Sunderland Supporters banned

[ankeny]

Exactly. Dont see Dirks point at all. You dont have to be a law breaker to be banned from a pub, or any other private property for that matter.

Sunderland own The Stadium, they can ban who they like.[/quote]
True,I was The Horn in the Butts in 1968 and the landlord threw two blokes out for being northerners,they protested but he still slung them out.

[Ian Royal]

One of my friends had all sorts of priveleges removed by Exeter University for being arrested for assault. No charges pressed in the end, but that didn't stop the uni disciplining him for "bringing it into disrepute"

I sympathise with these guys, and I don't necessarily agree with what the club have done. But having looked at the pertition FSF has set up it's a load of old leftie bullshit. I'd have signed it if it just pleaded with the club to reinstate their tickets or give them a refund as they'd been unfairly treated. Not go on like a football club is a high court or something ridiculous.

I'm not touching it with a barge poll having read it, because half the points I thoroughly disagree with. I'd have emailed a link round friends and asked them to sign it too if it wasn't such nonsense.

Well done FSF, way to go!

[AF1]

I'd have emailed a link round friends and asked them to sign it too if it wasn't such nonsense.

yeah well done fsf, that's two maybe three signitures lost

[weybridgewanderer]

Apologies for cross-posting but this may be of interest to the GF community.

A number of Sunderland supporters have been banned from Sunderland despite so far being not found guilty of any offence - and in all likelihood they will be not be found guilty and maybe not even get to court.

The FSF has launched a petition to be presented to Sunderland Chairman Niall Quinn - the same Niall Quinn who so often presents himself as being so very "fan friendly."

Please sign this - even if you think it's nothing to do with us here, this sends a message to clubs and to the football authorities about the importance of due process and the rights of supporters not to be banned when they've not been found guilty of any offence.

The link is : http://www.fsf.org.uk/petitions/sunderl ... tition.php

Sorry Dirk, I disagree with FSF on this one.

I cause bother in a nightclub, I get banned, I may never go to court.

Why should a football club be different

i want the Rangers fans that threw chairs at the stewards in Bucharest, tarnishing the reputation of my other club, banned for life from football, They will never be charged in any court.

[AF1]

these were the same fans that were outrageously treated after that game in scotland right

Dunno why you bother here Dirk, expecting the middle class, bourgeois Reading fans to be able to identify with proper football supporters is utterly pointless imo

[weybridgewanderer]

what game in Scotland? I was in bucharest

[Dirk Gently]

Sorry Dirk, I disagree with FSF on this one.

I cause bother in a nightclub, I get banned, I may never go to court.

Why should a football club be different

They're not, and I'm afraid you're missing the issue completely. If they caused bother than they should be banned, I agree.

But in this case, someone else has told Sunderland they caused bother, but Sunderland have no evidence of this, and nothing has come to court.

So it's much more like me phoning up the nightclub before you get there and telling them you're a trouble-maker - is that fair?

Natural justice says that no-one should be banned (or should have any other action taken against them) without two things happening : there is evidence against them and they have a chance to appeal against them. It's called due process and it's what separates us from a banana republic or a dictatorship - why shouldn't it apply to football supporters?

i want the Rangers fans that threw chairs at the stewards in Bucharest, tarnishing the reputation of my other club, banned for life from football, They will never be charged in any court.

That's not relevant to this - that's a failure of law and order in Bucharest. Those supporters should be caught and should be banned, I agree. But just because they're not shouldn't mean that innocent supporters elsewhere should be banned without due process.

[TheMaraudingDog]

Come on Dirk. Don’t tell me you actually believe this nonsense that 40 lads got on the wrong train by mistake where there just happened to be a large gathering of Newcastle fans waiting?

[handbags_harris]

LOLZ. They got on the right train which was apparently heading to Sunderland. Only it terminated at Newcastle.

Must try harder Aggers

[TheMaraudingDog]

LOLZ. They got on the right train which was apparently heading to Sunderland. Only it terminated at Newcastle.

Must try harder Aggers

Well that's their bullshit story, they're blaming a tannoy announcement for boarding a train to Newcastle. Good one.

[Dirk Gently]

Come on Dirk. Don’t tell me you actually believe this nonsense that 40 lads got on the wrong train by mistake where there just happened to be a large gathering of Newcastle fans waiting?

Nope, I don't, beacuse there wasn't a large gathering of Newcastle fans waiting - just a large gathering of Police in riot gear.

And having seen the witness statements I certainly believe that they boarded that particular train because the announcement said it was going direct to Sunderland.

Usually in cases like this the witness statements tend to give a pretty confused picture - what's rare about this case is just how uniforn and consistent they all are, and not just witness statements from football supporters.

[TheMaraudingDog]

Quite odd that you've seen these st8ments but Sunderland FC apparently haven't.

[Dirk Gently]

Sunderland have been offered them but aren't interested.

[TFF]

The police's PR campaign distorted the facts via selectively edited CCTV footage released to the local media. Fans present have repeatedly requested that ALL footage be released. The police have refused to do so.

DG - Do you have any links to this "edited" footage?

[Dirk Gently]

The police's PR campaign distorted the facts via selectively edited CCTV footage released to the local media. Fans present have repeatedly requested that ALL footage be released. The police have refused to do so.

DG - Do you have any links to this "edited" footage?

Not sure which link it's on, I'm afarid : but the whole story, with links to everything relevant, is here :

http://www.fsf.org.uk/sunderlandfans/Mediawatch.php

[TFF]

The police's PR campaign distorted the facts via selectively edited CCTV footage released to the local media. Fans present have repeatedly requested that ALL footage be released. The police have refused to do so.

DG - Do you have any links to this "edited" footage?

Not sure which link it's on, I'm afarid : but the whole story, with links to everything relevant, is here :

http://www.fsf.org.uk/sunderlandfans/Mediawatch.php

http://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/New- ... 5559976.jp

[TheMaraudingDog]

There's a video here of them bouncing out of the train station.

http://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/New- ... 5559976.jp

No doubt at all that this lot is 'firm'. Fans in the North East are known for wearing colours more so than any other set of fans (bar Reading maybe) so for 40 to be without tells me that these guys arrived at Newcastle looking for a row, and got one with the OB.

Yes, the OB may have been heavy handed in their response but that's what you get with them with you go around towns mob handed.

[Hoop Blah]

Having just come back to this one, I really do think it looks like a bit of boo hoo grumbling by a load of lads who got caught up in something and don't like the consequences of their actions.

For Sunderland to take the action they have I reckong they're probably aware of most of them and are just taking the opportunity to ban a few they don't want in the ground because they're not quite in the spirit of the family club.

The snippet of their T&C's that Dirk posted didn't say found guilty in a court of law, it just said found guilty. I presume that's found guilty by the club, in which case they have been.

[Dirk Gently]

Having just come back to this one, I really do think it looks like a bit of boo hoo grumbling by a load of lads who got caught up in something and don't like the consequences of their actions.

For Sunderland to take the action they have I reckong they're probably aware of most of them and are just taking the opportunity to ban a few they don't want in the ground because they're not quite in the spirit of the family club.

The snippet of their T&C's that Dirk posted didn't say found guilty in a court of law, it just said found guilty. I presume that's found guilty by the club, in which case they have been.

The people we're talking about are just normal supporters - certainly not any kind of "firm."

If they've been "found guilty by the club" they've certainly not had any kind of trial, not been shown any evidence, had any chance to answer the charges or any right of appeal - whcih is exactly what the key issue is. Those things are basic rights in life - why not in football?

The reason that it's so important is that if it can be done to them it can be done to absolutely any one of us.

[weybridgewanderer]

So it's much more like me phoning up the nightclub before you get there and telling them you're a trouble-maker - is that fair?

I think its more like me phoning up the nightclub after an incident they know about and saying you were involved. The nighclub then tells you you are barred till you can prove it wasn't you.

And as for the selective CCTV footage, thats what the greater Manchester Police used as well in realtion to the Rangers fans in Manchester. Doesn't mean the fans ddn't misbehave.