[Albion] Brighton & Hove Albion have issued lifetime bans to [three] supporters...

[Sussex Nomad]

I was once told by an armed response officer that if a person carried a gun they would probably use it in some form at some point so the same must follow with carrying a knife.

Scary. I wonder if it's the same for those carrying water bottle tops. Seriously worrying.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

You’re pretty sensible TB but you’re a bit wide of the mark on this one. The majority of people who threaten to stab someone do not have a knife in these sort of circumstances. It’s mainly bravado.

I'm sure I am, which is why I said I'm being naive. It's a pointless threat. It just doesn't make sense.

 

[The Man from Del Monte]

No.

Yes.

 

[Easy 10]

I'm sure I am, which is why I said I'm being naive. It's a pointless threat. It just doesn't make sense.

A cerebrally-challenged, enraged pissed-up gimp giving it the billy and playing to the crowd is hardly likely to.

 

[perseus]

Good point.

However... if someone threatens to stab me (now, not next Tuesday) he's threatning to stab me. The fact he can't is no more salient than the fact he's a CU next Tusday.

Anyway, life ban and probable prosecution. Appropriate.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_5_Public_Order_Act_1986

Deemed a permanent red card offence now.

 

[wellquickwoody]

It literally says all 3 are season ticket holders and have been cancelled without refund.

Now therein lies my slight discomfort in all this propaganda bollocks. The club can refuse entry to whoever they like, private property etc etc.. But no business can override consumer law, at least without good legally grounded reason, like criminal conviction perhaps. So how can they offer a product, charge in advance for it, refuse to supply it, and then keep the money?

 

[Driver8]

Now therein lies my slight discomfort in all this propaganda bollocks. The club can refuse entry to whoever they like, private property etc etc.. But no business can override consumer law, at least without good legally grounded reason, like criminal conviction perhaps. So how can they offer a product, charge in advance for it, refuse to supply it, and then keep the money?

It will be in the T&Cs I’m sure.

 

[Goldstone1976]

Now therein lies my slight discomfort in all this propaganda bollocks. The club can refuse entry to whoever they like, private property etc etc.. But no business can override consumer law, at least without good legally grounded reason, like criminal conviction perhaps. So how can they offer a product, charge in advance for it, refuse to supply it, and then keep the money?

The club will simply say that the STHs are in breach of contract (which, on the face of the report, they are). The club will then exercise the breach clause of the contract - which is cancellation with no refund. It’s a civil matter; the STHs’ remedy would be to sue for damages &/or restitution of the ST.

Any criminal proceedings would be a matter for the police/CPS, with the club providing evidence/acting as a prosecution witness.

 

[Napper]

odds on Barber introducing crb checks for new season tickets now 9/5

 

[wellquickwoody]

It will be in the T&Cs I’m sure.

T&Cs do not override consumer law.

 

[wellquickwoody]

The club will simply say that the STHs are in breach of contract (which, on the face of the report, they are). The club will then exercise the breach clause of the contract - which is cancellation with no refund. It’s a civil matter; the STHs’ remedy would be to sue for damages &/or restitution of the ST.

Any criminal proceedings would be a matter for the police/CPS, with the club providing evidence/acting as a prosecution witness.

Once again, consumer law is not overridden by a contract. A contract between businesses is outside of the jurisdiction of the law if legal in every other way, a contract between individuals is technically legally binding but almost impossible to enforce. But a transaction between a business and an end user is subject to consumer law, end. But until tested the club can do what they like.

 

[mikeyjh]

I am a bit surprised at P.B.'s choice of words here, "Once again we find ourselves dealing with a number of issues we do not want at this club".

I understand his disappointment, but I think in general, we have pretty few issues for a venue with 30,000 people attending and alcohol on sale, unless I am blissfully unaware of regular trouble. Even if it is a regular occurrence, it doesn't seem good PR to suggest it in the statement.

I find that odd - Brighton is one of the most (probably the most) relaxed stadiums to visit as a guest or away fan, welcoming, friendly and not the least sign of hostility. I find him quite a strange individual.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Once again, consumer law is not overridden by a contract. A contract between businesses is outside of the jurisdiction of the law if legal in every other way, a contract between individuals is technically legally binding but almost impossible to enforce. But a transaction between a business and an end user is subject to consumer law, end. But until tested the club can do what they like.

Well firstly, a contract is not outside the jurisdiction of the law, because it is subject to UK contract law. They're not impossible to enforce either even between individuals because the contract can indicate remedies, whether mediation, adjudication or arbitration prior to either party needing to take court action.

You're right on the club being tested on it's terms and conditions. Good luck to the guy who threatened to stab someone on winning that one. Consumer law will support the club on this one given a criminal act is a breach of contract.

 

[wellquickwoody]

Consumer law will support the club on this one given a criminal act is a breach of contract.

But as yet there is no proof of a criminal act being committed? And at no point have I intimated that a contract is worthless, just that consumer law would be found to be of more legal weight.

Anyway, all semantics for the time being.

 

[dazzer6666]

Jim White show on Talksport about to make a big deal out of this - going to be talking about it shortly (will include a discussion with PB I think)

'What happened at the Amex will blow your mind.......etc' (in typical Jim White self-publicising hyperbole of course).

 

[Goldstone1976]

Once again, consumer law is not overridden by a contract. A contract between businesses is outside of the jurisdiction of the law if legal in every other way, a contract between individuals is technically legally binding but almost impossible to enforce. But a transaction between a business and an end user is subject to consumer law, end. But until tested the club can do what they like.

The CRA 2015 does cover football season tickets since they have unilaterally agreed terms and conditions (ie the punter has no ability to negotiate the terms, they either accept the club’s T&Cs and get a ST, or don’t and don’t). The erstwhile STH will have to prove that the clauses that the club have relied upon to remove the ST are “unfair” terms. Proving unfairness is quite a high bar, but can (and has) been done.

If the club’s report is accurate, I strongly doubt that any claim that the applicant made would succeed! It’d also be expensive.

Anyway, all semantics for the time being.

Yep.

 

[Two Professors]

Hopefully the season tickets being cancelled also prevents them purchasing tickets for away games?

 

[Weststander]

Jim White show on Talksport about to make a big deal out of this - going to be talking about it shortly (will include a discussion with PB I think)

'What happened at the Amex will blow your mind.......etc' (in typical Jim White self-publicising hyperbole of course).

White says that about everything. Berk.

 

[Postman Pat]

Now therein lies my slight discomfort in all this propaganda bollocks. The club can refuse entry to whoever they like, private property etc etc.. But no business can override consumer law, at least without good legally grounded reason, like criminal conviction perhaps. So how can they offer a product, charge in advance for it, refuse to supply it, and then keep the money?

Assuming they pay monthly via DD, and it is the end of the month, may not be anything to refund!

 

[spence]

Assuming they pay monthly via DD, and it is the end of the month, may not be anything to refund!

I knew somebody who received a ban and he simply cancelled his DD.