Police want banning orders even if your not nicked

[Herr Tubthumper]

Yeah but as the title of the threads implies - the Police are talking about banning people without convictions. No one is arguing about FBO's on conviction.

It's not really any different to what occasionally happened at Withers. Folk were banned for a variety of reasons, some of which never went to court I'm sure. Things like persistent standing, persistent swearing etc.

 

[Keyser Söze]

It's not really any different to what occasionally happened at Withers. Folk were banned for a variety of reasons, some of which never went to court I'm sure. Things like persistent standing, persistent swearing etc.

They would have gotten club bans. Be it a week or a lifetime they would just be club bans, which is the same as being barred from a club or pub. They can still travel away and do as they please for home games (apart from attend). From the looks of things the police are planning on using the Palace kerfuffle as an excuse to put actual FBO's on people who haven't been convicted. That means radius restrictions and handing in your passport for England games.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

From the looks of things the police are planning on using the Palace kerfuffle as an excuse to put actual FBO's on people who haven't been convicted. That means radius restrictions and handing in your passport for England games.

The Argus article clearly states this is not the case. The police will simply ask the club to have them banned from the AMEX. No FBOs, no surrendering of passports in fact nothing legal other than a breach of the match day ticket conditions.

 

[Commander]

From the looks of things the police are planning on using the Palace kerfuffle as an excuse to put actual FBO's on people who haven't been convicted. That means radius restrictions and handing in your passport for England games.

Is this actually true though? Where are you getting this from?

 

[Keyser Söze]

Sorry lads I stand corrected. I haven't read th Argus article I was just going by what the OP said. That said - the civils do happen. So stay on your toes everyone. As you were.

 

[southern_sid]

Sorry lads I stand corrected. I haven't read th Argus article I was just going by what the OP said. That said - the civils do happen. So stay on your toes everyone. As you were.

I reckon they will plant a civil on you know who.

 

[Commander]

Where is this Argus article? Link please

 

[southern_sid]

Where is this Argus article? Link please

Did you get nicked fella for defending yourself?

 

[Storer 68]

From a home games point of view I don't see a problem with the police making a request to the Albion that someone should be banned, either temporarily or permanently, for a football related offence, provided that they can supply sufficient evidence to the club, and that there is an appeals process (and in this case I would prefer to see an panel made up from a Supporters Club and the Club). It would be cheaper for the taxpayer and probably be more effective than going through the courts.

and how, in your scenaro above, would you guarantee a fair hearing?? Otherwise it just becomes a "he said, she said" process.

The stadium is private property and admittance is at the owner's behest.

 

[Commander]

Did you get nicked fella for defending yourself?

No. But if someone had hit me, I would have f***ing hit them back, and I don't like the idea of getting banned from football for that.

 

[southern_sid]

No. But if someone had hit me, I would have f***ing hit them back, and I don't like the idea of getting banned from football for that.

Fair point.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

It's not really any different to what occasionally happened at Withers. Folk were banned for a variety of reasons, some of which never went to court I'm sure. Things like persistent standing, persistent swearing etc.

That was a banning by the club not police banning orders which as others have pointed out, have to come from the courts. Is the op saying that the police want to change that and which police force is wanting to change it? Is there a source for this info? I think some posters (me included) have been debating at cross purposes.

 

[Arthur]

The police will simply ask the club to ban them from the AMEX. I doubt it will hold sway across the nation though in the same way a banning order will. The club will clearly look at the evidence and make their own mind up and couple this with the ticket conditions by which you agreed to and must abide by. I cannot see an issue.

That was my point. Brighton couldn't ban me from an away game (although I'm sure they could advise said team to not let me in).

A banning order means you can't attend any regulated game of football which I believe goes down to conference north/south.

Very interesting what KS is saying, especially given all the crap that has appeared on youtube since last Tuesday. Given the minimum term for a banning order these days is 3 years getting a 3 year ban from all football for having a chat to someone outside a pub does seem very harsh!

 

[The Peanut Roaster]

No. But if someone had hit me, I would have f***ing hit them back, and I don't like the idea of getting banned from football for that.

This happened to me a few years back at Fratton station.

Bloke thumped me, so naturally I hit him back, more than once.

Plenty of witnesses on hand to say he started it, but the ob told me because I went ott, rather than just self defence, I'd also committed assault.

We both got a caution for it, without going to court.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Where is this Argus article? Link please

I cannot see it on the Argus site. It will clear up a lot of the nonsense being spouted on here though.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

That was my point. Brighton couldn't ban me from an away game (although I'm sure they could advise said team to not let me in).

No, the couldn't. No one has said they will. And no one has said they'll impose a PBO.

 

[Keyser Söze]

I cannot see it on the Argus site. It will clear up a lot of the nonsense being spouted on here though.

I think it's in the print today. f*** me what has this site come to - relying on the Argus to reach the truth of the matter!

 

[amexee]

Have to chuckle at the idea of the club checking the cctv for individual troublemakers

I look forward to hearing that the leeds fans who attacked staff and the palace who broke seats have been arrested.

NOT HOLDING MY BREATH

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I think it's in the print today. f*** me what has this site come to - relying on the Argus to reach the truth of the matter!

Indeed. It's on page 5.

 

[Champagne charles]

I reckon they will plant a civil on you know who.

lol to go with the one from there missus?