Exclusion of a fan following incident at Brighton v Crystal Palace 27/09/11 [Merged]

[Lego-Stand]

How do you know this?

Because I was one of a few people that was asked to accompany him to the meeting and review the ABO

 

[rool]

Because I was one of a few people that was asked to accompany him to the meeting and review the ABO

Wow, first hand, can't get better than that.

 

[drew]

Never mind the debates about who did/said what and whether they should have done or not.Of course, assessing the evidence is totally irrelevant to any case!

Surely the crucial issues are that the club is willing and able to take such draconian measures against a loyal fan (or indeed anyone!) purely on the basis of other people's say so and that they don't have any kind of appeals process - and, above all, that they are prepared to ban someone without even bothering to give them an opportunity to state their case.

That's against all the principles of natural justice and is the sort of thing that would give a totalitarian state a bad name. There must be due process and it must be fair - this demonstrates that Albion clearly has none. Instead they make decisions behind closed doors.

You say 'is willing', shouldn't that read 'were willing'? You state that 'Albion clearly has none'. Shouldn't that again read, 'had none'? That is it is accepted the club cocked up but they have taken steps to redress this with the introduction of a temporary exclusion and, whilst I don't know for sure (and to that effect, nobody outside the club does) they will probably be looking at introducing protocols for dealing with situations like this if they arise in the future.

[MENTION=5208]drew[/MENTION]. Eh? So if all else fails resort to insults? Is that the way this board works?

In your vehement defence against something that I'm not actually contending, you seem to be completely missing the point I am actually making. For instance, where did I ever mention anything about CCTV I never specifically said you mentioned cctv I just merely inferred that if you don't accept witness evidence, ie 'other people's say so' then that is the only other means by which to come to a conclusion on someones guilt/innocence, excepting of course for a confession. (p.s. if you're into the niceties of the English language, I think you'll find the majority of style guides suggest that such abbreviations should be capitalised ... see, anyone can attempt to be patronising in their posts, but it's not big and it's not clever - it just makes the author look a bit of a twat.)You're right, it was a good attempt but as you say, the majority suggest etc etc which in effect means there are others that don't!!

The point I am making is, simply, that every club should have a properly defined and documented banning process, which includes defining the level of evidence required before imposing supporter bans, and which includes provisions for appeals, including personal hearings.In an ideal world you are right, everything would be set up and watertight before the gates even opened to the public but like the parking, there is a certain 'suck and see' approach bearing in mind the whole structure of the club and business has changed totally virtually overnight. I suspect that in most cases, the evidence is considerably less contrary and therefore straight forward. As regards your reference to level of evidence required, what sort of things do you mean other than of couse making sure you collect evidence from both sides?

Certainly, the recently-introduced system of temporary bans is a step in the right direction, clearly only been introduced as a result of this case - but there needs to be a proper appeals process within the customer Charter. imposing

Agree with everything in your post. Very, very good..!

Drew is missing the most important issue.........that a supporter was banned without being given a proper opportunity to state his case. He was ignored......as were the witnesses in his defence.

Mr. Hebberds position is untenable in my view.

Sorry, but I have not missed the point. I am well aware that a supporter was banned without a 'fair trial'. The important issue is not what happened but what will happen next time there is a dispute. The club have already made one change with the introduction of the temparary exclusion and may well be looking at something more. If the club had said that they agree to reduce the ban but that they are not changing anything for the future then there would still be a problem however, they have already done something.

The problem with this thread is there are too many people with a vendetta and just want to cause trouble rather than look ahead. However, it is probably reaching a stage where maybe Bozza or someone close to the club could suggest some statement on the official website to clarify matters then we all know where we stand with regards to behaviour and the process of banning. For me, it is relatively straight forward. There are rules regarding behaviour and if you are found to have breached these the club can ban you. I suspect the club will only do so in future once they have heard all the evidence and after that there can only be an appeal if you have new evidence or there is a question mark over the way the process was carried out (ie as in this case).

 

[Husty]

Years of being bullied at school ? self confidence issues ?

could be anything

very good

 

[empire]

Hebberd was shaking like a leaf when the fan went in to sign the Acceptable Behaviour Order , which, by the way looks as though it has been drafted by a 3 year old. He also would not look the chap in the eye. he is an utter disgrace to the club

this,and he wasnt allowed to take it away to digest,it had to be signed at the ground,it stinks to high heaven

 

[cjd]

Sorry, but I have not missed the point.

You can be as sorry as you like.......but you have missed the point.

It is abundantly clear from the report, that Mr. Hebberd was wholly intransigent on this matter throughout. He made a bad and draconian decision based on the flimsy and un-cobborated evidence of an off-duty policeman.....( needless to say of course, but Mr. Hebberds career has been in connection with the police force) .

The ONLY reason that this travesty of justice has come to light, is because the football supporter who was banned, sought the assistance of the football Ombudsman.

At no point until then, despite repeated requests, did Mr. Hebberd have the decency to investigate properly....and above all....FAIRLY.

His position at the club is untenable.

 

[drew]

You can be as sorry as you like.......but you have missed the point.

It is abundantly clear from the report, that Mr. Hebberd was wholly intransigent on this matter throughout. He made a bad and draconian decision based on the flimsy and un-cobborated evidence of an off-duty policeman.....( needless to say of course, but Mr. Hebberds career has been in connection with the police force) .

The ONLY reason that this travesty of justice has come to light, is because the football supporter who was banned, sought the assistance of the football Ombudsman.

At no point until then, despite repeated requests, did Mr. Hebberd have the decency to investigate properly....and above all....FAIRLY.

His position at the club is untenable.

 

[Albion Dan]

Im afraid you are wrong.

 

[drew]

Im afraid you are wrong.

In what way? That fact that I don't think Hebberd should be sacked for this? If there are no changes and the same thing happens again then yes he should go. If changes are implemented (and one already has been) and a fairer more transparent procedure adopted then no, he shouldn't go.

 

[fly high]

You say 'is willing', shouldn't that read 'were willing'? You state that 'Albion clearly has none'. Shouldn't that again read, 'had none'? That is it is accepted the club cocked up but they have taken steps to redress this with the introduction of a temporary exclusion and, whilst I don't know for sure (and to that effect, nobody outside the club does) they will probably be looking at introducing protocols for dealing with situations like this if they arise in the future.






Sorry, but I have not missed the point.

You can be as sorry as you like.......but you have missed the point.
The ONLY reason that this travesty of justice has come to light, is because the football supporter who was banned, sought the assistance of the football Ombudsman.
At no point until then, despite repeated requests, did Mr. Hebberd have the decency to investigate properly....and above all....FAIRLY.

His position at the club is untenable.

Have to agree with cjd. Yes the club may have changed their procedures but not of their own volition. If the banned fan hadn’t taken his case to IFO nothing would have happened, they have been forced to change, which really puts the club in a very bad light. Not saying there should be retribution but one hopes the steward who changed his story was at the very least severely reprimanded as well as the ‘Head of Operations’. It is a worry if they consider it’s OK to behave in such a manner & in truth how do we know they won’t just be a bit cuter about it next time, especially if they don’t set out publicly what their procedures are.
Unfortunately the off duty OB will probably get away with what he’s done. The IFO gave him a get out saying it was possible, from where he was standing, it might have looked like there was physical contact, so didn’t actually call him a liar.

 

[drew]

Have to agree with cjd. Yes the club may have changed their procedures but not of their own volition. If the banned fan hadn’t taken his case to IFO nothing would have happened, they have been forced to change, which really puts the club in a very bad light. Not saying there should be retribution but one hopes the steward who changed his story was at the very least severely reprimanded as well as the ‘Head of Operations’. It is a worry if they consider it’s OK to behave in such a manner & in truth how do we know they won’t just be a bit cuter about it next time, especially if they don’t set out publicly what their procedures are.
Unfortunately the off duty OB will probably get away with what he’s done. The IFO gave him a get out saying it was possible, from where he was standing, it might have looked like there was physical contact, so didn’t actually call him a liar.

In many ways I am agreeing with most of what you say, ie there shouldn't be retribution but there are certain issues that need to be addressed, possibly additional training for the steward (which may or may not already have been done) and as previously mentioned protocols for dealing with disputes in the future. I don't think the club were forced into making changes as I'm not sure the IFO have that authority but if they had kept the status quo then that would make them look even worse.

At the end of the day, had the complainant just left and ignored the palace fan then he would have avoided the aggro over the last few months but then conversely we would never have known about the lack of procedures in place.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

In many ways I am agreeing with most of what you say, ie there shouldn't be retribution but there are certain issues that need to be addressed, possibly additional training for the steward (which may or may not already have been done) and as previously mentioned protocols for dealing with disputes in the future. I don't think the club were forced into making changes as I'm not sure the IFO have that authority but if they had kept the status quo then that would make them look even worse.

At the end of the day, had the complainant just left and ignored the palace fan then he would have avoided the aggro over the last few months but then conversely we would never have known about the lack of procedures in place.

" At the end of the day, had the complainant just left and ignored the palace fan then he would have avoided the aggro over the last few months "

This is the whole fundamental point though. What was a gloating palace fan doing there in the first place ? why should the brighton fan bite his tongue, I would turn it on it's head and say the duty of responsibilty was on the palace fan to shut up and go home quietly not gloat in the away end after a humiliating defeat when brighton fans were pissed off. The fact the club of BHAFC decided without trial and jury at best and fabricate a story at worse, to ban the Brighton fan with no repurcusions for the palace fan simply beggars belief. I don't think this would have happened at any other club in the football league.

 

[Albion Dan]

This is hypothetical, but a highly sceptical person might think that an ex Policeman got an Off duty Policeman to tell a story in a certain way to cover certain peoples actions. Actions which have now been PROVEN to be completely and utterly OUTRAGEOUS treatment of a long term supporter of this club.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

This is hypothetical, but a highly sceptical person might think that an ex Policeman got an Off duty Policeman to tell a story in a certain way to cover certain peoples actions. Actions which have now been PROVEN to be completely and utterly OUTRAGEOUS treatment of a long term supporter of this club.

Totally agree Dan. It smacks of someone with too much power who thought they were above the law. Good on the bloke for fighting it as if he didn't this sort of thing could have carried on. At least next time they might have a little think about it first.

 

[drew]

This is hypothetical, but a highly sceptical person might think that an ex Policeman got an Off duty Policeman to tell a story in a certain way to cover certain peoples actions. Actions which have now been PROVEN to be completely and utterly OUTRAGEOUS treatment of a long term supporter of this club.

You should think about what drivel you post. So you're suggesting that when the complainant had 'words' with the palace fan, Hebberd was immediately on to it and got his off duty buddy to intervene straight away to.

 

[drew]

" At the end of the day, had the complainant just left and ignored the palace fan then he would have avoided the aggro over the last few months "

This is the whole fundamental point though. What was a gloating palace fan doing there in the first place ? why should the brighton fan bite his tongue, I would turn it on it's head and say the duty of responsibilty was on the palace fan to shut up and go home quietly not gloat in the away end after a humiliating defeat when brighton fans were pissed off. The fact the club of BHAFC decided without trial and jury at best and fabricate a story at worse, to ban the Brighton fan with no repurcusions for the palace fan simply beggars belief. I don't think this would have happened at any other club in the football league.

Apologies, didn't realised you witnessed the incident.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

Apologies, didn't realised you witnessed the incident.

For goodness sake. It is PROVED he was innocent. Also what about the responsibility of the Palace fan you have skirted and ignored all my points, probably as you couldn't answer them ? I am not sure what your agenda is.

 

[cjd]

You should think about what drivel you post. So you're suggesting that when the complainant had 'words' with the palace fan, Hebberd was immediately on to it and got his off duty buddy to intervene straight away to.

For the sake of clarity ( and trying desperately to understand your dogged support, for an issue where Mr.Hebberd was so utterly wrong ) ..........could you at least inform us, whether you have any connection with Mr. Hebberd.......?

 

[hola gus]

For the sake of clarity ( and trying desperately to understand your dogged support, for an issue where Mr.Hebberd was so utterly wrong ) ..........could you at least inform us, whether you have any connection with Mr. Hebberd.......?

Was thinking of asking the same thing myself!!!

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

For the sake of clarity ( and trying desperately to understand your dogged support, for an issue where Mr.Hebberd was so utterly wrong ) ..........could you at least inform us, whether you have any connection with Mr. Hebberd.......?

I am desperately trying to understand where Drew is coming from and the defence of the apparent indefenceable. The last posts suggest they think the bloke was still guilty of all charges.