prison has it?? the fact that door staff aren't permitted to use full-Nelson's should be enough for him to know that in carrying out his job, which is under licence, that he should not have used it, end of. Having footage of yourself slapping a woman and other thuggery is frankly bizarre! He got found guilty, he's ruined someone's life. He can come out after two years on good behaviour and return to his! Drunk yes, deserving of being crippled by some over-active thug who thinks that it was appropriate - I don't think so! btw, paramedics NEVER put anyone in wheelchairs (they use a special chair that supports the body or a body board/stretcher... so I don't know where you've got that one from either![/p][/quote]I appreciate you may only be working with what you have been fed by the newspapers but your facts are just wrong. Two points that came out in court undisputed was that Jones was taken away in a wheel chair with no neck support (just paramedic supporting). Secondly as stated by the head of the company that provides training for the SIA (the governing body) they do not provide any training in holds / retraints or physically intervention. He also went on to say how he felt this was a big issue and would have included it if SIA has approved it. The full nelson nor any other hold is illegal. Just check your facts before talking rubbish.[/p][/quote]Well H21, who claims to have been the only one who sat through the trial alongside the victims family says different, including the wheelchair business. Maybe it's you who's going by the media, and your friends word. The posters on here have merely been saying Lee should have got longer, he was found guilty in a fair trial and that he was overly aggressive, and maybe tellingly, on somebody who wasn't exactly threatening.[/p][/quote]Are you actually reading before commenting? H21 also says that Jones was carried out in a wheel chair. If you review my comments they are all based around the same points which is the way people are only told certain information to portray a bad image and to be made to look bad. The only reason I bother to comment here is in the distant hope that some of you realise that the picture being painted is not accurate both in Court and in the papers, well and in fact on here also. Unless im mistaken I have not justified anyones actions.[/p][/quote]I have not said you are justifying anyones actions. H21 got quite defensive when the wheelchair isssue was raised, coming out with something along the lines of they didn't know what the thing was called and it may have been what they're supposed to use. The Echo is not known for it's accurate reporting, more distorted than most papers in fact. The picture painted to me is that a doorman over-reacted, a man was seriously injured and the doorman paid the price for that in a court of law. Out of interest, did Lee wear his glasses throughout the trial, maybe if he's been wearing them on the night he may not have misread the situation. [/p][/quote]To answer your question yes Lee did where glasses throughout, i get the comment about wearing glasses on the night is it supposed to be funny? Even you must realise that he would not be able to wear glasses in such a job. This notion that by wearing his presciption glasses in court was an act is baffling by that logic should everyone where there work uniform or social clothes when on trial??? Madness.[/p][/quote]You can wear glasses when working on the door.[/p][/quote]If you say so! I'm not a doorman but have never seen any wearing glasses and would imagine it extremely unwise in a job that may result in a blow to the face or even the risk of them getting knocked off. [/p][/quote]You obviously don't get out much. loverboy
  • Score: 0

8:27pm Sat 18 Jul 09

echofactorfiction? says...

loverboy wrote:
Also echoetc. I didn't say people should wear their work outfit while on trial. But seeing as you can wear glasses while working the door, it seems funny that Lee chose to wear them during his trial, but then again, he chose to also grow his hair hmmm, maybe he was trying to make himself more gentle, nerdy even. Is that madness, certainly not when we're talking about a man who showed no remorse at putting a man in a wheelchair until after he was found guilty.
Also my point regarding the glasses must have been a valid one, after all, you're completely impartial as you said earlier, so the fact you know they were prescription glasses must mean the issue was raised in court, otherwise how do you know?
When did I say I was impartial or otherwise? This is like trying to argue a point with a brick wall, a particularly stupid one at that.
[quote][p][bold]loverboy[/bold] wrote: Also echoetc. I didn't say people should wear their work outfit while on trial. But seeing as you can wear glasses while working the door, it seems funny that Lee chose to wear them during his trial, but then again, he chose to also grow his hair hmmm, maybe he was trying to make himself more gentle, nerdy even. Is that madness, certainly not when we're talking about a man who showed no remorse at putting a man in a wheelchair until after he was found guilty. Also my point regarding the glasses must have been a valid one, after all, you're completely impartial as you said earlier, so the fact you know they were prescription glasses must mean the issue was raised in court, otherwise how do you know?[/p][/quote]When did I say I was impartial or otherwise? This is like trying to argue a point with a brick wall, a particularly stupid one at that. echofactorfiction?
  • Score: 0

8:30pm Sat 18 Jul 09

Redback says...

echofactorfiction? wrote:
Redback wrote:
echofactorfiction? wrote:
Redback wrote:
echofactorfiction? wrote:
freemantlegirl2 wrote:
echofactorfiction? wrote:
Did you read my comments before posting your reply? I havent actually given a view on the sentencing or even the verdict. My points simply relate to the reporting of the case by the Echo and to the way in which unrelated evidence was used in court to portray bad character.

On the first point if you truly beleive that newspapers report the truth then you really are deluded. It is clearly possible to stay within the rules legally and report a version of the facts, one example of many is by using quotes out of context and mixing different days into one acticle. Another is the use of the words "the prosection barrister suggested" Well of course he suggested something negative, its his job to do so and then try to prove it.

On the 2nd point I understand legally it is allowed but my concern is that we could all be painted in a bad light, it is very worrying that unrelated incidents recorded on video can be used to help convict someone. Surely you would hope to be tried on the facts of the incident? I know that i would.

Anyway the amount of hatred and venom here is clearly high so perhaps some of you commenting are relatives or freinds of the victim and if so I cannot possibly understand how you feel. For those with a neutral view...well just dont make your minds up on seeing a few video clips.
let's not forget he was also on bail on another assault charge when he committed this heinous crime! He had a trial, the judge summed it up. Echo are only doing their job, if he'd been found 'innocent' I daresay you wouldn't be complaining about their coverage then!

A nasty thug who is now behind bars. The guy he crippled for LIFE didn't even do anything to be manhandled out of the place. Think on it.... nice guy - yeah as long as you don't' upset him!

By all means stick by a mate but don't condone what he did, especially when a certain young guy is having to live day to day with the consequences of his thuggish actions :(
Actually I would be complaining innocent.even more about the reporting had he been found innocent.

If you truly beleive that Jones did nothing and was grabbed from behind randomly then you have not listened to any facts of the case. Surely even someone so blinkered can see that he would have no reason to randomly grab someone in a club where he worked?
Irrelevant.

Did he deserve to be maimed for life?
How is it irrelevent? Irrelevent to you because you can see no other point of view?

It seems to me from your comments that you care nothing for facts, argument or points of view perhaps you should get a job with the Echo?

It's irrelevant because no matter what his behaviour was like on that night, it did not deserve permanent paralysis.

I'm astounded that anyone is attempting to defend this.
Correct no ones actions deserve such an injury. But surely you can see that some actions would require a doorman to take hold of someone? If not then Doorstaff everynight in town are breaking the law? Had it been a different hold used other than full nelson and the same injury had occured after they tripped and fell would it be such a different story?
The legality is not the point.

Every individual is responsible for their actions.

Andrew Lee caused a man to spend the rest of his life in a wheelchair, through his violent behaviour.

Stop wriggling.
[quote][p][bold]echofactorfiction?[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Redback[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]echofactorfiction?[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Redback[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]echofactorfiction?[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freemantlegirl2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]echofactorfiction?[/bold] wrote: Did you read my comments before posting your reply? I havent actually given a view on the sentencing or even the verdict. My points simply relate to the reporting of the case by the Echo and to the way in which unrelated evidence was used in court to portray bad character. On the first point if you truly beleive that newspapers report the truth then you really are deluded. It is clearly possible to stay within the rules legally and report a version of the facts, one example of many is by using quotes out of context and mixing different days into one acticle. Another is the use of the words "the prosection barrister suggested" Well of course he suggested something negative, its his job to do so and then try to prove it. On the 2nd point I understand legally it is allowed but my concern is that we could all be painted in a bad light, it is very worrying that unrelated incidents recorded on video can be used to help convict someone. Surely you would hope to be tried on the facts of the incident? I know that i would. Anyway the amount of hatred and venom here is clearly high so perhaps some of you commenting are relatives or freinds of the victim and if so I cannot possibly understand how you feel. For those with a neutral view...well just dont make your minds up on seeing a few video clips. [/p][/quote]let's not forget he was also on bail on another assault charge when he committed this heinous crime! He had a trial, the judge summed it up. Echo are only doing their job, if he'd been found 'innocent' I daresay you wouldn't be complaining about their coverage then! A nasty thug who is now behind bars. The guy he crippled for LIFE didn't even do anything to be manhandled out of the place. Think on it.... nice guy - yeah as long as you don't' upset him! By all means stick by a mate but don't condone what he did, especially when a certain young guy is having to live day to day with the consequences of his thuggish actions :( [/p][/quote]Actually I would be complaining innocent.even more about the reporting had he been found innocent. If you truly beleive that Jones did nothing and was grabbed from behind randomly then you have not listened to any facts of the case. Surely even someone so blinkered can see that he would have no reason to randomly grab someone in a club where he worked?[/p][/quote]Irrelevant. Did he deserve to be maimed for life?[/p][/quote]How is it irrelevent? Irrelevent to you because you can see no other point of view? It seems to me from your comments that you care nothing for facts, argument or points of view perhaps you should get a job with the Echo? [/p][/quote]It's irrelevant because no matter what his behaviour was like on that night, it did not deserve permanent paralysis. I'm astounded that anyone is attempting to defend this.[/p][/quote]Correct no ones actions deserve such an injury. But surely you can see that some actions would require a doorman to take hold of someone? If not then Doorstaff everynight in town are breaking the law? Had it been a different hold used other than full nelson and the same injury had occured after they tripped and fell would it be such a different story?[/p][/quote]The legality is not the point. Every individual is responsible for their actions. Andrew Lee caused a man to spend the rest of his life in a wheelchair, through his violent behaviour. Stop wriggling. Redback
  • Score: 0

8:32pm Sat 18 Jul 09

echofactorfiction? says...

loverboy wrote:
echofactorfiction? wrote:
loverboy wrote:
echofactorfiction? wrote:
loverboy wrote:
echofactorfiction? wrote:
loverboy wrote:
echofactorfiction? wrote:
freemantlegirl2 wrote: hmm this hasn't been sent from a certain prison has it?? the fact that door staff aren't permitted to use full-Nelson's should be enough for him to know that in carrying out his job, which is under licence, that he should not have used it, end of. Having footage of yourself slapping a woman and other thuggery is frankly bizarre! He got found guilty, he's ruined someone's life. He can come out after two years on good behaviour and return to his! Drunk yes, deserving of being crippled by some over-active thug who thinks that it was appropriate - I don't think so! btw, paramedics NEVER put anyone in wheelchairs (they use a special chair that supports the body or a body board/stretcher... so I don't know where you've got that one from either!
I appreciate you may only be working with what you have been fed by the newspapers but your facts are just wrong. Two points that came out in court undisputed was that Jones was taken away in a wheel chair with no neck support (just paramedic supporting). Secondly as stated by the head of the company that provides training for the SIA (the governing body) they do not provide any training in holds / retraints or physically intervention. He also went on to say how he felt this was a big issue and would have included it if SIA has approved it. The full nelson nor any other hold is illegal. Just check your facts before talking rubbish.
Well H21, who claims to have been the only one who sat through the trial alongside the victims family says different, including the wheelchair business. Maybe it's you who's going by the media, and your friends word. The posters on here have merely been saying Lee should have got longer, he was found guilty in a fair trial and that he was overly aggressive, and maybe tellingly, on somebody who wasn't exactly threatening.
Are you actually reading before commenting? H21 also says that Jones was carried out in a wheel chair. If you review my comments they are all based around the same points which is the way people are only told certain information to portray a bad image and to be made to look bad. The only reason I bother to comment here is in the distant hope that some of you realise that the picture being painted is not accurate both in Court and in the papers, well and in fact on here also. Unless im mistaken I have not justified anyones actions.
I have not said you are justifying anyones actions. H21 got quite defensive when the wheelchair isssue was raised, coming out with something along the lines of they didn't know what the thing was called and it may have been what they're supposed to use. The Echo is not known for it's accurate reporting, more distorted than most papers in fact. The picture painted to me is that a doorman over-reacted, a man was seriously injured and the doorman paid the price for that in a court of law. Out of interest, did Lee wear his glasses throughout the trial, maybe if he's been wearing them on the night he may not have misread the situation.
To answer your question yes Lee did where glasses throughout, i get the comment about wearing glasses on the night is it supposed to be funny? Even you must realise that he would not be able to wear glasses in such a job. This notion that by wearing his presciption glasses in court was an act is baffling by that logic should everyone where there work uniform or social clothes when on trial??? Madness.
You can wear glasses when working on the door.
If you say so! I'm not a doorman but have never seen any wearing glasses and would imagine it extremely unwise in a job that may result in a blow to the face or even the risk of them getting knocked off.
You obviously don't get out much.
All too frequently, hopefully some of the people on here who are doorstaff can talk some sense into one of us anyway I may go out "glasses spotting tonight" would be more productive than this.

[quote][p][bold]loverboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]echofactorfiction?[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loverboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]echofactorfiction?[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loverboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]echofactorfiction?[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loverboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]echofactorfiction?[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freemantlegirl2[/bold] wrote: hmm this hasn't been sent from a certain prison has it?? the fact that door staff aren't permitted to use full-Nelson's should be enough for him to know that in carrying out his job, which is under licence, that he should not have used it, end of. Having footage of yourself slapping a woman and other thuggery is frankly bizarre! He got found guilty, he's ruined someone's life. He can come out after two years on good behaviour and return to his! Drunk yes, deserving of being crippled by some over-active thug who thinks that it was appropriate - I don't think so! btw, paramedics NEVER put anyone in wheelchairs (they use a special chair that supports the body or a body board/stretcher... so I don't know where you've got that one from either![/p][/quote]I appreciate you may only be working with what you have been fed by the newspapers but your facts are just wrong. Two points that came out in court undisputed was that Jones was taken away in a wheel chair with no neck support (just paramedic supporting). Secondly as stated by the head of the company that provides training for the SIA (the governing body) they do not provide any training in holds / retraints or physically intervention. He also went on to say how he felt this was a big issue and would have included it if SIA has approved it. The full nelson nor any other hold is illegal. Just check your facts before talking rubbish.[/p][/quote]Well H21, who claims to have been the only one who sat through the trial alongside the victims family says different, including the wheelchair business. Maybe it's you who's going by the media, and your friends word. The posters on here have merely been saying Lee should have got longer, he was found guilty in a fair trial and that he was overly aggressive, and maybe tellingly, on somebody who wasn't exactly threatening.[/p][/quote]Are you actually reading before commenting? H21 also says that Jones was carried out in a wheel chair. If you review my comments they are all based around the same points which is the way people are only told certain information to portray a bad image and to be made to look bad. The only reason I bother to comment here is in the distant hope that some of you realise that the picture being painted is not accurate both in Court and in the papers, well and in fact on here also. Unless im mistaken I have not justified anyones actions.[/p][/quote]I have not said you are justifying anyones actions. H21 got quite defensive when the wheelchair isssue was raised, coming out with something along the lines of they didn't know what the thing was called and it may have been what they're supposed to use. The Echo is not known for it's accurate reporting, more distorted than most papers in fact. The picture painted to me is that a doorman over-reacted, a man was seriously injured and the doorman paid the price for that in a court of law. Out of interest, did Lee wear his glasses throughout the trial, maybe if he's been wearing them on the night he may not have misread the situation. [/p][/quote]To answer your question yes Lee did where glasses throughout, i get the comment about wearing glasses on the night is it supposed to be funny? Even you must realise that he would not be able to wear glasses in such a job. This notion that by wearing his presciption glasses in court was an act is baffling by that logic should everyone where there work uniform or social clothes when on trial??? Madness.[/p][/quote]You can wear glasses when working on the door.[/p][/quote]If you say so! I'm not a doorman but have never seen any wearing glasses and would imagine it extremely unwise in a job that may result in a blow to the face or even the risk of them getting knocked off. [/p][/quote]You obviously don't get out much.[/p][/quote]All too frequently, hopefully some of the people on here who are doorstaff can talk some sense into one of us anyway I may go out "glasses spotting tonight" would be more productive than this. echofactorfiction?
  • Score: 0

8:32pm Sat 18 Jul 09

loverboy says...

echofactorfiction? wrote:
loverboy wrote: Also echoetc. I didn't say people should wear their work outfit while on trial. But seeing as you can wear glasses while working the door, it seems funny that Lee chose to wear them during his trial, but then again, he chose to also grow his hair hmmm, maybe he was trying to make himself more gentle, nerdy even. Is that madness, certainly not when we're talking about a man who showed no remorse at putting a man in a wheelchair until after he was found guilty. Also my point regarding the glasses must have been a valid one, after all, you're completely impartial as you said earlier, so the fact you know they were prescription glasses must mean the issue was raised in court, otherwise how do you know?
When did I say I was impartial or otherwise? This is like trying to argue a point with a brick wall, a particularly stupid one at that.
OOh getting insulting, on the defensive are we?
If I was that stupid I wouldn't be able to see you for what you are. Raise a tricky point with you and you revert to abuse. I'll tell you what, I'll give you a bit of time to think of an answer, you seem like you need it.
Maybe that was the problem for your obvious friend Lee, when he took to the stand he was asked questions he couldn't answer.
By the way, police officers wear glasses, as do prison officers and many others who may find themselves in such a situation.
[quote][p][bold]echofactorfiction?[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loverboy[/bold] wrote: Also echoetc. I didn't say people should wear their work outfit while on trial. But seeing as you can wear glasses while working the door, it seems funny that Lee chose to wear them during his trial, but then again, he chose to also grow his hair hmmm, maybe he was trying to make himself more gentle, nerdy even. Is that madness, certainly not when we're talking about a man who showed no remorse at putting a man in a wheelchair until after he was found guilty. Also my point regarding the glasses must have been a valid one, after all, you're completely impartial as you said earlier, so the fact you know they were prescription glasses must mean the issue was raised in court, otherwise how do you know?[/p][/quote]When did I say I was impartial or otherwise? This is like trying to argue a point with a brick wall, a particularly stupid one at that.[/p][/quote]OOh getting insulting, on the defensive are we? If I was that stupid I wouldn't be able to see you for what you are. Raise a tricky point with you and you revert to abuse. I'll tell you what, I'll give you a bit of time to think of an answer, you seem like you need it. Maybe that was the problem for your obvious friend Lee, when he took to the stand he was asked questions he couldn't answer. By the way, police officers wear glasses, as do prison officers and many others who may find themselves in such a situation. loverboy
  • Score: 0

8:36pm Sat 18 Jul 09

loverboy says...

echofactorfiction? wrote:
loverboy wrote:
echofactorfiction? wrote:
loverboy wrote:
echofactorfiction? wrote:
loverboy wrote:
echofactorfiction? wrote:
loverboy wrote:
echofactorfiction? wrote:
freemantlegirl2 wrote: hmm this hasn't been sent from a certain prison has it?? the fact that door staff aren't permitted to use full-Nelson's should be enough for him to know that in carrying out his job, which is under licence, that he should not have used it, end of. Having footage of yourself slapping a woman and other thuggery is frankly bizarre! He got found guilty, he's ruined someone's life. He can come out after two years on good behaviour and return to his! Drunk yes, deserving of being crippled by some over-active thug who thinks that it was appropriate - I don't think so! btw, paramedics NEVER put anyone in wheelchairs (they use a special chair that supports the body or a body board/stretcher... so I don't know where you've got that one from either!
I appreciate you may only be working with what you have been fed by the newspapers but your facts are just wrong. Two points that came out in court undisputed was that Jones was taken away in a wheel chair with no neck support (just paramedic supporting). Secondly as stated by the head of the company that provides training for the SIA (the governing body) they do not provide any training in holds / retraints or physically intervention. He also went on to say how he felt this was a big issue and would have included it if SIA has approved it. The full nelson nor any other hold is illegal. Just check your facts before talking rubbish.
Well H21, who claims to have been the only one who sat through the trial alongside the victims family says different, including the wheelchair business. Maybe it's you who's going by the media, and your friends word. The posters on here have merely been saying Lee should have got longer, he was found guilty in a fair trial and that he was overly aggressive, and maybe tellingly, on somebody who wasn't exactly threatening.
Are you actually reading before commenting? H21 also says that Jones was carried out in a wheel chair. If you review my comments they are all based around the same points which is the way people are only told certain information to portray a bad image and to be made to look bad. The only reason I bother to comment here is in the distant hope that some of you realise that the picture being painted is not accurate both in Court and in the papers, well and in fact on here also. Unless im mistaken I have not justified anyones actions.
I have not said you are justifying anyones actions. H21 got quite defensive when the wheelchair isssue was raised, coming out with something along the lines of they didn't know what the thing was called and it may have been what they're supposed to use. The Echo is not known for it's accurate reporting, more distorted than most papers in fact. The picture painted to me is that a doorman over-reacted, a man was seriously injured and the doorman paid the price for that in a court of law. Out of interest, did Lee wear his glasses throughout the trial, maybe if he's been wearing them on the night he may not have misread the situation.
To answer your question yes Lee did where glasses throughout, i get the comment about wearing glasses on the night is it supposed to be funny? Even you must realise that he would not be able to wear glasses in such a job. This notion that by wearing his presciption glasses in court was an act is baffling by that logic should everyone where there work uniform or social clothes when on trial??? Madness.
You can wear glasses when working on the door.
If you say so! I'm not a doorman but have never seen any wearing glasses and would imagine it extremely unwise in a job that may result in a blow to the face or even the risk of them getting knocked off.
You obviously don't get out much.
All too frequently, hopefully some of the people on here who are doorstaff can talk some sense into one of us anyway I may go out "glasses spotting tonight" would be more productive than this.
I know all about doorstaff mate, don't need anyone who is a doorman coming on to tell me the odds.
Of course you're more than welcome to come on under a different guise to put me in my place.
If someone needs to wear glasses they wear them. But hey, run along, asked a few questions you can't answer Mr Impartiality, by the way, how did you know they were prescription glasses, you never answered.
[quote][p][bold]echofactorfiction?[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loverboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]echofactorfiction?[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loverboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]echofactorfiction?[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loverboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]echofactorfiction?[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loverboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]echofactorfiction?[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freemantlegirl2[/bold] wrote: hmm this hasn't been sent from a certain prison has it?? the fact that door staff aren't permitted to use full-Nelson's should be enough for him to know that in carrying out his job, which is under licence, that he should not have used it, end of. Having footage of yourself slapping a woman and other thuggery is frankly bizarre! He got found guilty, he's ruined someone's life. He can come out after two years on good behaviour and return to his! Drunk yes, deserving of being crippled by some over-active thug who thinks that it was appropriate - I don't think so! btw, paramedics NEVER put anyone in wheelchairs (they use a special chair that supports the body or a body board/stretcher... so I don't know where you've got that one from either![/p][/quote]I appreciate you may only be working with what you have been fed by the newspapers but your facts are just wrong. Two points that came out in court undisputed was that Jones was taken away in a wheel chair with no neck support (just paramedic supporting). Secondly as stated by the head of the company that provides training for the SIA (the governing body) they do not provide any training in holds / retraints or physically intervention. He also went on to say how he felt this was a big issue and would have included it if SIA has approved it. The full nelson nor any other hold is illegal. Just check your facts before talking rubbish.[/p][/quote]Well H21, who claims to have been the only one who sat through the trial alongside the victims family says different, including the wheelchair business. Maybe it's you who's going by the media, and your friends word. The posters on here have merely been saying Lee should have got longer, he was found guilty in a fair trial and that he was overly aggressive, and maybe tellingly, on somebody who wasn't exactly threatening.[/p][/quote]Are you actually reading before commenting? H21 also says that Jones was carried out in a wheel chair. If you review my comments they are all based around the same points which is the way people are only told certain information to portray a bad image and to be made to look bad. The only reason I bother to comment here is in the distant hope that some of you realise that the picture being painted is not accurate both in Court and in the papers, well and in fact on here also. Unless im mistaken I have not justified anyones actions.[/p][/quote]I have not said you are justifying anyones actions. H21 got quite defensive when the wheelchair isssue was raised, coming out with something along the lines of they didn't know what the thing was called and it may have been what they're supposed to use. The Echo is not known for it's accurate reporting, more distorted than most papers in fact. The picture painted to me is that a doorman over-reacted, a man was seriously injured and the doorman paid the price for that in a court of law. Out of interest, did Lee wear his glasses throughout the trial, maybe if he's been wearing them on the night he may not have misread the situation. [/p][/quote]To answer your question yes Lee did where glasses throughout, i get the comment about wearing glasses on the night is it supposed to be funny? Even you must realise that he would not be able to wear glasses in such a job. This notion that by wearing his presciption glasses in court was an act is baffling by that logic should everyone where there work uniform or social clothes when on trial??? Madness.[/p][/quote]You can wear glasses when working on the door.[/p][/quote]If you say so! I'm not a doorman but have never seen any wearing glasses and would imagine it extremely unwise in a job that may result in a blow to the face or even the risk of them getting knocked off. [/p][/quote]You obviously don't get out much.[/p][/quote]All too frequently, hopefully some of the people on here who are doorstaff can talk some sense into one of us anyway I may go out "glasses spotting tonight" would be more productive than this. [/p][/quote]I know all about doorstaff mate, don't need anyone who is a doorman coming on to tell me the odds. Of course you're more than welcome to come on under a different guise to put me in my place. If someone needs to wear glasses they wear them. But hey, run along, asked a few questions you can't answer Mr Impartiality, by the way, how did you know they were prescription glasses, you never answered. loverboy
  • Score: 0

8:39pm Sat 18 Jul 09

loverboy says...

Oh and also, seeing as, according to H21 you weren't at the trial, how do you have such a pure source of information on events in the courthouse?
Oh and also, seeing as, according to H21 you weren't at the trial, how do you have such a pure source of information on events in the courthouse? loverboy
  • Score: 0

8:46pm Sat 18 Jul 09

H21 says...

do you people actually read this stuff, or read what you want to see. yes my grammar is bad, but if your shallow enough to comment on that you really do need to get out more.
and yes, if you do know students youd know that uni had finished before the trial started, common sense. and im not a man... i just know many doormen an have an opinion. and of course i know Andrew Lee if i sat with him for the whole two and a half weeks in court. get your facts right before writing something on here that you dont know about.
do you people actually read this stuff, or read what you want to see. yes my grammar is bad, but if your shallow enough to comment on that you really do need to get out more. and yes, if you do know students youd know that uni had finished before the trial started, common sense. and im not a man... i just know many doormen an have an opinion. and of course i know Andrew Lee if i sat with him for the whole two and a half weeks in court. get your facts right before writing something on here that you dont know about. H21
  • Score: 0

8:53pm Sat 18 Jul 09

loverboy says...

H21 wrote:
do you people actually read this stuff, or read what you want to see. yes my grammar is bad, but if your shallow enough to comment on that you really do need to get out more. and yes, if you do know students youd know that uni had finished before the trial started, common sense. and im not a man... i just know many doormen an have an opinion. and of course i know Andrew Lee if i sat with him for the whole two and a half weeks in court. get your facts right before writing something on here that you dont know about.
What was your degree in? All the students I know were still working at the start of the trial.
What's it got to do with it? You're lying about being a student, hence in a court of law would mean anything you have to say should be dismissed.
You weren't Andys legal adviser were you?
Oh and Echoetc... I see you didn't claim to be mr Impartiality after all, I apolgise, though you did hint at it with your talk of neutral etc.
Maybe like H21 you're missing a quick knee trembler for free admission now Andy's away.
H21, you give your non student status away by hanging round with bouncers as if it's a big deal!
[quote][p][bold]H21[/bold] wrote: do you people actually read this stuff, or read what you want to see. yes my grammar is bad, but if your shallow enough to comment on that you really do need to get out more. and yes, if you do know students youd know that uni had finished before the trial started, common sense. and im not a man... i just know many doormen an have an opinion. and of course i know Andrew Lee if i sat with him for the whole two and a half weeks in court. get your facts right before writing something on here that you dont know about.[/p][/quote]What was your degree in? All the students I know were still working at the start of the trial. What's it got to do with it? You're lying about being a student, hence in a court of law would mean anything you have to say should be dismissed. You weren't Andys legal adviser were you? Oh and Echoetc... I see you didn't claim to be mr Impartiality after all, I apolgise, though you did hint at it with your talk of neutral etc. Maybe like H21 you're missing a quick knee trembler for free admission now Andy's away. H21, you give your non student status away by hanging round with bouncers as if it's a big deal! loverboy
  • Score: 0

8:59pm Sat 18 Jul 09

H21 says...

well i hate to say your worng, but are on many things, as yes i am a student, i was at the solent, but if you know anything about kaos, all the staff know many of us, as most people who go there are students, and yes, uni is finnished at that point, many do still have exams and coursework, and if you know anything about solent youd realise there are never many lectures. i dont think Andrews solicotor whould have the time of day to comment on here.
well i hate to say your worng, but are on many things, as yes i am a student, i was at the solent, but if you know anything about kaos, all the staff know many of us, as most people who go there are students, and yes, uni is finnished at that point, many do still have exams and coursework, and if you know anything about solent youd realise there are never many lectures. i dont think Andrews solicotor whould have the time of day to comment on here. H21
  • Score: 0

9:08pm Sat 18 Jul 09

what's the point of this discussion? says...

Dear echofactorfiction

I'm not sure that there is much point in engaging in conversation with these foul mouthed, ignorant people (not all the people who have commented but certainly a few who have joined the discussion). They clearly do not know the case further than what the Daily Echo has reported (which I agree has been a bias account of what actually happened in court and in reality). It wont help John Jones, Andrew Lee or yourself and I don't think you stand a chance of changing these people's narrow minded view points.Unfortunately the damage is done and everyone involved (whether it is right or wrong) will have to live with what has happened including John, Andrew and both of the families and -particularly for Mr Jones- it is very tragic, I hope he will be able to move on from this somehow..) There is nothing we can say to change what has happened. None the less I can understand your frustration towards the comments here. The Daily Echo should surely have deleted some of these comments?

Kind regards to you.
Dear echofactorfiction I'm not sure that there is much point in engaging in conversation with these foul mouthed, ignorant people (not all the people who have commented but certainly a few who have joined the discussion). They clearly do not know the case further than what the Daily Echo has reported (which I agree has been a bias account of what actually happened in court and in reality). It wont help John Jones, Andrew Lee or yourself and I don't think you stand a chance of changing these people's narrow minded view points.Unfortunately the damage is done and everyone involved (whether it is right or wrong) will have to live with what has happened including John, Andrew and both of the families and -particularly for Mr Jones- it is very tragic, I hope he will be able to move on from this somehow..) There is nothing we can say to change what has happened. None the less I can understand your frustration towards the comments here. The Daily Echo should surely have deleted some of these comments? Kind regards to you. what's the point of this discussion?
  • Score: 0

9:11pm Sat 18 Jul 09

loverboy says...

H21 wrote:
well i hate to say your worng, but are on many things, as yes i am a student, i was at the solent, but if you know anything about kaos, all the staff know many of us, as most people who go there are students, and yes, uni is finnished at that point, many do still have exams and coursework, and if you know anything about solent youd realise there are never many lectures. i dont think Andrews solicotor whould have the time of day to comment on here.
He'd have had a barrister not a solicitor, take it you're not doing law?
So the majority of clientel are students aye, so Andy would have known he wouldn't have needed that amount of force.
What did you study, you never answered?
Mention a lot in your defence but not the course you were on. Funny that
[quote][p][bold]H21[/bold] wrote: well i hate to say your worng, but are on many things, as yes i am a student, i was at the solent, but if you know anything about kaos, all the staff know many of us, as most people who go there are students, and yes, uni is finnished at that point, many do still have exams and coursework, and if you know anything about solent youd realise there are never many lectures. i dont think Andrews solicotor whould have the time of day to comment on here.[/p][/quote]He'd have had a barrister not a solicitor, take it you're not doing law? So the majority of clientel are students aye, so Andy would have known he wouldn't have needed that amount of force. What did you study, you never answered? Mention a lot in your defence but not the course you were on. Funny that loverboy
  • Score: 0

9:14pm Sat 18 Jul 09

H21 says...

loverboy wrote:
H21 wrote:
well i hate to say your worng, but are on many things, as yes i am a student, i was at the solent, but if you know anything about kaos, all the staff know many of us, as most people who go there are students, and yes, uni is finnished at that point, many do still have exams and coursework, and if you know anything about solent youd realise there are never many lectures. i dont think Andrews solicotor whould have the time of day to comment on here.
He'd have had a barrister not a solicitor, take it you're not doing law?
So the majority of clientel are students aye, so Andy would have known he wouldn't have needed that amount of force.
What did you study, you never answered?
Mention a lot in your defence but not the course you were on. Funny that
well he actually had both, you obviously really know nothing.
i did photography, and before you comment, i am not an academic person, and i really dont care
[quote][p][bold]loverboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]H21[/bold] wrote: well i hate to say your worng, but are on many things, as yes i am a student, i was at the solent, but if you know anything about kaos, all the staff know many of us, as most people who go there are students, and yes, uni is finnished at that point, many do still have exams and coursework, and if you know anything about solent youd realise there are never many lectures. i dont think Andrews solicotor whould have the time of day to comment on here.[/p][/quote]He'd have had a barrister not a solicitor, take it you're not doing law? So the majority of clientel are students aye, so Andy would have known he wouldn't have needed that amount of force. What did you study, you never answered? Mention a lot in your defence but not the course you were on. Funny that[/p][/quote]well he actually had both, you obviously really know nothing. i did photography, and before you comment, i am not an academic person, and i really dont care H21
  • Score: 0

9:21pm Sat 18 Jul 09

loverboy says...

What's the point of this discussion, you must be as daft as echofactorfiction unless you're the same person of course.
WHAT PEOPLE ARE SAYING HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DAILY ECHO'S COVERAGE.
The only person who turned abusive was echoetc.. funnily when things were pointed out.
Just because, funnily enough, people feel Mr Lee over reacted, and don't see it your way, doesn't mean it's not worth discussing. Maybe you're the type easily brainwashed, (don't read the echo if thats the case) but most have posted with opinions. Look back, most differ from your own, maybe it's you who are wrong.
Persish the thought.
You could always talk to yourself about it....
Maybe even back yourself up on here....
What's the point of this discussion, you must be as daft as echofactorfiction unless you're the same person of course. WHAT PEOPLE ARE SAYING HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DAILY ECHO'S COVERAGE. The only person who turned abusive was echoetc.. funnily when things were pointed out. Just because, funnily enough, people feel Mr Lee over reacted, and don't see it your way, doesn't mean it's not worth discussing. Maybe you're the type easily brainwashed, (don't read the echo if thats the case) but most have posted with opinions. Look back, most differ from your own, maybe it's you who are wrong. Persish the thought. You could always talk to yourself about it.... Maybe even back yourself up on here.... loverboy
  • Score: 0

9:24pm Sat 18 Jul 09

loverboy says...

H21 wrote:
loverboy wrote:
H21 wrote: well i hate to say your worng, but are on many things, as yes i am a student, i was at the solent, but if you know anything about kaos, all the staff know many of us, as most people who go there are students, and yes, uni is finnished at that point, many do still have exams and coursework, and if you know anything about solent youd realise there are never many lectures. i dont think Andrews solicotor whould have the time of day to comment on here.
He'd have had a barrister not a solicitor, take it you're not doing law? So the majority of clientel are students aye, so Andy would have known he wouldn't have needed that amount of force. What did you study, you never answered? Mention a lot in your defence but not the course you were on. Funny that
well he actually had both, you obviously really know nothing. i did photography, and before you comment, i am not an academic person, and i really dont care
They don't do aphotography degree, it would be a module of a complete degree at best.

His barrister would have represented him in crown court, yes his solicitor would have been there but it would have been his barrister in court.

OOh look I know more about university and court than you.
[quote][p][bold]H21[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loverboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]H21[/bold] wrote: well i hate to say your worng, but are on many things, as yes i am a student, i was at the solent, but if you know anything about kaos, all the staff know many of us, as most people who go there are students, and yes, uni is finnished at that point, many do still have exams and coursework, and if you know anything about solent youd realise there are never many lectures. i dont think Andrews solicotor whould have the time of day to comment on here.[/p][/quote]He'd have had a barrister not a solicitor, take it you're not doing law? So the majority of clientel are students aye, so Andy would have known he wouldn't have needed that amount of force. What did you study, you never answered? Mention a lot in your defence but not the course you were on. Funny that[/p][/quote]well he actually had both, you obviously really know nothing. i did photography, and before you comment, i am not an academic person, and i really dont care[/p][/quote]They don't do aphotography degree, it would be a module of a complete degree at best. His barrister would have represented him in crown court, yes his solicitor would have been there but it would have been his barrister in court. OOh look I know more about university and court than you. loverboy
  • Score: 0

9:39pm Sat 18 Jul 09

what's the point of this discussion? says...

FAO "loverboy"

I'm merely stating that the Daily Echo's coverage has been bias and that some of the comments here should have been deleted. In other words.. my problem is with the news paper (and the news paper's employees who edit the web comments) not with the principle of free speech. I don't know whether the people who are commenting know anything about the case (beyond the Echo) it doesn't really matter to me. I'm simply stating that (in my option) some of what has been published (by the paper) is a selective representation of what happened in the case and it seems some people people commenting here are judging the situation by the press coverage.

I would like to point out that I think It is unfair to mock someone for their spelling/grammar. Please try to debate like an adult or not at all. I do believe however that everyone has the right to comment here.
FAO "loverboy" I'm merely stating that the Daily Echo's coverage has been bias and that some of the comments here should have been deleted. In other words.. my problem is with the news paper (and the news paper's employees who edit the web comments) not with the principle of free speech. I don't know whether the people who are commenting know anything about the case (beyond the Echo) it doesn't really matter to me. I'm simply stating that (in my option) some of what has been published (by the paper) is a selective representation of what happened in the case and it seems some people people commenting here are judging the situation by the press coverage. I would like to point out that I think It is unfair to mock someone for their spelling/grammar. Please try to debate like an adult or not at all. I do believe however that everyone has the right to comment here. what's the point of this discussion?
  • Score: 0

9:51pm Sat 18 Jul 09

hidingmyname says...

To echofactorfiction,

Following this discussion you seem to be one who is most matter of fact about the whole case. You mentioned you were in court every day. I believe it is not possible you were in the public gallery as it has been mentioned by H21 that themself, John Jones and his mother were the only three there each day. I can only conclude from this and your comments that you may well have been one of the 'two'. If this is the case then I would think a lot of people would like to thank you for the level headed response you took towards the case and the conclusion you came up with. I'm sure there would be many more with the oppposite reaction, as demonstrated with the above comments.

All:

This quite clearly was a truly tragic accident and for a judge to sum up by saying Mr Lee intentionally harmed Mr Jones is surely absurd. I am pretty certain that if that was the case he would have punched or kicked or similar but none of that took place. Mr Lee was doing his job, removing an obnoxious drunk man who he didnt know, that was larger than him and possibly stronger (which he wouldn't have known until restraint had taken place) from a club as he was acting in an unproper manner towards at least one other person in the club, using a legal hold after attempting a different legal hold which John Jones broke free from. That is fact. What then followed is truly truly unfortunate and I do not believe Mr Lee would wish that sort of injury on anyone, especially someone he hasn't met before.

People should take note that Mr Jones was being aggressive and the fact he broke free from one restraint indicates a certain level of agression.

echofactorfiction mentions about John Jones kicking out, if this was a contributing factor to the fall then this should be taken into consideration when coming to a conclusion where reasonable force was applied.

Once again the daily echo has managed to whip up a level of hatred towards an individual or group of individuals by how and what it reports. Why doesn't it report all the facts rather than just snippets is beyond me, but then again maybe it wouldn't make as good reading for the narrow minded people that must frequent this site. Surely the balanced argument would me much more in the public's interest.

From reading the articles published by the echo and the comments made that the majority of this case was built upon 'bad character'. Let make up another example, you've been caught for speeding 3 years ago. Today you hit a pedestrian who claims you must have been speeding. Because you were speeding 3 years ago does that mean you still speed and your were speeding at the time for the collision? A jury, after seeing horrific injuries to the pedestrian, find you guilty after the majority of the case is built upon the fact you been speeding before so therefore you must have been this time. Is that fair? I know this is a very high level approach but there is a distinct similarity. I leave you to ponder on that..

Oh and loverboy have a look at this ebpage:
http://www.solent.ac
.uk/courses/undergra
duate/photography_ba
/course_details.aspx
To echofactorfiction, Following this discussion you seem to be one who is most matter of fact about the whole case. You mentioned you were in court every day. I believe it is not possible you were in the public gallery as it has been mentioned by H21 that themself, John Jones and his mother were the only three there each day. I can only conclude from this and your comments that you may well have been one of the 'two'. If this is the case then I would think a lot of people would like to thank you for the level headed response you took towards the case and the conclusion you came up with. I'm sure there would be many more with the oppposite reaction, as demonstrated with the above comments. All: This quite clearly was a truly tragic accident and for a judge to sum up by saying Mr Lee intentionally harmed Mr Jones is surely absurd. I am pretty certain that if that was the case he would have punched or kicked or similar but none of that took place. Mr Lee was doing his job, removing an obnoxious drunk man who he didnt know, that was larger than him and possibly stronger (which he wouldn't have known until restraint had taken place) from a club as he was acting in an unproper manner towards at least one other person in the club, using a legal hold after attempting a different legal hold which John Jones broke free from. That is fact. What then followed is truly truly unfortunate and I do not believe Mr Lee would wish that sort of injury on anyone, especially someone he hasn't met before. People should take note that Mr Jones was being aggressive and the fact he broke free from one restraint indicates a certain level of agression. echofactorfiction mentions about John Jones kicking out, if this was a contributing factor to the fall then this should be taken into consideration when coming to a conclusion where reasonable force was applied. Once again the daily echo has managed to whip up a level of hatred towards an individual or group of individuals by how and what it reports. Why doesn't it report all the facts rather than just snippets is beyond me, but then again maybe it wouldn't make as good reading for the narrow minded people that must frequent this site. Surely the balanced argument would me much more in the public's interest. From reading the articles published by the echo and the comments made that the majority of this case was built upon 'bad character'. Let make up another example, you've been caught for speeding 3 years ago. Today you hit a pedestrian who claims you must have been speeding. Because you were speeding 3 years ago does that mean you still speed and your were speeding at the time for the collision? A jury, after seeing horrific injuries to the pedestrian, find you guilty after the majority of the case is built upon the fact you been speeding before so therefore you must have been this time. Is that fair? I know this is a very high level approach but there is a distinct similarity. I leave you to ponder on that.. Oh and loverboy have a look at this ebpage: http://www.solent.ac .uk/courses/undergra duate/photography_ba /course_details.aspx hidingmyname
  • Score: 0

10:29pm Sat 18 Jul 09

what's the point of this discussion? says...

Stubs

Do you have anything of any value to say?

I have asked the Daily Echo to delete your comment to no avail.

Can someone from the Daily Mail advise; are comments implying that male rape is an acceptable and deserved punishment, now acceptable to be published on a (supposedly) moderated site?
Stubs Do you have anything of any value to say? I have asked the Daily Echo to delete your comment to no avail. Can someone from the Daily Mail advise; are comments implying that male rape is an acceptable and deserved punishment, now acceptable to be published on a (supposedly) moderated site? what's the point of this discussion?
  • Score: 0

10:52pm Sat 18 Jul 09

Stubs says...

Dont pick the soap up.
Dont pick the soap up. Stubs
  • Score: 0

10:52pm Sat 18 Jul 09

Stubs says...

Dont pick the soap up.
Dont pick the soap up. Stubs
  • Score: 0

3:57am Sun 19 Jul 09

dannyep says...

loverboy wrote:
echofactorfiction? wrote:
loverboy wrote:
echofactorfiction? wrote:
loverboy wrote:
echofactorfiction? wrote:
loverboy wrote:
echofactorfiction? wrote:
loverboy wrote:
echofactorfiction? wrote:
freemantlegirl2 wrote: hmm this hasn't been sent from a certain prison has it?? the fact that door staff aren't permitted to use full-Nelson's should be enough for him to know that in carrying out his job, which is under licence, that he should not have used it, end of. Having footage of yourself slapping a woman and other thuggery is frankly bizarre! He got found guilty, he's ruined someone's life. He can come out after two years on good behaviour and return to his! Drunk yes, deserving of being crippled by some over-active thug who thinks that it was appropriate - I don't think so! btw, paramedics NEVER put anyone in wheelchairs (they use a special chair that supports the body or a body board/stretcher... so I don't know where you've got that one from either!
I appreciate you may only be working with what you have been fed by the newspapers but your facts are just wrong. Two points that came out in court undisputed was that Jones was taken away in a wheel chair with no neck support (just paramedic supporting). Secondly as stated by the head of the company that provides training for the SIA (the governing body) they do not provide any training in holds / retraints or physically intervention. He also went on to say how he felt this was a big issue and would have included it if SIA has approved it. The full nelson nor any other hold is illegal. Just check your facts before talking rubbish.
Well H21, who claims to have been the only one who sat through the trial alongside the victims family says different, including the wheelchair business. Maybe it's you who's going by the media, and your friends word. The posters on here have merely been saying Lee should have got longer, he was found guilty in a fair trial and that he was overly aggressive, and maybe tellingly, on somebody who wasn't exactly threatening.
Are you actually reading before commenting? H21 also says that Jones was carried out in a wheel chair. If you review my comments they are all based around the same points which is the way people are only told certain information to portray a bad image and to be made to look bad. The only reason I bother to comment here is in the distant hope that some of you realise that the picture being painted is not accurate both in Court and in the papers, well and in fact on here also. Unless im mistaken I have not justified anyones actions.
I have not said you are justifying anyones actions. H21 got quite defensive when the wheelchair isssue was raised, coming out with something along the lines of they didn't know what the thing was called and it may have been what they're supposed to use. The Echo is not known for it's accurate reporting, more distorted than most papers in fact. The picture painted to me is that a doorman over-reacted, a man was seriously injured and the doorman paid the price for that in a court of law. Out of interest, did Lee wear his glasses throughout the trial, maybe if he's been wearing them on the night he may not have misread the situation.
To answer your question yes Lee did where glasses throughout, i get the comment about wearing glasses on the night is it supposed to be funny? Even you must realise that he would not be able to wear glasses in such a job. This notion that by wearing his presciption glasses in court was an act is baffling by that logic should everyone where there work uniform or social clothes when on trial??? Madness.
You can wear glasses when working on the door.
If you say so! I'm not a doorman but have never seen any wearing glasses and would imagine it extremely unwise in a job that may result in a blow to the face or even the risk of them getting knocked off.
You obviously don't get out much.
All too frequently, hopefully some of the people on here who are doorstaff can talk some sense into one of us anyway I may go out "glasses spotting tonight" would be more productive than this.
I know all about doorstaff mate, don't need anyone who is a doorman coming on to tell me the odds. Of course you're more than welcome to come on under a different guise to put me in my place. If someone needs to wear glasses they wear them. But hey, run along, asked a few questions you can't answer Mr Impartiality, by the way, how did you know they were prescription glasses, you never answered.
These are very ropey defences echofactorfiction.
How come other doormen can have 20 years in the business without previous assault convictions. Or have their methods questioned from other experienced doormen who don't feel the need to put their assaults on the internet.
Sure accidents happen, but he was an accident waiting to happen.
[quote][p][bold]loverboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]echofactorfiction?[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loverboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]echofactorfiction?[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loverboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]echofactorfiction?[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loverboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]echofactorfiction?[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loverboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]echofactorfiction?[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freemantlegirl2[/bold] wrote: hmm this hasn't been sent from a certain prison has it?? the fact that door staff aren't permitted to use full-Nelson's should be enough for him to know that in carrying out his job, which is under licence, that he should not have used it, end of. Having footage of yourself slapping a woman and other thuggery is frankly bizarre! He got found guilty, he's ruined someone's life. He can come out after two years on good behaviour and return to his! Drunk yes, deserving of being crippled by some over-active thug who thinks that it was appropriate - I don't think so! btw, paramedics NEVER put anyone in wheelchairs (they use a special chair that supports the body or a body board/stretcher... so I don't know where you've got that one from either![/p][/quote]I appreciate you may only be working with what you have been fed by the newspapers but your facts are just wrong. Two points that came out in court undisputed was that Jones was taken away in a wheel chair with no neck support (just paramedic supporting). Secondly as stated by the head of the company that provides training for the SIA (the governing body) they do not provide any training in holds / retraints or physically intervention. He also went on to say how he felt this was a big issue and would have included it if SIA has approved it. The full nelson nor any other hold is illegal. Just check your facts before talking rubbish.[/p][/quote]Well H21, who claims to have been the only one who sat through the trial alongside the victims family says different, including the wheelchair business. Maybe it's you who's going by the media, and your friends word. The posters on here have merely been saying Lee should have got longer, he was found guilty in a fair trial and that he was overly aggressive, and maybe tellingly, on somebody who wasn't exactly threatening.[/p][/quote]Are you actually reading before commenting? H21 also says that Jones was carried out in a wheel chair. If you review my comments they are all based around the same points which is the way people are only told certain information to portray a bad image and to be made to look bad. The only reason I bother to comment here is in the distant hope that some of you realise that the picture being painted is not accurate both in Court and in the papers, well and in fact on here also. Unless im mistaken I have not justified anyones actions.[/p][/quote]I have not said you are justifying anyones actions. H21 got quite defensive when the wheelchair isssue was raised, coming out with something along the lines of they didn't know what the thing was called and it may have been what they're supposed to use. The Echo is not known for it's accurate reporting, more distorted than most papers in fact. The picture painted to me is that a doorman over-reacted, a man was seriously injured and the doorman paid the price for that in a court of law. Out of interest, did Lee wear his glasses throughout the trial, maybe if he's been wearing them on the night he may not have misread the situation. [/p][/quote]To answer your question yes Lee did where glasses throughout, i get the comment about wearing glasses on the night is it supposed to be funny? Even you must realise that he would not be able to wear glasses in such a job. This notion that by wearing his presciption glasses in court was an act is baffling by that logic should everyone where there work uniform or social clothes when on trial??? Madness.[/p][/quote]You can wear glasses when working on the door.[/p][/quote]If you say so! I'm not a doorman but have never seen any wearing glasses and would imagine it extremely unwise in a job that may result in a blow to the face or even the risk of them getting knocked off. [/p][/quote]You obviously don't get out much.[/p][/quote]All too frequently, hopefully some of the people on here who are doorstaff can talk some sense into one of us anyway I may go out "glasses spotting tonight" would be more productive than this. [/p][/quote]I know all about doorstaff mate, don't need anyone who is a doorman coming on to tell me the odds. Of course you're more than welcome to come on under a different guise to put me in my place. If someone needs to wear glasses they wear them. But hey, run along, asked a few questions you can't answer Mr Impartiality, by the way, how did you know they were prescription glasses, you never answered.[/p][/quote]These are very ropey defences echofactorfiction. How come other doormen can have 20 years in the business without previous assault convictions. Or have their methods questioned from other experienced doormen who don't feel the need to put their assaults on the internet. Sure accidents happen, but he was an accident waiting to happen. dannyep
  • Score: 0

6:28am Sun 19 Jul 09

Big Boy says...

Another thug off of the streets. The judge had a difficult decision to make & I think that he got the sentencing about right.
Another thug off of the streets. The judge had a difficult decision to make & I think that he got the sentencing about right. Big Boy
  • Score: 0

11:50am Sun 19 Jul 09

Salome says...

loverboy wrote:
echofactorfiction? wrote:
loverboy wrote:
echofactorfiction? wrote:
loverboy wrote:
echofactorfiction? wrote:
freemantlegirl2 wrote: hmm this hasn't been sent from a certain prison has it?? the fact that door staff aren't permitted to use full-Nelson's should be enough for him to know that in carrying out his job, which is under licence, that he should not have used it, end of. Having footage of yourself slapping a woman and other thuggery is frankly bizarre! He got found guilty, he's ruined someone's life. He can come out after two years on good behaviour and return to his! Drunk yes, deserving of being crippled by some over-active thug who thinks that it was appropriate - I don't think so! btw, paramedics NEVER put anyone in wheelchairs (they use a special chair that supports the body or a body board/stretcher... so I don't know where you've got that one from either!
I appreciate you may only be working with what you have been fed by the newspapers but your facts are just wrong. Two points that came out in court undisputed was that Jones was taken away in a wheel chair with no neck support (just paramedic supporting). Secondly as stated by the head of the company that provides training for the SIA (the governing body) they do not provide any training in holds / retraints or physically intervention. He also went on to say how he felt this was a big issue and would have included it if SIA has approved it. The full nelson nor any other hold is illegal. Just check your facts before talking rubbish.
Well H21, who claims to have been the only one who sat through the trial alongside the victims family says different, including the wheelchair business. Maybe it's you who's going by the media, and your friends word. The posters on here have merely been saying Lee should have got longer, he was found guilty in a fair trial and that he was overly aggressive, and maybe tellingly, on somebody who wasn't exactly threatening.
Are you actually reading before commenting? H21 also says that Jones was carried out in a wheel chair. If you review my comments they are all based around the same points which is the way people are only told certain information to portray a bad image and to be made to look bad. The only reason I bother to comment here is in the distant hope that some of you realise that the picture being painted is not accurate both in Court and in the papers, well and in fact on here also. Unless im mistaken I have not justified anyones actions.
I have not said you are justifying anyones actions. H21 got quite defensive when the wheelchair isssue was raised, coming out with something along the lines of they didn't know what the thing was called and it may have been what they're supposed to use. The Echo is not known for it's accurate reporting, more distorted than most papers in fact. The picture painted to me is that a doorman over-reacted, a man was seriously injured and the doorman paid the price for that in a court of law. Out of interest, did Lee wear his glasses throughout the trial, maybe if he's been wearing them on the night he may not have misread the situation.
To answer your question yes Lee did where glasses throughout, i get the comment about wearing glasses on the night is it supposed to be funny? Even you must realise that he would not be able to wear glasses in such a job. This notion that by wearing his presciption glasses in court was an act is baffling by that logic should everyone where there work uniform or social clothes when on trial??? Madness.
You can wear glasses when working on the door.
Of course one can wear glasses when working on the door tho it would not be advisable for obvious reasons. If someone were to kick off and the doorman were to get into a brawl he could add more injury to himself if the glasses get broken. I do know Andrew Lee and he wears his prescription contact lenses when working the door. His eyesight or lack thereof was not the issue. It was his judgement call. When you have the circumstance to make a judgement call a lot rides on your shoulders. Andy made a choice that turned out to be a grave mistake. It was not premeditated that is just ludicrous to say. Anyone who ends up injuring a person that results in permanent paralysis does not stand a chance in h*ll of avoiding a jail sentence no matter the circumstances. Nor would it be "popular" to show any neutrality towards the individual let alone any support from those that know Andrew. You all judged him before trial ever started. I am sorry for Mr. Jones. Put yourself or perhaps your brother or son in Andrew´s position. Think of someone you know and care for making this mistake or being in this situation. Would you embrace the hatred they would receive? Understandably show your support and empathy for Mr. Jones but being judgemental and hateful does no one any justice. Andy may have received a fair trial but he definately has not received anything fair in how he has been portrayed in the media. Media are known for exaggeration and sensationalism. Since when has the public suddenly sided with the media? You´re cattle, you believe what you want to justify even more hatefulness and violence. //Still a friend for life for Andrew.
[quote][p][bold]loverboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]echofactorfiction?[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loverboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]echofactorfiction?[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loverboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]echofactorfiction?[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freemantlegirl2[/bold] wrote: hmm this hasn't been sent from a certain prison has it?? the fact that door staff aren't permitted to use full-Nelson's should be enough for him to know that in carrying out his job, which is under licence, that he should not have used it, end of. Having footage of yourself slapping a woman and other thuggery is frankly bizarre! He got found guilty, he's ruined someone's life. He can come out after two years on good behaviour and return to his! Drunk yes, deserving of being crippled by some over-active thug who thinks that it was appropriate - I don't think so! btw, paramedics NEVER put anyone in wheelchairs (they use a special chair that supports the body or a body board/stretcher... so I don't know where you've got that one from either![/p][/quote]I appreciate you may only be working with what you have been fed by the newspapers but your facts are just wrong. Two points that came out in court undisputed was that Jones was taken away in a wheel chair with no neck support (just paramedic supporting). Secondly as stated by the head of the company that provides training for the SIA (the governing body) they do not provide any training in holds / retraints or physically intervention. He also went on to say how he felt this was a big issue and would have included it if SIA has approved it. The full nelson nor any other hold is illegal. Just check your facts before talking rubbish.[/p][/quote]Well H21, who claims to have been the only one who sat through the trial alongside the victims family says different, including the wheelchair business. Maybe it's you who's going by the media, and your friends word. The posters on here have merely been saying Lee should have got longer, he was found guilty in a fair trial and that he was overly aggressive, and maybe tellingly, on somebody who wasn't exactly threatening.[/p][/quote]Are you actually reading before commenting? H21 also says that Jones was carried out in a wheel chair. If you review my comments they are all based around the same points which is the way people are only told certain information to portray a bad image and to be made to look bad. The only reason I bother to comment here is in the distant hope that some of you realise that the picture being painted is not accurate both in Court and in the papers, well and in fact on here also. Unless im mistaken I have not justified anyones actions.[/p][/quote]I have not said you are justifying anyones actions. H21 got quite defensive when the wheelchair isssue was raised, coming out with something along the lines of they didn't know what the thing was called and it may have been what they're supposed to use. The Echo is not known for it's accurate reporting, more distorted than most papers in fact. The picture painted to me is that a doorman over-reacted, a man was seriously injured and the doorman paid the price for that in a court of law. Out of interest, did Lee wear his glasses throughout the trial, maybe if he's been wearing them on the night he may not have misread the situation. [/p][/quote]To answer your question yes Lee did where glasses throughout, i get the comment about wearing glasses on the night is it supposed to be funny? Even you must realise that he would not be able to wear glasses in such a job. This notion that by wearing his presciption glasses in court was an act is baffling by that logic should everyone where there work uniform or social clothes when on trial??? Madness.[/p][/quote]You can wear glasses when working on the door.[/p][/quote]Of course one can wear glasses when working on the door tho it would not be advisable for obvious reasons. If someone were to kick off and the doorman were to get into a brawl he could add more injury to himself if the glasses get broken. I do know Andrew Lee and he wears his prescription contact lenses when working the door. His eyesight or lack thereof was not the issue. It was his judgement call. When you have the circumstance to make a judgement call a lot rides on your shoulders. Andy made a choice that turned out to be a grave mistake. It was not premeditated that is just ludicrous to say. Anyone who ends up injuring a person that results in permanent paralysis does not stand a chance in h*ll of avoiding a jail sentence no matter the circumstances. Nor would it be "popular" to show any neutrality towards the individual let alone any support from those that know Andrew. You all judged him before trial ever started. I am sorry for Mr. Jones. Put yourself or perhaps your brother or son in Andrew´s position. Think of someone you know and care for making this mistake or being in this situation. Would you embrace the hatred they would receive? Understandably show your support and empathy for Mr. Jones but being judgemental and hateful does no one any justice. Andy may have received a fair trial but he definately has not received anything fair in how he has been portrayed in the media. Media are known for exaggeration and sensationalism. Since when has the public suddenly sided with the media? You´re cattle, you believe what you want to justify even more hatefulness and violence. //Still a friend for life for Andrew. Salome
  • Score: 0

12:56pm Sun 19 Jul 09

COOPER PIKEY says...

As a very expierienced doorman id like to make a couple of comments. Our profession is a very hard one, ive been doing the job for 12 years and have NEVER used a full Nelson to remove somebody from a club or pub, its possibly the most dangerous move you could ever put on a customer. Ive been involved in many situations that have been caught on CCTV. Would never dream of bigging myself up by editing them to put on You Tube.

As he has put his Heroics" up for all to see lets go through them. One. he lulls a punter into a false sense, sucking him in then punching him when not expected. Two, slapping a woman, NEVER EVER is this acceptable, i dont care what she did. Third, a sly elbow to the face, but only when a fellow doorman comes in and holds the guy. There isnt one of a mob of lads kicking off and him defending the club for all his worth. Why? Because he COULDNT do that. He is a bully and a no mark. The worst type of Doorman, little man with something to prove.

Anyone who thinks they can defend this fool is deluded. Good riddance to bad rubbish, Southampton clubs are much safer without you
As a very expierienced doorman id like to make a couple of comments. Our profession is a very hard one, ive been doing the job for 12 years and have NEVER used a full Nelson to remove somebody from a club or pub, its possibly the most dangerous move you could ever put on a customer. Ive been involved in many situations that have been caught on CCTV. Would never dream of bigging myself up by editing them to put on You Tube. As he has put his Heroics" up for all to see lets go through them. One. he lulls a punter into a false sense, sucking him in then punching him when not expected. Two, slapping a woman, NEVER EVER is this acceptable, i dont care what she did. Third, a sly elbow to the face, but only when a fellow doorman comes in and holds the guy. There isnt one of a mob of lads kicking off and him defending the club for all his worth. Why? Because he COULDNT do that. He is a bully and a no mark. The worst type of Doorman, little man with something to prove. Anyone who thinks they can defend this fool is deluded. Good riddance to bad rubbish, Southampton clubs are much safer without you COOPER PIKEY
  • Score: 0

12:59pm Sun 19 Jul 09

KA says...

Reading all these comments has made me re think things a bit, yes i don't think andrew intended things to turn out as they did no one would, but at the same time his reaction to the situation has ruined johns life... if he were my son i would obviously stand by him at the same time if john were my son.. i would want him to pay for what he did, i agree i have only read what was reported as i was not at the trial its understandable that people who know andy are going to stand up for him, at the end of the day john will need care 24/7 Andy has gone to prison justice has been done.
Reading all these comments has made me re think things a bit, yes i don't think andrew intended things to turn out as they did no one would, but at the same time his reaction to the situation has ruined johns life... if he were my son i would obviously stand by him at the same time if john were my son.. i would want him to pay for what he did, i agree i have only read what was reported as i was not at the trial its understandable that people who know andy are going to stand up for him, at the end of the day john will need care 24/7 Andy has gone to prison justice has been done. KA
  • Score: 0

7:31pm Sun 19 Jul 09

King Mush says...

"If he had such a poor repution why did so many of his work colleagues turn up in court day in day out? That is in addition to the numerous doorstaff that gave evidence in his favour throughout the trial. If this reputation was so poor how would he continue to get work?"

Birds of a feather.

Maybe this guy should have joined the army and channelled his aggression into front line combat out in Afghanistan with REAL hard men.

Much more use than posing on club doors for a few quid.

I'm not really sure of the actual breakdown figure that differentiates between decent bouncers and those that use it an excuse for their own aggressive behaviour.



Likewise - a number of them do deal in criminal activity away from these venues - the drugdealing also goes hand in hand (literally) when the dealers go swanning into certain places.


They are often a necessary evil as somebody needs to monitor the behaviour of drunken tw@ts whose night out has to wind up with altercations.

Lee's actions as far as posting his brave 'fight' with a drunk onto a social networking site merely indicate 'happy slapping' of the worst level.

Dont be fooled by the court steps photo- suit, glasses, hair etc.


Par for the course

"If he had such a poor repution why did so many of his work colleagues turn up in court day in day out? That is in addition to the numerous doorstaff that gave evidence in his favour throughout the trial. If this reputation was so poor how would he continue to get work?" Birds of a feather. Maybe this guy should have joined the army and channelled his aggression into front line combat out in Afghanistan with REAL hard men. Much more use than posing on club doors for a few quid. I'm not really sure of the actual breakdown figure that differentiates between decent bouncers and those that use it an excuse for their own aggressive behaviour. Likewise - a number of them do deal in criminal activity away from these venues - the drugdealing also goes hand in hand (literally) when the dealers go swanning into certain places. They are often a necessary evil as somebody needs to monitor the behaviour of drunken tw@ts whose night out has to wind up with altercations. Lee's actions as far as posting his brave 'fight' with a drunk onto a social networking site merely indicate 'happy slapping' of the worst level. Dont be fooled by the court steps photo- suit, glasses, hair etc. Par for the course King Mush
  • Score: 0

3:47pm Mon 20 Jul 09

Dan Kerins says...

I am the web journalist for the Daily Echo.

In response to accusations of one-sided reporting of the trial - this is not something we would be able - nor wish - to do.

Court reports, under law, must be matter-of-fact accounts of what is said in open court.

To imply, twist or skew anything said during the trial, would leave the reporter concerned (and the newspaper as a whole) open to a contempt of court prosecution. All the reports from the trial have been linked to under the "Related Links" section on this story. These will debunk a lot of the rumours that appear to have started in this thread.

Unlike those, this particular article is primarily an interview with John Jones and his family, and not a direct report of court proceedings. This is why it is about the impact the incident has had on him on his family.

We also wish to remind posters that accusations made by on articles are open to legal action if they are considered to be defamatory. As such, any accusations against people involved in the trial should not be made unless explicitly mentioned in court.

Posting under a pseudonym does not protect anyone from legal action as a result of posting defamatory material.
I am the web journalist for the Daily Echo. In response to accusations of one-sided reporting of the trial - this is not something we would be able - nor wish - to do. Court reports, under law, must be matter-of-fact accounts of what is said in open court. To imply, twist or skew anything said during the trial, would leave the reporter concerned (and the newspaper as a whole) open to a contempt of court prosecution. All the reports from the trial have been linked to under the "Related Links" section on this story. These will debunk a lot of the rumours that appear to have started in this thread. Unlike those, this particular article is primarily an interview with John Jones and his family, and not a direct report of court proceedings. This is why it is about the impact the incident has had on him on his family. We also wish to remind posters that accusations made by on articles are open to legal action if they are considered to be defamatory. As such, any accusations against people involved in the trial should not be made unless explicitly mentioned in court. Posting under a pseudonym does not protect anyone from legal action as a result of posting defamatory material. Dan Kerins
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree