Stewards

[Forbury Lion]

Why do we have an orange jacket slow reaction squad? All they do is walk out after a goal and walk back. There was never going to be any trouble at this game other than trouble caused by provocation from the stewards.

If they seriously expect trouble then they should sit in front of the fans so they are ready for action and have time to react or stay back and react quickly to anything that happens, As things stand they stay back and react slowly - getting in place long after any flashpoint would have taken place, just going though the motions.... oh a goal, everyone walk out in front of the fans and back.

[bigshaka'away']

I think its pathetic...me and my mate were told today in the second half that if we didnt sit down we would be thrown out. sat down for 5 mins, then stood up again. All im doing is singing and chanting and supporting my team, and paying 25 quid to do so. How dare they? Its simply because they feel the need to do something, to pick on people. Its not about safety. And when people are standing up around you in an area of the ground where they want to stand up, then you are not interfering with anybodys view.... Furthermore, with the exception of todays game, why do they pick on the home support and expect us to sit down when the away fans are standing. Its not about two wrongs dont make a right, we are doing nothing wrong by standing,just supporting the team. Nobody gets hurt.

The club should be grateful for our vocal support and money, not treat us like criminals for standing and singing. Im sick of it.

[Dirk Gently]

For the n x thousandth time - there is strength in numbers.

If enough people stand together, nothing can be done to stop them. If a few people stand then they're easy pickings.

[North Somerset Royal]

Whilst I personally have no problems with people standing and would welcome a return to terracing it was pointed out in yesterdays programme that standing in an all seater stadium is in fact illegal. The stewards are just doing their job its the regulations that need to be changed and that is something that I believe STAR are actively pursuing.

[Rex]

Yeah well as it was indeed Dirkers who wrote that, i think his comment above yours implies the stance to be taken.

[North Somerset Royal]

Well in that case he speaks with forked tongue!

For the n x thousandth time - there is strength in numbers.

If enough people stand together, nothing can be done to stop them. If a few people stand then they're easy pickings.

Programme

No-one can support standing in seated areas whilst the law remains the way it is

[Rex]

Probably his supporter head and his FSF connections.

[RoyalBlue]

Whilst I personally have no problems with people standing and would welcome a return to terracing it was pointed out in yesterdays programme that standing in an all seater stadium is in fact illegal.

Illegal?

Just when has anyone been arrested, charged, prosecuted and convicted for standing in an all seater stadium?

Against regulations maybe but that's very different from being a criminal offence!

[Arnie_Pie]

It is apparently illegal to stand and the stewards are able to ask for Police assistance if their orders are ignored.

[Dirk Gently]

Well in that case he speaks with forked tongue!

For the n x thousandth time - there is strength in numbers.

If enough people stand together, nothing can be done to stop them. If a few people stand then they're easy pickings.

Programme

No-one can support standing in seated areas whilst the law remains the way it is

The top quote is a statement of fact - please tell me where it implies support ....

[North Somerset Royal]

It certainly implies that if enough people are involved it is OK to break the law. An incredible statement if it is true that you hold what should be a responsible position in STAR.

Also it is not a statement of fact. Something can be done. The Police can arrest them as breaching the Football Grounds Safety Regulations and the club can ban them for life. The practicalities involved may lead the stewards not to act when faced with large numbers but that does not make it right or preclude retrospective action based on video recordings which some clubs have taken.

[North Somerset Royal]

Whilst I personally have no problems with people standing and would welcome a return to terracing it was pointed out in yesterdays programme that standing in an all seater stadium is in fact illegal.

Illegal?

Just when has anyone been arrested, charged, prosecuted and convicted for standing in an all seater stadium?

Against regulations maybe but that's very different from being a criminal offence!

I can only quote from Page 75 of yesterdays programme

it is illegal for a supporter to stand persistently whilst watching a football match at the MadStad

[Rex]

The stewards are always out with their video camera at the bottom of Y26. I wonder if anything ever gets done or they just like videoing for the sake of it.

[Dirk Gently]

It certainly implies that if enough people are involved it is OK to break the law.

Nonsense. It implies nothing of the sort. It states that if enough people are involved then ground authorities will be powerless to prevent then standing. Which is precisely why when the vast majority of a large away crowd (e.g. Cardiff, Newcastle, West Ham, etc) stand they are unmolested but when a small number in Y25/Y26 stand they are targeted for this. (Which is where this statement first came up - as a response to the old argument "They're all standing, why can't we?)

An incredible statement if it is true that you hold what should be a responsible position in STAR.

I think that is an incredible and also an iresponsible statement, actually. When I post on an anonymous internet message board using a screenname which does not mention STAR, how could anyone possibly deem that as having anything to do with STAR or to be representing STAR in any way?

Even if I accepted there was some validity in your first point (which I categorically do not!) I would still not accept this second point as being valid, because the implication of this is that anyone involved in supporter representation anywhere automatically loses the right to an opinion of their own!

Also it is not a statement of fact. Something can be done. The Police can arrest them as breaching the Football Grounds Safety Regulations and the club can ban them for life. The practicalities involved may lead the stewards not to act when faced with large numbers but that does not make it right or preclude retrospective action based on video recordings which some clubs have taken.

The first half of this is also nonsense, I'm afraid. The police have no jurisdiction against supporters who stand (or who "persistantly stand," to be more accurate). The police can't get involved with anyone who does not obey ground regulations - they can only get involved if a supporter refuses to obey the orders of the approriate ground authority (e.g. a steward/Tango), who refuses to be evicted or who acts violently or offensively as a result - i.e. causes a breach of the peace.

The fact that you recognise that bans come from the clubs themselves rather than via the legal process suggests that you do know this - but enforcing standing regulations is absolutely not a police matter and they simply will not do this.

The same practicalities you refer to about retrospective action further reinforces the point about home fans being targeted more than away fans - there's no point in a club trying to take retrospective action against a visiting supporter, they can only use such measures against home supporters, because they're the ones who want to come back to the next game. But while PL & FL clubs refuse to have any data-sharing agreements there'll be no such retrospective action possible for away supporters who don't do any more than break ground regulations.

FWIW, the only way to break the logjam and allow clubs who want to to introduce safe-standing areas is via the political process. This is very much happening, and the election may make this happen quicker. In the meantime, we all really ought to understand the realities of life with such unenforcable regulations as we have now.

[North Eaat royal]

It certainly implies that if enough people are involved it is OK to break the law.

Nonsense. It implies nothing of the sort. It states that if enough people are involved then ground authorities will be powerless to prevent then standing. Which is precisely why when the vast majority of a large away crowd (e.g. Cardiff, Newcastle, West Ham, etc) stand they are unmolested but when a small number in Y25/Y26 stand they are targeted for this. (Which is where this statement first came up - as a response to the old argument "They're all standing, why can't we?)

An incredible statement if it is true that you hold what should be a responsible position in STAR.

I think that is an incredible and also an iresponsible statement, actually. When I post on an anonymous internet message board using a screenname which does not mention STAR, how could anyone possibly deem that as having anything to do with STAR or to be representing STAR in any way?

Even if I accepted there was some validity in your first point (which I categorically do not!) I would still not accept this second point as being valid, because the implication of this is that anyone involved in supporter representation anywhere automatically loses the right to an opinion of their own!

Also it is not a statement of fact. Something can be done. The Police can arrest them as breaching the Football Grounds Safety Regulations and the club can ban them for life. The practicalities involved may lead the stewards not to act when faced with large numbers but that does not make it right or preclude retrospective action based on video recordings which some clubs have taken.

The first half of this is also nonsense, I'm afraid. The police have no jurisdiction against supporters who stand (or who "persistantly stand," to be more accurate). The police can't get involved with anyone who does not obey ground regulations - they can only get involved if a supporter refuses to obey the orders of the approriate ground authority (e.g. a steward/Tango), who refuses to be evicted or who acts violently or offensively as a result - i.e. causes a breach of the peace.

The fact that you recognise that bans come from the clubs themselves rather than via the legal process suggests that you do know this - but enforcing standing regulations is absolutely not a police matter and they simply will not do this.

The same practicalities you refer to about retrospective action further reinforces the point about home fans being targeted more than away fans - there's no point in a club trying to take retrospective action against a visiting supporter, they can only use such measures against home supporters, because they're the ones who want to come back to the next game. But while PL & FL clubs refuse to have any data-sharing agreements there'll be no such retrospective action possible for away supporters who don't do any more than break ground regulations.

FWIW, the only way to break the logjam and allow clubs who want to to introduce safe-standing areas is via the political process. This is very much happening, and the election may make this happen quicker. In the meantime, we all really ought to understand the realities of life with such unenforcable regulations as we have now.

To a certain extent this is wrong. A few years ago away at arsenal a friend of mine swapped seats with another reading fan in the ground so that he could sit with us. Said Reading fan caused some trouble in the ground but was not ejected. Arsenal contacted RFC who then proceeded to send a letter warning my mate about his behaviour in future games and basically he was on a final warning. My mate spoke to the club and explained the situation and got let off his final warning.

My point is when the away end is Reserved seating like it is when large away support comes down, one club should have the details of who is sitting in every seat.

On a different note, the stewarding yesterday was a joke however the anti steward chanting etc added to the atmosphere so them trying to kill the atmosphere back fired!

[Dirk Gently]

One or two clubs do informally share details - but there is no centralised and formal data-sharing in place.

Several clubs have pressed for this, but the PL and the majority of their clubs aren't interested in it so it's never happened.

[North Somerset Royal]

Nonsense. It implies nothing of the sort.

Of course it does. Its tantamount to saying that its OK to shoplift as long as you have a large enough gang to make it impractical for the storekeeper to prevent it.

When I post on an anonymous internet message board using a screenname which does not mention STAR, how could anyone possibly deem that as having anything to do with STAR or to be representing STAR in any way?

When you become an officer of a representative body you cannot switch that responsibility off and on when it suits you. Using an alias to post comments on the Internet which were not in line with his party's policy recently led to the demise of a parliamentary candidate. Somehow I dont think the club would be too happy to discover that a STAR official was posting information likely to encourage supporters to break club rules.

The police have no jurisdiction against supporters who stand (or who "persistantly stand," to be more accurate). The police can't get involved with anyone who does not obey ground regulations - they can only get involved if a supporter refuses to obey the orders of the approriate ground authority (e.g. a steward/Tango), who refuses to be evicted or who acts violently or offensively as a result - i.e. causes a breach of the peace.

The fact that you recognise that bans come from the clubs themselves rather than via the legal process suggests that you do know this - but enforcing standing regulations is absolutely not a police matter and they simply will not do this.

Of course I am aware that in the normal course of events the Police would only act if asked to intervene when for example people refused to comply with the directions of club officials. However it is not true that the Police could not act unilaterally. If police officers saw someone acting in such a way as to be likely to cause a breach of the peace (which might arise for example when standing supporters were annoying others by blocking their view) they would be able to arrest them.

[Dirk Gently]

Nonsense. It implies nothing of the sort.

Of course it does. Its tantamount to saying that its OK to shoplift as long as you have a large enough gang to make it impractical for the storekeeper to prevent it.

Only in your mind. The is no implication there whatsoever, unless for some reason you're choosing to see one.

And this is really ironic since this actually came from a meeting I attended where it was a senior member of the FLA who acknowledged that ground authorities were unable to prevent persistent standing when sufficient numbers did this.

Presumably if you apply the same leap of logic this means that the FLA are encouraging people to stand ......

When I post on an anonymous internet message board using a screenname which does not mention STAR, how could anyone possibly deem that as having anything to do with STAR or to be representing STAR in any way?

When you become an officer of a representative body you cannot switch that responsibility off and on when it suits you. Using an alias to post comments on the Internet which were not in line with his party's policy recently led to the demise of a parliamentary candidate. Somehow I dont think the club would be too happy to discover that a STAR official was posting information likely to encourage supporters to break club rules.

I might have had some sympathy for this viewpoint if it was accurate, but it's not so I don't.
The sacked candidate, Stuart MacLennan, tweeted using his own account, in his own name - not under an alias at all. That, of course, is unacceptable but also a completely different scenario.

And see my responses to your first point to see why I utterly refute your final sentence here.

The police have no jurisdiction against supporters who stand (or who "persistantly stand," to be more accurate). The police can't get involved with anyone who does not obey ground regulations - they can only get involved if a supporter refuses to obey the orders of the approriate ground authority (e.g. a steward/Tango), who refuses to be evicted or who acts violently or offensively as a result - i.e. causes a breach of the peace.

The fact that you recognise that bans come from the clubs themselves rather than via the legal process suggests that you do know this - but enforcing standing regulations is absolutely not a police matter and they simply will not do this.

Of course I am aware that in the normal course of events the Police would only act if asked to intervene when for example people refused to comply with the directions of club officials. However it is not true that the Police could not act unilaterally. If police officers saw someone acting in such a way as to be likely to cause a breach of the peace (which might arise for example when standing supporters were annoying others by blocking their view) they would be able to arrest them.

I ddn't say the police wouldn't act unilaterally - I said they wouldn't act to enforce standing regulations. They would only act to prevent the law being broken or when called to assist the ground authorities in such circumtances. In your example it's the breach of the peace they react to, not the standing.

[North Somerset Royal]

And this is really ironic since this actually came from a meeting I attended where it was a senior member of the FLA who acknowledged that ground authorities were unable to prevent persistent standing when sufficient numbers did this.

Presumably if you apply the same leap of logic this means that the FLA are encouraging people to stand ...

No its a question of context. Its one thing making a general statement of the obvious dificulties that clubs face in dealing with large numbers of people who refuse to sit but quite another where the comment is made in the course of a thread complaining about stewards who did in fact act. This thread concerns action taking quite properly yesterday by stewards doing what they have been instructed to do by the club. For a prominent STAR officer to then tell people how to flout the stewards and get around the regulations is really outrageous.

The sacked candidate, Stuart MacLennan, tweeted using his own account, in his own name - not under an alias at all. That, of course, is unacceptable but also a completely different scenario.

But your identity appears to be common knowledge on HNA so I see this as on all fours with the MacLennan situation.

I ddn't say the police wouldn't act unilaterally - I said they wouldn't act to enforce standing regulations. They would only act to prevent the law being broken or when called to assist the ground authorities in such circumtances. In your example it's the breach of the peace they react to, not the standing.

If supporters merely stood and did and said nothing there might be some merit in your statement that nothing can be done but in the real world I see and hear potential breaches of the peace at every game and there would be no difficulty in a police officer arresting the supporters that we are talking about in this thread.

[RoyalBlue]

Whilst I personally have no problems with people standing and would welcome a return to terracing it was pointed out in yesterdays programme that standing in an all seater stadium is in fact illegal.

Illegal?

Just when has anyone been arrested, charged, prosecuted and convicted for standing in an all seater stadium?

Against regulations maybe but that's very different from being a criminal offence!

I can only quote from Page 75 of yesterdays programme

it is illegal for a supporter to stand persistently whilst watching a football match at the MadStad

Not doubting you but rather questionning what I would suggest is an extremely loose (possibly less than honest) use of the word 'illegal' in the programme. If it is indeed 'illegal' isn't it somewhat strange that no one appears to have heard of anyone (anywhere) being prosecuted and convicted for the offence of persistently standing in an all seater stadium? There must be some lawyers on HNA, perhaps one of them can confirm whether there is such an offence.