MOUTH - The latest

[The Great Cornholio]

When did everyone turn against homophobic chanting? I remember several episodes of the phone in with Harty where they discussed the homophobic abuse from away fans, and most people, including Harty, dismissed it as simply banter, nothing to worry about, completely different to racist abuse.

And a quick search bring up this:
Homophobic Chanting - North Stand Chat

The majority on here also appear to be in support of standing and swearing which are against the rules as well. You can't pick and choose which rules you enforce. (Actually, it appears that you can.)

 

[Richy_Seagull]

Agree with this entirely.

I love the club and desperately want to LIKE everything about them too, but it is unignorable that the stewarding has, for quite some time, been a disgrace.

The jobsworthiness displayed in all its inglorious pomp every single home game is not only highly irritating and disgusting for what it is, but is also an unsavoury and highly annoying distraction when watching the game (well, TRYING TO!).

I appreciate the extremely unpopular and outdated rule on no-standing is required to be adhered to but common sense and good initiative are required, skills that few of the stewards seem to possess even a notion of...and it seems, Richard Hebbard too, perhaps?

The game is already too sanitised as it is, without suffocatingly 'by-the-book authority figures' ruining mine and others enjoyment of what is, after all, supposed to be a leisure time pleasure!

The same can be said of cases such as the much discussed incident here re: 'Mouth'. Swearing is technically forbidden but I suspect we'll be turning out to Falmer crowds of approximately 6,000 vs Man Utd in the PL (should we get there, of course) if this rule were to be consistently enforced to the letter....everyone else would be banned! Don't get me wrong, I abhor casually EXCESSIVE AND AGGRESSIVE, persistent swearing that is disproportionate to the moment, but what appears to have transpired Saturday last - and in mnay other cases besides - is a whole different animal.

The issue of customer relations (replies to e-mails / complaints etc) is a far greater one than I suspect Paul (Insider) realises, from his suggestion that only a small minority of instances exist (and are subsequently highlighted).

I have several Albion-supporting friends who have had no reply at all to perfectly sensible and reasonable enquiries or complaints. I have heard of many, many more via this and other forums and through hearing titbits of other people's conversations.

Dismiss the harsh reality if you must, Paul, but the club's policy of replying to all reasonable communications from fans is failing miserably!

Finally, I'd like to add my support to the notion mentioned several times elsewhere on this thread that there is a gross hypocracy with regard to the sensoring of home fans (and smaller away followings) at Withdean compared to that of larger away crowds....it was EXTREMELY ANNOYING to witness a handful of harmless home fans being harassed....and yes that is the right word to describe it...while hundreds of Millwall and Leeds fans respectively abused those same rules by standing, swearing, homophobically abusing and gesturing in a way that would have commanded a significant ban should one of our own (patronised and intimidated) supporters done the same.

It's only surprising that this extra frustration caused hasn't inspired greater unrest from our fans given the provocative nature of the situation.

I sincerely hope these perfectly reasonable gripes highlighted throughout this thread and others, lead to some significant and swift action. The stewards have started to really push some fans too far and as you will have read here, some have already stopped attending Withdean...two or three of my friends included.

Absolutely, 100% spot on.

I too, know of two people who don't go to Withdean because they feel the stewards have destroyed any atmosphere there once was. (Neither have ever been chucked out of any matches etc)

The sooner the club realises this the better. I sent an email at the end of last season re the stewarding inconsistencies, not heard a word since.

 

[KneeOn]

Having sat in the Family Stand, blocks A, C, H, J E and F. I've come to learn that

1) The family stand stewards are mostly fans of the club.
2) The south stand is way over criminalized just by showing up.
3) Stewards are largely age-discriminative
Example: Block A, seat 1 row... E i think.
Carsile home two years ago. No one was there. I leaned against my chair in a semi standing/sitting thing watching the game. A steward (female) comes up, tells me if I don't sit down now, i'll be kicked out and banned. I was 15. Looking up the top of the A, a few seats in from me, a man was standing. Did she go and talk to him? Did she talk to him? No. No one did
Example 2: Block C, Row D, seat 76 v Charlton at Home
Most people around me were swearing. But me and my mate (both 16 at the time) were called down at half time AND full time, told to sit down, shut up or we'll be ejected. No one else was spoken to. including the guy infront and too our right a few rows, who swore louder, and more frequently than us.

Maybe its just me and my bad luck but imo stewards are far more willing to tell kids off than adults.

 

[Acker79]

The majority on here also appear to be in support of standing and swearing which are against the rules as well. You can't pick and choose which rules you enforce. (Actually, it appears that you can.)

I can't tell if that's meant to be some sort of dig at me or not.

 

[NMH]

He was asking your opinion on it seeing as you seem to be so free with your opinions on everything else steward-related. I think it's a fair question.

Having read this thread from start to your (inevitable) defence, I'd say that the sheer numbers of people and diversity of posters would suggest that sneering and moving on is not an option. These stewards are making themselves the main characters in a play that most fans are unhappy with. There is clearly something wrong. It's not being precious and it's you that sounds somewhat sneering.

I would also point out that We don't get this in the family stand, by the sounds of it the north stand don't either. Nice to see that in a world of change you still defend the stewards no matter what the subject, no matter who complains. And no matter whether you were actually there or not to witness it. Just saying, like.

Funny, maybe my ears WERE playing tricks on me when I was AT THE BACK OF THE NORTH STAND and heard loud swearing coming from the other side of the stadium! What an odd COINCIDENCE that one person was later spoken to for antisocial behavior then.

Sure pooty, I wasn't there, no idea what was going on as stewards don't communicate even though there are radios and organization inside the ground

Tell me, what ARE you taking for that?

The fans will find when attending matches, that fans may be spoken to according to their behavior. In the family stand there may be children running around or climbing over seats etc. They may be spoken to according to this behavior. If anyone is using bad language there, it's important to have them stop too.
In the North Stand I myself have spoken to the occasional person about language and behavior. We DO "get this" in those stands, and we DO attend to it ....so there.

If you have to WONDER why a person (named "MOUTH" ) shouting obscenities that can be heard all the way across the stadium has been sequestered regarding that behavior - then I suggest you think about this language for the Family Stand and for the North Stand, and...basically all areas INCLUDING the pub and people who live outside the ground!!

 

[KneeOn]

Funny, maybe my ears WERE playing tricks on me when I was AT THE BACK OF THE NORTH STAND and heard loud swearing coming from the other side of the stadium! What an odd COINCIDENCE that one person was later spoken to for antisocial behavior then.

Sure pooty, I wasn't there, no idea what was going on as stewards don't communicate even though there are radios and organization inside the ground

Tell me, what ARE you taking for that?

Yes. Because, out of 6000 people. This one guy sitting in another stand to you was defiantly swearing, regardless of what people sitting next to him have said. Lets all bow down to the sonic hearing NMH possesses and listen to him because with his superb vantage point from the North Stand he could single out the source of loud swearing with military precision to a seat, a single person out of 6,000.

But we won't mention the fact the players, the managers and assistants, and the rest of the stand could equally be responsible and its just noise carrying over.

 

[The Great Cornholio]

I can't tell if that's meant to be some sort of dig at me or not.

Simply pointing out that just because a load of straight men on an internet forum think that homophobic chants are "banter" doesn't mean that stewards shouldn't act when away supporters start such chants. The same as when the majority on here think standing is OK, the stewards occasionally act upon this rule.

 

[Acker79]

Simply pointing out that just because a load of straight men on an internet forum think that homophobic chants are "banter" doesn't mean that stewards shouldn't act when away supporters start such chants. The same as when the majority on here think standing is OK, the stewards occasionally act upon this rule.

Ah. 'K.

I was just noting how people, straight and gay, had no issue with it before, now they do seem to.

 

[smiler]

Is 'The Mouth' the chap who can be seen vociferously debating the first half display during half time down by the South Stand toilets on occasion?

I sit at the back of E Block and can't work out the bloke is.

Yes that's him

 

[bhaexpress]

I f***ing swore at some issues so come and find me but be prepared for retribution. It's a football match not a Darby and Joan club.

 

[NMH]

Yes. Because, out of 6000 people. This one guy sitting in another stand to you was defiantly swearing, regardless of what people sitting next to him have said. Lets all bow down to the sonic hearing NMH possesses and listen to him because with his superb vantage point from the North Stand he could single out the source of loud swearing with military precision to a seat, a single person out of 6,000.

But we won't mention the fact the players, the managers and assistants, and the rest of the stand could equally be responsible and its just noise carrying over.

Can you read?
Read my post again then, because nowhere did I say "I saw 'MOUTH' shouting the obscenities that I clearly heard across the ground".

Now, SOMEONE was swearing at volume. That I know I could hear. One person was deemed guilty by the stewards working on that side of the ground, in a certain area.
So then, why don't you blame the person who REALLY did the swearing, and why was he not pointed out? People keep going on about 'MOUTH's apparent innocence, but oddly no-one from the South Stand has pointed out that they heard the language and where it 'really' came from!

I think, until the true culprit is found - someone undoubtedly with a similarly colourful nickname (of course it's pure coincidence that the person singled out by trained staff is called 'MOUTH', and surely there must be several other body parts used for nicknames at Withdean) - then I'm afraid this tragic injustice will drag on for two whole home games.

<sigh>, well until then, here's a nice tune about false imprisonment. Change the subject name to 'MOUTH' if you feel you should. Perhaps we can get Dylan to open Amex Stad with the new version;

[yt]pWrHrRDQu7w[/yt]

 

[mona]

It's scandalous and shameful that a loyal fan like Steve has been banned. Somebody who has followed the club from the Goldstone to Gillingham and then to Withdean and is in no way a trouble maker (although his half-time rants are sometimes worth avoiding!) should be treated with more respect.

 

[Withdean Wanderer]

Total Shambles. It's a shame the stewards have little common sense.

I don't understand why they don't rotate the stewards in each area, thus avoiding particular stewards "targeting" particular supporters.

They do seem to have a problem of picking on people who have done relatively little wrong.

The H Block issue is slightly different as it's standing, rather than shouting, that's usually the problem. But last week the stewards demanded the fans sit down when we got a corner. Now, I'm not sure there's a ground in the football league where fans all remain seated to watch a corner kick. Again - show some common sense.

If someone's shouting loud and abusive - have a quiet, polite word for them to drop it. Don't sent 10 ridiculously overdressed stewards into the stand to ban a person, particularly when the stewards have annoyed half the people already by "staring out" the block. Ridiculous.

 

[NMH]

I'm sure there are Millwall thugs who went to every match - maybe they should be allowed to tolchock just the occasional person, I mean what harm does one act do just once in a while? It's just letting off steam after all.

Just fyi - even the most loyal fan isn't allowed to use bad language.

 

[Horton's halftime iceberg]

It looks like what is being discussed a lot here is whether one side is right and one wrong.

NMH I think is saying he does not know Mouth and states that if trained staff have identified someone breaking the 'rules', then it must be right. In my experience of fans like Mouth and Krispies they are passionate fans and in all the years I have seen them at home and away grounds they have never been offensive or badly behavied.

What is drawn from this is that its either possible for fans to perhaps be loud and then become an easy target (or made an example of) or for trained stewards to also take the rules too far.

What is not answered here is how the balance of power falls, it seems all to easy for a steward or police persons word to count but no voice from the fans side.

How can decisons like this be appealed, and what evidence is used to review any claim of wrong doing. I am happy with the police and stewards dealing with racist abuse and anyone making serious trouble but the length and breath of this thread looks like a bad decision has been made and the club/stewards/police have no way of rectifying a wrong.

 

[Beach Hut]

It looks like what is being discussed a lot here is whether one side is right and one wrong.

NMH I think is saying he does not know Mouth and states that if trained staff have identified someone breaking the 'rules', then it must be right. In my experience of fans like Mouth and Krispies they are passionate fans and in all the years I have seen them at home and away grounds they have never been offensive or badly behavied.

What is drawn from this is that its either possible for fans to perhaps be loud and then become an easy target (or made an example of) or for trained stewards to also take the rules too far.

What is not answered here is how the balance of power falls, it seems all to easy for a steward or police persons word to count but no voice from the fans side.

How can decisons like this be appealed, and what evidence is used to review any claim of wrong doing. I am happy with the police and stewards dealing with racist abuse and anyone making serious trouble but the length and breath of this thread looks like a bad decision has been made and the club/stewards/police have no way of rectifying a wrong.

Exactly, no right of appeal - surprised the Argus has not picked up on this and investigated.

 

[KneeOn]

Can you read?
Read my post again then, because nowhere did I say "I saw 'MOUTH' shouting the obscenities that I clearly heard across the ground".

Now, SOMEONE was swearing at volume. That I know I could hear. One person was deemed guilty by the stewards working on that side of the ground, in a certain area.
So then, why don't you blame the person who REALLY did the swearing, and why was he not pointed out? People keep going on about 'MOUTH's apparent innocence, but oddly no-one from the South Stand has pointed out that they heard the language and where it 'really' came from!

I think, until the true culprit is found - someone undoubtedly with a similarly colourful nickname (of course it's pure coincidence that the person singled out by trained staff is called 'MOUTH', and surely there must be several other body parts used for nicknames at Withdean) - then I'm afraid this tragic injustice will drag on for two whole home games.

<sigh>, well until then, here's a nice tune about false imprisonment. Change the subject name to 'MOUTH' if you feel you should. Perhaps we can get Dylan to open Amex Stad with the new version;

[yt]pWrHrRDQu7w[/yt]

Can i ask you the same sarcastic question back? Can you read?

Some one sitting BEHIND Mouth said he was NOT SWEARING

To sum up. Behind. Mouth. Said. No. Swearing.

Even when the police were having a party by the mobile shop just outside the South Stand, people were standing there, who looked like they didn't know Mouth saying he wasn't swearing.

A person being deemed guilty by the response stewards means f*** all.

Are you a steward by any chance? A response one or a safety? Orange coated safety stewards are fine, its the response stewards who get kicks from acting like they're about to be sent into Afghan when they storm up Withdean's steps on the South Stand, to tell off an idividual fan for swearing when he DIDN'T or to intimidate and tell off a group of kids.

Stop just sticking up for your own kind. Rules are rules but common sense and bringing them back down to earth with a hard bump is needed here. Response aren't police. Or Para's. Or SAS. Or anything other than stewards.

Is that understandable? Or do we need to dumb it down for Withdeans finest some more?

 

[Horton's halftime iceberg]

Can i ask you the same sarcastic question back? Can you read?

Some one sitting BEHIND Mouth said he was NOT SWEARING

To sum up. Behind. Mouth. Said. No. Swearing.

Even when the police were having a party by the mobile shop just outside the South Stand, people were standing there, who looked like they didn't know Mouth saying he wasn't swearing.

A person being deemed guilty by the response stewards means f*** all.

Are you a steward by any chance? A response one or a safety? Orange coated safety stewards are fine, its the response stewards who get kicks from acting like they're about to be sent into Afghan when they storm up Withdean's steps on the South Stand, to tell off an idividual fan for swearing when he DIDN'T or to intimidate and tell off a group of kids.

Stop just sticking up for your own kind. Rules are rules but common sense and bringing them back down to earth with a hard bump is needed here. Response aren't police. Or Para's. Or SAS. Or anything other than stewards.

Is that understandable? Or do we need to dumb it down for Withdeans finest some more?

Your response could be deamed as polemic as the other.

In the past if someone was loud and offensive you moved around the terrace, I am happy for an area to exsist where people can stand and make noise.

However if I had someone offensive near me I am happy for stewards to ask them to respect the people around them that may not be loud (i.e I do not sit near Mouth and his passion may be seen as some as annoying). We have elderly people around us that cannot see at the end when people stand to see over the (we can see you sneaking out) leaving fans.

Again the point here is, was Mouth or the Stewards taking things too far last Saturday, from reading this I think the stewards take things too far sometimes and should always be looking at ways to difuse situtaion rather than inflate them. If you had some sort of appeal in front of a Judge Judy type at least people would have to try and demonstrate their position and the ruling would be seen as more transparent.

 

[Don Quixote]

I say we all rush the stewards and beat the living shit out of them all.

 

[Captain Haddock]

This may appear a bit random, but is there some comparison with motorway speed limits? The 70mph limit is there for safety reasons, but almost everyone breaks it. This is very rarely a problem for anyone, everyone is still safe. And even if you consistently break the speed limit by going at 75 - 80 mph, you are unlikely to get done. However if you are acting like a total nob on the motorway, you can be pulled up for breaking a very clear rule - the 70mph speed limit.

Why don't the stewards - and, more importantly, the people who are stewarding the stewards (in the ground and nationally) - adopt this approach? Use the rule to remove people who are obviously a safety concern, rather than making an example of people who are breaking the rules, but not in a way that is any way unsafe, like the vast majority of people on the motorway.

Great point, Lush. This is undoubtedly the common sense approach, to my mind.

I also agree with Attila (I think it was he) about allowing more lively support in certain areas....i.e overlook standing in H block west at Withers and North Stand + south end of West / East at The Amex