Poll to follow...
Should the Club issue an official response to the IFO report on the excluded fan?
- Thread starter Bry Nylon
- Start date
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Lord Bracknell
On fire
I posted this on another thread ...
When a business organisation (or a public organisation) participates in a scheme that has an Ombudsman making a judgement on the organisation's handling of an individual case, it is expected that the organisation will respond to the Ombudsman's public Report with a public statement.
Failure to do in this instance lets down the supporters of ALL clubs who are subject to the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.
The Club is perfectly at liberty to have a general rule of "not commenting on individual cases". But it shouldn't apply that rule when the Ombudsman has spoken. It should issue a public statement in response to the Ombudsman's Report.
The IFO recommends that in cases which are regarded as likely to be serious enough to warrant lengthy bans, statements from the respective parties should be obtained without delay so that properly informed decisions can be taken, taking into account both sides of any argument. Where judged necessary membership could be suspended pending final determination. [Para 28 of the IFO report]
At the very least, the Club should say whether they accept this recommendation, or whether they intend to carry on taking decisions about exclusions without a full investigation that gives the potentially banned supporter the opportunity to have their side of the argument heard?
From the website of the Independent Football Ombudsman -
After considering all the evidence the IFO will issue an adjudication in writing to the complainant and to the appropriate Football Authority. A summary of the adjudication will be placed on this site under ‘Adjudications’ and on the website of the relevant Authority. If the complaint is upheld, the IFO will make any recommendations deemed appropriate. If the Football Authority considers that it cannot – for whatever reason – implement any recommendation of the IFO, it will publish the reasoning behind such a decision and any proposed alternative resolution to the complaint. The IFO will produce an annual report to the Minister for Sport and the Football Authorities, reviewing all the complaints received, the action taken and any wider issues arising from the work of the IFO. This annual report will be publicly available.
We are entitled to be told whether the Club accepts the Report's conclusions and, if it doesn't, what is the reasoning behind that.
When a business organisation (or a public organisation) participates in a scheme that has an Ombudsman making a judgement on the organisation's handling of an individual case, it is expected that the organisation will respond to the Ombudsman's public Report with a public statement.
Failure to do in this instance lets down the supporters of ALL clubs who are subject to the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.
The Club is perfectly at liberty to have a general rule of "not commenting on individual cases". But it shouldn't apply that rule when the Ombudsman has spoken. It should issue a public statement in response to the Ombudsman's Report.
The IFO recommends that in cases which are regarded as likely to be serious enough to warrant lengthy bans, statements from the respective parties should be obtained without delay so that properly informed decisions can be taken, taking into account both sides of any argument. Where judged necessary membership could be suspended pending final determination. [Para 28 of the IFO report]
At the very least, the Club should say whether they accept this recommendation, or whether they intend to carry on taking decisions about exclusions without a full investigation that gives the potentially banned supporter the opportunity to have their side of the argument heard?
From the website of the Independent Football Ombudsman -
After considering all the evidence the IFO will issue an adjudication in writing to the complainant and to the appropriate Football Authority. A summary of the adjudication will be placed on this site under ‘Adjudications’ and on the website of the relevant Authority. If the complaint is upheld, the IFO will make any recommendations deemed appropriate. If the Football Authority considers that it cannot – for whatever reason – implement any recommendation of the IFO, it will publish the reasoning behind such a decision and any proposed alternative resolution to the complaint. The IFO will produce an annual report to the Minister for Sport and the Football Authorities, reviewing all the complaints received, the action taken and any wider issues arising from the work of the IFO. This annual report will be publicly available.
We are entitled to be told whether the Club accepts the Report's conclusions and, if it doesn't, what is the reasoning behind that.
deletebeepbeepbeep
Well-known member
- May 12, 2009
- 21,812
I thing so yes, not because it's a which hunt but because fans need to know where they stand and whether the recommendations set out by the Report will be implemented.
Dick Knights Mumm
Take me Home Falmer Road
I have no idea why it was deemed acceptable to ban a fellow Albion fan without hearing their side of the case. I want to hear that the club policy has changed.
Credit to the fan involved for sticking to his guns.
Credit to the fan involved for sticking to his guns.
The Peanut Roaster
Banned
YES.
Definitely. I read that other thread and the report, and regardless of what actually happened on the night in question I think we all agree (well, everyone except Drew) that the club handled the whole investigative aspect in an appallingly high-handed, unfair and prejudiced manner. And the punishment was totally disproportionate to whatever 'crime' was committed. AFAIK we have had no confirmation from the club that they won't do exactly the same thing again if (when) a similar situation occurs. Simply saying "we don't comment on individual cases" isn't a good enough response.
Last edited:
brightonbaz
Active member
- Feb 22, 2009
- 181
Must of missed this but what was the fan alledged to have done to done to warrant this action?
You'll need to read through the ifo report on the thread about what happened to the guy. Maybe someone could post the link here?
Disgrace how the club treated the guy and yes they should comment
ifuhatepalacestandup
New member
yes
Then perhaps you better learn to f***ing read properly. Please go back and read every post I made and tell me where I supported what the club did. You sir are a complete cock. The club cocked up big time in their handling of the matter. For what it's worth, I agree that a statement should be forthcoming but along the lines of what Dick Knights mum has suggested.
Blimey, I'm not wading through that again, you were pretty verbose even by your long-winded standards. But perhaps it's you who should learn to read? I never said you supported what the club did. However you were trying to defend Hebbard, even to the extent of saying that people had an 'agenda' against him. If you admit that he acted despicably and in the manner of a tin-pot banana-republic dictator and should be severely reprimanded by the club for his whole handling of the event then I'll let you off.
Or alternatively don't let a light-hearted, throwaway remark rile you so much. You WERE the only persistent club apologist on that thread.
So, when you say everyone except me believed the club handled the whole investigative aspect in an appallingly high-handed, unfair and prejudiced manner that implied I believe the oppostie, ie. they handled it satisfactorily. I don't believe that which my posts in the other thread would confirm. You mention agenda. Well the first mention of agenda was against me and I still can't fathom what agenda I am alleged to have had unless the morons that posted the suggestion believe I am Hebberd or know him personally. I'm not and I don't. On the contrary, the agenda was more likely correctly applied to those that want to use this to get rid of Hebberd. My view, which remains the same, is that the club should learn from this episode, make sure they have a transparent investigation policy so the issue doesn't arise again.
And I like your throw away remark suggesting I was the only 'apologist' for the club. Well if I agreed they handled it properly then that would be right but as I stated above, they didn't handle it properly so I'm not apologising for the club, far from it, am critical of them. I just don't agree with the lynch mob mentality of some of those on NSC which is no better than the way the club dealt with this in the first place.
We may disagree about what should happen with Hebberd but please don't distort everything else I said.
Hoops Seagull
New member
- Nov 17, 2008
- 152
Any News about this from the club yet ?
deano seagulls
New member
- May 11, 2008
- 152
Just because someone is a copper dosen't make it always the truth!