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

[Cheeky Monkey]

Can anyone summarise this thread in six words for someone who can't be arzed to read through it. Cheers.

 

[Bozza]

Can anyone summarise this thread in six words for someone who can't be arzed to read through it. Cheers.

Banned from Amex. Shouldn't have been.

 

[mune ni kamome]

I have read the whole thread and the report and have been outraged like most on here and cannot condone the untruths and arrogance of certain officials. However that last comment from Drew has changed my view completely. If you make the initial approach you and only you have caused the incident and are responsible for whatever comes after.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

Banned from Amex. Shouldn't have been.

Ta for that. If you could create an 'abridged NSC' or email out a one page weekly round-up sheet summarising any interesting threads then we'd all be able to get on with our lives. The amount of man/woman/animal hours mindlessly wasted on here since NSC's inception must be up in the tens of thousands if not much more. I somehow doubt the nation would be experiencing the worst ever post-war recession if it weren't for NSC. Alternatively you could just ban me and free me once and for all.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

The bloke did nothing wrong or anything to regret. He had a gloating Palace fan is his face in an area he was not expecting that from and reacted like I think 99% of people would do. It is very irresponsible of any club and naive to expect anything different would have happened.

 

[pigbite]

I have read the whole thread and the report and have been outraged like most on here and cannot condone the untruths and arrogance of certain officials. However that last comment from Drew has changed my view completely. If you make the initial approach you and only you have caused the incident and are responsible for whatever comes after.

I would disagree. I think Drew makes a valid point in that the claimant was not, in the view of the IFO, blameless however the report is far more critical of the handling of the incident by the club. There are many ways this incident could have been avoided. There are many ways that once the sequence of events started they could have been prevented from escalating however the once the altercation occured the club had to handle it. The difference is that in the heat of the moment and with each party perhaps affected by anger, passion (remember this was the Palace game) and even drink then it is more difficult to calm a situation. The club however had plenty of time to review this matter in the cold light of day and ensure they had the correct facts as far as could be discerned from each party and witnesses. They then could have made a proportionate response. The IFO have concluded that the response was disproportionate and that is something for the club to review.

I would hope that the club are able to learn something from this event however we, as fans, also have to learn to moderate our behaviour. I am not talking about being quiet little mice, all sitting down sweetly and drinking tea from our cosy flask but simply getting a balance or just letting some things go.

 

[Dirk Gently]

Never mind the debates about who did/said what and whether they should have done or not.

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.

 

[middletoenail]

That 1901 area is going to be awkward, surely all of the involved can't still be sitting in the same seats?

 

[drew]

Never mind the debates about who did/said what and whether they should have done or not.

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.

Have you actually read the report? The IFO acknowledge that the club have introduced temporary exclusions where the full details are not immediately available suggesting that for future incidents, they will seek to investigate both sides, surely an admission by the club that the procedure at the time was wrong. Based on your comments, you seem to suggest the only time they can ban someone is if there is actual cctv of the wrong doing. If there isn't, then you have to rely on other witnesses.

The club got it wrong but as an organisation, I am pretty damn sure they wouldn't make the same mistake again and risk ridicule by the IFO. Now they may not yet have finalised what protocols to introduce as the ruling was only published on the 21st March and it would have been foolish to bring in new rules however, the IFO acknowledge the full cooperation of the club.

 

[Dirk Gently]

Certainly have read the report, every word of it - including the part that says :

Evidence taken from the Head of Operations and the Safety Officer
20. The Brighton officials told the Deputy IFO that they had been satisfied from the accounts given at the end of the match that the complainant should be excluded, without the need to hear his side of the story.

This and other parts make it clear that the club didn't apply a temporary exclusion as you suggest - they applied an exclusion because they were happy with the level of evidence they believed they had, and didn't feel that listening to the complainant himself would change anything. Breathtaking arrogance and, as I say, against the basic principles of natural justice where you listen to someone's case before you "sentence" them.

Every club needs a proper process for banning, including an appeals process - this should be an integral part of their customer charter.

But the real pity is that a quiet word to sort out what actually happened instead of a "ban first, ask questions later" policy would have probably defused this whole sorry business within a few weeks of the event.

 

[Terry The Law Abider]

Having read the report a couple of times and this thread likewise, I\\\'d say on a level of a meltdom (0.0=good person, 9.9= total melt) that the accused is 6.4,

Yeah he\\\'s a total melt for confronting a Palace fan obviously playing up in the home section...

Personally I think the bloke conducted himself pretty well given the circumstances. A lot of individuals at the game that night would have thought planting one on the bloke would be the best course of action.

 

[drew]

Certainly have read the report, every word of it - including the part that says :



This and other parts make it clear that the club didn't apply a temporary exclusion as you suggest - they applied an exclusion because they were happy with the level of evidence they believed they had, and didn't feel that listening to the complainant himself would change anything. Breathtaking arrogance and, as I say, against the basic principles of natural justice where you listen to someone's case before you "sentence" them.

Every club needs a proper process for banning, including an appeals process - this should be an integral part of their customer charter.

But the real pity is that a quiet word to sort out what actually happened instead of a "ban first, ask questions later" policy would have probably defused this whole sorry business within a few weeks of the event.

So, you have read the report but do you actually understand it?? It's clear you read my post but didn't understand that!!!! A direct quote from the report The IFO also welcomes the decision of the club to amend its policy to allow for a temporary exclusion where full details are not immediately available.
Taken from paragraph 36 at the end of the report. I never said they had this in place at the time and to anyone with a modicum of comprehension of the English language, will appreciate that this is a change to the policy the club had in place at the time.

 

[Dirk Gently]

[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 (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.)

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.

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

 

[cjd]

[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 (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.)

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.

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.

 

[rool]

Mr. Hebberds position is untenable in my view.

Probably only on the alleged point that he told the complainant that he was unable to contact him prior to 25th November 'because the police had contacted him to conduct a formal investigation. He could not disclose any information.'

If substantiated I think this would make his position untenable. It's the same for the Steward who changed his story.

I'd be interested to know also if anything can happen to an off duty policeman too.

 

[Giraffe]

Bottom line, Palace fans shouldn't be allowed in home ends.

 

[Giraffe]

The bloke did nothing wrong or anything to regret. He had a gloating Palace fan is his face in an area he was not expecting that from and reacted like I think 99% of people would do. It is very irresponsible of any club and naive to expect anything different would have happened.

I haven't read the whole thread, but 100% this. I had a similar incident from a twat Palace fan behind me. I left it at a few choice words but had I been a violent sort then I am sure I would have twatted him.

The club has a responsibility to avoid this kind of thing and the best way is to not allow Palace fans in home ends. Away fans in 1901 can be irritating, but bearable up to a point, but a Palace fan is frankly taking the piss big time.

 

[Lego-Stand]

Probably only on the alleged point that he told the complainant that he was unable to contact him prior to 25th November 'because the police had contacted him to conduct a formal investigation. He could not disclose any information.'

If substantiated I think this would make his position untenable. It's the same for the Steward who changed his story.

I'd be interested to know also if anything can happen to an off duty policeman too.

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

 

[rool]

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

How do you know this?

 

[Waynflete]

So if all else fails resort to insults? Is that the way this board works?

Er... yes?