West Ham united Tickets, 10th dec.

[Svlad Cjelli]

In the Court thread LWJ said it was a BAIL CONDITION that he not attend football matches - so nothing at all to do with the club.

True, fair enough. So does RFC even know about his alleged offence?

[Svlad Cjelli]

Probably - not sure how much effort they'd put into checking for him, but it is reassuring that the "ban" isn't theirs but is an external one.

[Yellowcoat]

As ever SC is an apologist for yobs, standers & Steve Claridge. Time to come into the real world from the ivory towers of FSF!

[Svlad Cjelli]

Whatever you say .....

[Ian Royal]

They probably do - but I don't think the DPA allows onwards sharing of data that's already been shared with you.

I've never been able to work out what the DPA does and doesn't allow for. It's all to often cited as something that's been breached but just how do you think the police and football club might be in the wrong here?

Aside from the innocent until proven guilty bit of course.

Avon police nick a hooligan. He lives in Reading. Avon police tell TVP there's a scrote on their patch. TVP want to keep the peace in Reading and they guess that as the hoolie was at a Reading match he might be a STH or member card holder so they ask the club to confirm that is the case. The club follow their advice (rightly or wrongly) and ban him.

Now had LWJ been accused of shoplifting or cattle rustling an approach to the local football team would have been highly inappropriate and I daresay in breach of that unfathomable legislation but given that this is football rel8ed I doubt the DPA is the issue

Sorry, only just seen this .... there are two issues (but admittedly the first is a fairly minor legal point..)

Avon Police have a legal right to tell TVP, as you say. But I don't believe that the data-sharing agreement that TVP have with Reading FC allows them to pass on data that they've acquired through another data-sharing agreement. Otherwise where does it end? As I say, relatively minor, but just a reflection of the fact that the vast majority of football clubs ignore DPA or only use it as a shield when it suits them, and very few supporters have the balls or the tenacity to challenge clubs.

The other issue is the more important one. Internal club bans being imposed on the say-so of remote police forces (i.e. not the club's local force) are handed out so much and are fundamentally unfair. They fly in the face of "innocent until proven guilty" which is a fundamental basis if English common law.

Not in this case specifically, but there have been countless examples of supporters being banned by their club on the strength of allegations made after away games (or whilst travelling to/from them) and charges being quietly dropped 18 months or so later.

By all means if he's found guilty ban him (he'll no doubt get a FBO anyway) but until he's found guilty in a court of law he ought to be regarded as innocent by Reading FC, just like anyone else would if this wasn't "football-related".

I'd be surprised if there is a problem in TVP sharing data they've received from Avon Police if it is the same sort of data they'd be sharing if they'd collected it themselves. As that type of data is shareable the source shouldn't really matter IMO. Query it with the ICO if you doubt that though, might help the FSF somehow.

As for innocent until proven guilty, that is the foundation of the justice system, but doesn't really apply to what is essentially a private business. Someone can be barred from a pub without getting convicted of something, why would a football club be different?

[Rex]

TVP were at the scene when it happened so would have been aware of the arrest.

[weybridgewanderer]

it goes against the basic "innocent until proved guilty" that is a key part of the British justice

ROFL, those days are long gone, and S172 being just one example