Police want banning orders even if your not nicked

[Brighton1]

To be fair if you get caught the ob should probably have a word with you for that. Contrary to what I said on the other thread when I thought the bottle was empty, chucking a full bottle of coke has police caution written all over it.

As for banning people without being nicked, we did this a couple of years ago. It's pretty low because they can do it with very little evidence, if they have evidence of wrongdoing then make it a criminal matter and pursue it through the courts. If not just leave people alone. It's a dangerous road to walk when police can go after people just because they don't like them.

The ob really messed up the palace game. My boy asked a policeman after the final whistle "what you doing with the palace fans?" the reply was "were keeping them in for 20 mins" we then proceeded out of the west stand thinking all would be well but we ended up in the middle of about 25 mouthy palace fans singing "Brighton take it up the bum etc". Is it ok for the ob to lie? It's niave to think the two sets of supporters can mix trouble free imo as both clubs have a small element of trouble makers. Another incident involved a friend of mine for 25 years who is Albion through and through NOT a trouble maker at all, he asked a copper "why did you let them out with us?" the reply was fuckoff otherwise you'll be nicked! Tho ob lost it, simple! I think they are trying to ban innocent people to make themselves look better. I bet quite a few of the people arrested were first time offenders, and the reason for this is that many "non hooligans" were confronted by palace fans and had no option other than to defend themselves.....This means that NON Albion hooligans will receive banning orders and treated like criminals because of police incompetence. I hope they have learnt from that game and hopefully we won't see anymore scenes like that at the Amex.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

That's not a banning order though, for the purposes of this thread we need to be clear on the difference and the terminology.

The club can ban you from the Amex whenever they like, because they own it and run it. It's the same as me choosing who I allow into my house.

A banning order is a removal of your civil liberties by a Magistrate. You will not be allowed to be in certain areas where a football match is being played and will have to hand your passport in at the police station when England are playing, it has a serious affect on peoples lives. Non compliance with a banning order then becomes a criminal matter.

There's a massive difference.

This is from the Home Office website.

Football banning orders

Football banning orders are a preventative measure designed to stop potential troublemakers from travelling to football matches - both at home and abroad.

Of the millions of fans who annually attend football games, only a very small minority actually cause problems. But those that do are a threat to public safety and to our reputation overseas, so we are committed to stopping this behaviour.
How they work

Banning orders are issued by the courts following a conviction of a football-related offence, or after a complaint by the Crown Prosecution Service or a local police force. For an order to be issued, it must be proved that the accused person has caused or contributed to football-related violence or disorder and that an order will prevent them from misbehaving further.

Orders are not imposed on people solely on the basis of minor convictions such as alcohol offences, or similar misdemeanours.

They can last between three and ten years and can be customised to address individual behaviour patterns. Breach of an order is a criminal offence and is punishable by a maximum sentence of six months in prison (however this is extremely rare).

 

[One4the.road]

Now the club have 18000 season ticket holders and a waiting list I guess they will do as they please now . But being outside a pub singing giving a bit of banter to the palace lot should not warrant a ban but most probably will . Will be a lottery and witch hunt ...

 

[Seagull on the wing]

Anyone who throws a bottle,full or empty should be banned....end of!

 

[Commander]

The ob really messed up the palace game. My boy asked a policeman after the final whistle "what you doing with the palace fans?" the reply was "were keeping them in for 20 mins" we then proceeded out of the west stand thinking all would be well but we ended up in the middle of about 25 mouthy palace fans singing "Brighton take it up the bum etc". Is it ok for the ob to lie? It's niave to think the two sets of supporters can mix trouble free imo as both clubs have a small element of trouble makers. Another incident involved a friend of mine for 25 years who is Albion through and through NOT a trouble maker at all, he asked a copper "why did you let them out with us?" the reply was fuckoff otherwise you'll be nicked! Tho ob lost it, simple! I think they are trying to ban innocent people to make themselves look better. I bet quite a few of the people arrested were first time offenders, and the reason for this is that many "non hooligans" were confronted by palace fans and had no option other than to defend themselves.....This means that NON Albion hooligans will receive banning orders and treated like criminals because of police incompetence.

Completely agree.

I want to know what happens if someone who has no history of trouble is attacked by a Palace fan outside the ground or in the station and hits them back. What happens then? Are they supposed to just stand there and take it or are they allowed to defend themselves?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Completely agree.

I want to know what happens if someone who has no history of trouble is attacked by a Palace fan outside the ground or in the station and hits them back. What happens then? Are they supposed to just stand there and take it or are they allowed to defend themselves?

Hopefully cctv will show who threw the first punch. The stadium and station are covered in cameras.

 

[Commander]

But being outside a pub singing giving a bit of banter to the palace lot should not warrant a ban but most probably will . Will be a lottery and witch hunt ...

If I got banned for that I would stop supporting the Albion. In fact, I think I'd probably stop going to football at all. And move abroad.

 

[happypig]

It is nothing to do with being guilty or innocent! What the Police are talking about has nothing to do with criminal prosecution. In the circumstances you are referring to (prosecution vs defendant) is completely different from a complainant vs respondent. A civil application is completely different. The respondent in these cases is at a massive disadvantage because they get no legal aid to challenge the complaint, which for a lot of people is too much.

The rules on legal aid have changed and for a lot of criminal matters, many people will not be entitled to it either.
However, to answer your point, I agree, it is unfair that the complainant can often win due to having a better presented case.
One point to remember though, is that criminal cases have to be proved "beyond reasonable doubt" .
For civil cases it is "balance of probability", a much less stern test.
A simple example is you see the kid next door throwing a cricket ball at your garage door every day. One day you come home and a window has been broken by a cricket ball. Without supporting evidence, he couldn't be prosecuted for criminal damage but you might well win a civil case.

 

[Commander]

Hopefully cctv will show who threw the first punch. The stadium and station are covered in cameras.

You would hope so but I doubt it, I think the police / club would just take the easy way out and ban anyone involved.

 

[Billy the Fish]

Hopefully cctv will show who threw the first punch. The stadium and station are covered in cameras.

They won't need cctv to push this through. As Keyser Soze says, it's a civil matter and the rules are different.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

They won't need cctv to push this through. As Keyser Soze says, it's a civil matter and the rules are different.

I agree, but I was talking about getting convictions in court.

 

[Keyser Söze]

The rules on legal aid have changed and for a lot of criminal matters, many people will not be entitled to it either.
However, to answer your point, I agree, it is unfair that the complainant can often win due to having a better presented case.
One point to remember though, is that criminal cases have to be proved "beyond reasonable doubt" .
For civil cases it is "balance of probability", a much less stern test.
A simple example is you see the kid next door throwing a cricket ball at your garage door every day. One day you come home and a window has been broken by a cricket ball. Without supporting evidence, he couldn't be prosecuted for criminal damage but you might well win a civil case.

Got no issue with the proper way of doing things. Commit a crime get punished. If it's at football then an FBO is obvious.

For the civil cases the system stinks beyond belief. Legally you are not allowed to be actually punished in a civil court, but being banned from football PLUS massive restrictions on your liberty is a punishment whichever way you look at it. People on here will say things like 'yeah the wanker probably deserved it' - in most cases probably true. But even one person banned unfairly is too many in my opinion.

 

[Keyser Söze]

I agree, but I was talking about getting convictions in court.

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.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

The ob really messed up the palace game. My boy asked a policeman after the final whistle "what you doing with the palace fans?" the reply was "were keeping them in for 20 mins" we then proceeded out of the west stand thinking all would be well but we ended up in the middle of about 25 mouthy palace fans singing "Brighton take it up the bum etc". Is it ok for the ob to lie?

The mistake that you are making is to assume that every police officer on duty is in possession of up to the minute information about operational strategies. They aren't. When they are out in force, they certainly aren't. They have a specific job to do and that is what they will do, up until the moment that a different instruction is given.

At the Palace game, "keeping them in for 20 mins" was never more than a rumour.

 

[Prettyboyshaw]

Is this the police in general after the weekends antics with Aresenal Spurs and Everton?

If its about the Palace game, surely its done and dusted, it was hardly a riot and aren't there resources stretched enough without having to track down the phantom coke bottle chuckers.

 

[One4the.road]

If we know of someone getting a banning order we all feel is not correct maybe as fans we should stick together and in some way fight this . The club would not be were they are today with out us .

 

[Phat Baz 68]

What a ridiculous and mental idea !!!!!!!!
So what would you, or could you possibly be banned for then ?
Insulting the other teams players , sticking your fingers up at away fans, giving it large about away teams, bit of pushing and shoving etc etc.
Im afraid Brighton would end up a very empty stadium indeed as 3/4 of the West Stand would be banned and the whole of the North for sure.
What an utter load of complete drivel !!!!

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

How can the police push for a banning order if you've not been charged with anything?

The club could choose to ban you but then surely that would only Albion affect home games?

The police will simply ask the club to ban them from the AMEX. I doubt it will hold sway across the nation 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.

 

[perseus]

Neighbourhood Watch

A football ground is like a public house. The onus is on allowing people in unless they cause disruption or act in a way the management think doesn't fit in with decent behaviour. Yellow or red card system might work.

Not being maliciously grassed up my false rumours etc. by a snide. They hanged the wrong man, again!

 

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

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.

Me neither, although I assume that BHA wouldn't sell the individual an away ticket and would also advise away clubs that they have been banned from the Amex.