@julieh

[Bar BS3]

11 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

It's generally accepted, but technically illegal. You could get done for it, although I suspect we've all done it. I think that bit needs to go.

But they don’t want to encourage it, so they aren’t going to amend the law. That doesn’t stop them turning a blind eye to it, if it happens in an acceptable manner, but leaves them the ability to prosecute if people abuse the situation and cause trouble. 

 

[phantom]

2 hours ago, Sweeneys Penalties said:

might be me, but I cant find a word of this incident reported in the Bristol Post

Now on there @Sweeneys Penalties https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/video-emerges-rugby-fan-punching-2683063

[italian dave]

Rightly or wrongly, fact is that there are a whole load of football specific offences, and football specific legislation. Football fans are treated differently in law. That's nothing to do with the police, let alone with one single police liaison officer. Write to your MP.

[Mr Popodopolous]

9 minutes ago, italian dave said:

Rightly or wrongly, fact is that there are a whole load of football specific offences, and football specific legislation. Football fans are treated differently in law. That's nothing to do with the police, let alone with one single police liaison officer. Write to your MP.

In slight mitigation, a lot of these laws were brought in after football had a lot of trouble in the past.

However- times have changed significantly, therefore the legislation should change- well tbh should have already changed- accordingly.

Football a generation ago? Times were very different. However there isn't really a case for the bulk if any of them now IMO.

[Bar BS3]

7 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

In slight mitigation, a lot of these laws were brought in after football had a lot of trouble in the past.

However- times have changed significantly, therefore the legislation should change- well tbh should have already changed- accordingly.

Football a generation ago? Times were very different. However there isn't really a case for the bulk if any of them now IMO.

Such as..? 

Which laws/legislations would you remove, that wouldn’t then open the door for people, like those against Swansea, to abuse those the new found leniency..?

I can’t think of too many laws, other than all seater stadia, which have much impact on Mr Average attending a football match in a law abiding manner. 

[Natchfever]

1 hour ago, CotswoldRed said:

Rugby fans don't include much of society's low life. The stats bear this out. 

Football would improve massively if the punishments were much much harsher IMO. I behave myself so I'm not at risk of ending up in clink. Neither is anyone else if they behave like respectable people. 

Violence of any sort - let's start with a 5 year prison term and a £5000 fine. Doesn't worry me - I won't be receiving one. 

With such punishment on offer I reckon it would be safe to reintroduce drinking in the stands. 

You cannot possibly say that.

You could very easily simply be stuck in the middle of something, push someone out of the way to escape and get nicked. If spomeone gets badly hurt during that fracas you are in the midst of an affray and will go to Crown Court where they don't piss around.

Plenty of miscarriages of justice as i'm sure you are aware.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

24 minutes ago, Bar BS3 said:

 Such as..? 

Which laws/legislations would you remove, that wouldn’t then open the door for people, like those against Swansea, to abuse those the new found leniency..?

I can’t think of too many laws, other than all seater stadia, which have much impact on Mr Average attending a football match in a law abiding manner. 

Ok, my understanding is that quite a few of those were brought in during the early 90's Football Offences Act.

Some are justified- i.e. Prohibition of racist chanting, yeah absolutely, throwing of missiles yeah fine- of those first 3, the main one is the playing area- it is a bit too catch all, for the simple reason that not all pitch incursions are for malevolent purposes for the reasons stated in my above post.

Once again, I understand even the context of the time- fences had just come down, there had been 2 decades on and off of trouble surrounding football so they needed a deterrent to keep people off the pitch- but that third one merits being looked at again IMO.

The 1999 one appears to be much broader in scope.

International Banning Orders.

Fair enough if absolutely guilty and particularly of racism or violence. Problem is, again it seems to be a bit of catch all. You could get an international banning order (in theory) for something as innocuous as drinking in view of the pitch- nuts. An offence yes- more on which later- but hardly proportionate.

Sale of tickets by unauthorised persons.

How many people lend tickets to mates-  how many people cannot make a game so sell them on forums at face value say? Loads! Now touting is different and people who tout are generally bellends and for being a bellend alone the punishment or the deterrence is justified in their case, yet your ordinary fan who wishes to recoup a bit of cash after a family emergency or make sure their season ticket does not go to waste? Well, they could get an FBO, a club ban or even in extremis- albeit I can't see the grounds for it- an International Banning order? Couldn't they...

The 1985 alcohol in view of the pitch law. Now you're not in favour of it and that is your prerogative, but plenty are. There was trouble and lots of it in the 1980s and unrestricted alcohol at football? Probably played a part- things are different now, times have changed. Arrest rate is so much lower, demographics at football have shifted quite a bit in 20-30 years.

I've gone on a bit but in summary, I'd scrap the all seater requirement, the alcohol in view of the pitch law and would amend the law about pitch incursions.

[Mr Popodopolous]

21 hours ago, Fordy62 said:

If you copy and paste those rates on this thread then I’ll tell you how far out you are. 

6 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

This looks pretty official, but presumably it's wrong- which wouldn't be ideal for transparency, would it now?

Now, as I said on the other thread this is in West Midlands- may differ between regions, but who knows? That latter graphic covers season 2017/18 and this season, looking for the source for this and next season but cannot find it.

https://www.westmidlands-pcc.gov.uk/media/480525/pcc-decision-006-2018-fees-and-charges-annex-1.pdf

Page 7, tables 9 and 10.

Cannot find the one for 2018 though, i.e. the original website where they sourced the table for this and next season from.

Will take a look at the Avon and Somerset one if it's available also.

Tbh @Fordy62, I am as I possibly did say, working on the basis of a couple of assumptions here- which is why I'm keen on finding out how far out I am or more accurately the WMP PCC is?

Mainly that WMP PCC figures are indeed correct, and also that there aren't regional differences. Would the Avon and Somerset be equally available or might an FOI be in order to try and shed a bit of light? 

[JulieH]

5 hours ago, Carey 6 said:

When there was trouble a few years ago between Bristol and Exeter, were the fans involved subject to dawn raids by yourselves? 

Were pictures of their faces given to the Bristol Post to print on the front/in their paper? I don't remember seeing anything, perhaps someone on here can prove me wrong.

I also wonder if after international rugby games, anyone causing trouble in town get Rugby banning orders? The Police like to warn football fans every time a tournament comes around that trouble will result in an FBO.

I have answered this before, all of them were known  and therefore their photos were not put in the papers.

they were all charged with public order offences and went to court . They are banned for life from both Bristol rugby and Exeter rugby.

there are no rugby banning orders in existence in a court of law in the uk 

police do warn English football fans to behave when a tournament comes around, you are correct, unfortunately the very small minority of English fans that attended in Holland last winter did not heed this advice  with publicity showing them throwing bikes in canals and fighting dutch police.

it is this small minority of so called fans that the football banning order legislation was brought in for and is aimed at . 

 

[JulieH]

4 hours ago, phantom said:

Hi @JulieH what is this fans meeting you refer to?

It is the monthly bcfc supporters meeting , first weds of the month 1930 in the supporters bar,.

 

[JulieH]

21 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Ok, my understanding is that quite a few of those were brought in during the early 90's Football Offences Act.

Some are justified- i.e. Prohibition of racist chanting, yeah absolutely, throwing of missiles yeah fine- of those first 3, the main one is the playing area- it is a bit too catch all, for the simple reason that not all pitch incursions are for malevolent purposes for the reasons stated in my above post.

Once again, I understand even the context of the time- fences had just come down, there had been 2 decades on and off of trouble surrounding football so they needed a deterrent to keep people off the pitch- but that third one merits being looked at again IMO.

The 1999 one appears to be much broader in scope.

International Banning Orders.

Fair enough if absolutely guilty and particularly of racism or violence. Problem is, again it seems to be a bit of catch all. You could get an international banning order (in theory) for something as innocuous as drinking in view of the pitch- nuts. An offence yes- more on which later- but hardly proportionate.

Sale of tickets by unauthorised persons.

How many people lend tickets to mates-  how many people cannot make a game so sell them on forums at face value say? Loads! Now touting is different and people who tout are generally bellends and for being a bellend alone the punishment or the deterrence is justified in their case, yet your ordinary fan who wishes to recoup a bit of cash after a family emergency or make sure their season ticket does not go to waste? Well, they could get an FBO, a club ban or even in extremis- albeit I can't see the grounds for it- an International Banning order? Couldn't they...

The 1985 alcohol in view of the pitch law. Now you're not in favour of it and that is your prerogative, but plenty are. There was trouble and lots of it in the 1980s and unrestricted alcohol at football? Probably played a part- things are different now, times have changed. Arrest rate is so much lower, demographics at football have shifted quite a bit in 20-30 years.

I've gone on a bit but in summary, I'd scrap the all seater requirement, the alcohol in view of the pitch law and would amend the law about pitch incursions.

My only comment on this is that yes a person could have a conviction for drinking in view of the pitch in court where them a football banning order can be given, HOWEVER it stills needs to be proved that issuing one will prevent football related disorder at or in connection with future regulated football matches. 

It is my experience that this has certainly never been met within this area since I have been policing football for drinking in view,. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

7 minutes ago, JulieH said:

My only comment on this is that yes a person could have a conviction for drinking in view of the pitch in court where them a football banning order can be given, HOWEVER it stills needs to be proved that issuing one will prevent football related disorder at or in connection with future regulated football matches. 

It is my experience that this has certainly never been met within this area since I have been policing football for drinking in view,. 

Thanks for clarifying.

Yes it was a fairly extreme leap, just was mainly using it (perhaps erroneously) as an example of what could happen. In extremis, with a particularly top heavy force. Perhaps some forces are better than others.

Three years ago I appreciate, but it's happened before though I hasten to add, I don't know where in the UK- presumably not here! FSF Faircop does excellent work at highlighting cases such as this.

[JulieH]

3 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

It is probably unfortunately a bit late now, but did they get in touch with football specialist lawyers- FSF FairCop, or Football Legal?

Could be that nothing could have been done for them- I don't know the ins and outs or even of that case, but definitely people to keep in mind. Did great work for a mate of mine a while ago.

I believe initial legal advice from Football Legal is free.

Yes fsf and football legal are aware and I understand representing some of the males. 

[Big C]

Although drinking in view of the pitch seems to go under the radar at Ashton Gate. It was quite funny to see a young family come in for the Leeds games, both young children seem to have bought loads of BCFC merchandise so probably their first game. Both parents came in with pints and sat down. Only to be told they were in the wrong section. So stood up and moved with said pints still in hand. Even funnier was that the people that were telling them they were in the wrong section also had beers in their hand.

[Mr Popodopolous]

6 minutes ago, JulieH said:

Yes fsf and football legal are aware and I understand representing some of the males. 

Let's hope justice is done either way then, however that may fall.

Always good when people have solid and knowledgeable legal representation- which in this area of law, I believe FSF Faircop and Football Legal most certainly would be classed as.

[JulieH]

5 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Let's hope justice is done either way then, however that may fall.

Always good when people have solid and knowledgeable legal representation- which in this area of law, I believe FSF Faircop and Football Legal most certainly would be classed as.

We always mention them to people we are dealing with, should be on commission really

[Mr Popodopolous]

45 minutes ago, JulieH said:

We always mention them to people we are dealing with, should be on commission really

Mentioned them a fair few times myself in this thread- sales commission competition incoming! 

On a serious note though, you clearly do a good job on here and obviously you can't comment on them but some of the laws...seem a bit dated.

[Natchfever]

2 hours ago, Bar BS3 said:

It would be interesting to see if (before I say it, I am NOT suggesting for a second that people receiving benefits are low life!) the threat of anyone convicted of any crime, let alone football related, had any benefit entitlement stopped, if it would deter the type of individual who are demographically most likely to act violently..?!

I could be completely wrong, but the prisons are full enough. There’s no room to lock people up on harsh minimum sentences, which the tax payer ultimately pays for. 

For the record, I receive a small amount of universal credit payment, due to being a single working dad. 

EDIT: I feel I should elaborate....

I believe that most recent pole pole, avoid breaking the law, partly because they know it is wrong, but also partly due to the consequences & repercussions if convicted. Many people may lose their job/career, if convicted of football violence (or many other crimes, but keeping this relevant to the discussion)

People without jobs, mortgages etc, possibly don’t have the deterrent of losing what they have got, so withdraw the tax payer funded assistance that they do receive, if they can’t abide by the rules of our society. 

Most people I know who have/are being prosecuted for football related matters are in employment and pay mortgages or rents.

Would you apply the same rules to all law breakers on benefits or just football fans ?

The only way to stop football violence is to control away fans - the dreaded bubble. If you really want to support your team away from home then accept that you will be sat on a coach to some motorway services, be handed a ticket and then driven into the stadium. You and "the lads" can have a beer there rather than rock up at 9am mob handed walking the streets looking for Wetherspoons.

People will complain about their civil liberties being affected and the fact that they like a friendly chinwag with like minded opposition scarfers. All I can say to that is on balance, does society rather have public funds poured into police time at football matches, or getting them doing what most people would like to see such as attending to street crime, car thefts and burglaries with more enthusiasm?

Police like it just the way it is unfortunately so it won't happen.

[JulieH]

31 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Mentioned them a fair few times myself in this thread- commission competition incoming! 

On a serious note though, you clearly do a good job on here and obviously you can't comment on them but some of the laws...seem a bit dated.

I think there is a recognition within football police that the laws could do with being reviewed ,this is in regard to all of them not just drinking in view /?pitch incursion  they were brought in at a time when things were very different to how they are now. 

However unfortunately  this season , and prior to it with the World Cup, in this area it has been extremely busy , particularly with disorder occurring outside of the football stadiums but clearly football related.  The legislation still gives us banning orders for those who pose a risk to disorder and they are effective in lessening that. 

We will see what changes are proposed and when

 

 

[JulieH]

25 minutes ago, Loon plage said:

Most people I know who have/are being prosecuted for football related matters are in employment and pay mortgages or rents.

Would you apply the same rules to all law breakers on benefits or just football fans ?

The only way to stop football violence is to control away fans - the dreaded bubble. If you really want to support your team away from home then accept that you will be sat on a coach to some motorway services, be handed a ticket and then driven into the stadium. You and "the lads" can have a beer there rather than rock up at 9am mob handed walking the streets looking for Wetherspoons.

People will complain about their civil liberties being affected and the fact that they like a friendly chinwag with like minded opposition scarfers. All I can say to that is on balance, does society rather have public funds poured into police time at football matches, or getting them doing what most people would like to see such as attending to street crime, car thefts and burglaries with more enthusiasm?

Police like it just the way it is unfortunately so it won't happen.

I am really surprised at this , not only as a police officer but a football fan

ate you suggesting that every away game should be a bubble match???

for years I have listened to fans complaints and views on those games and we have got to a stage now where hardly any police service in the uk do them , and if they do they are for high risk games, yet you seem to be suggesting that every away game should be one? 

I would say that my view is that if on balance the small minority of fans did not seek disorder with each other then games whether high risk or not would not need large policing numbers and policing could almost be untouched on the frontline. 

 

[Natchfever]

32 minutes ago, JulieH said:

I am really surprised at this , not only as a police officer but a football fan

ate you suggesting that every away game should be a bubble match???

for years I have listened to fans complaints and views on those games and we have got to a stage now where hardly any police service in the uk do them , and if they do they are for high risk games, yet you seem to be suggesting that every away game should be one? 

I would say that my view is that if on balance the small minority of fans did not seek disorder with each other then games whether high risk or not would not need large policing numbers and policing could almost be untouched on the frontline. 

 

Bubble way to go but it won't happen.

It would mean you lot can't justify so many on duty at matches and have to go catch the bad guys elsewhere .

2500 away fans being inconvenienced by simply attending a match to support their team or the preference of over 1,600,000 residents of Avon and Somerset the vast majority of whom don't give a stuff about football and would like to see what they pay for better employed.

You listen to fans complaints do you ? News to me by the way.

[Fordy62]

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Tbh @Fordy62, I am as I possibly did say, working on the basis of a couple of assumptions here- which is why I'm keen on finding out how far out I am or more accurately the WMP PCC is?

Mainly that WMP PCC figures are indeed correct, and also that there aren't regional differences. Would the Avon and Somerset be equally available or might an FOI be in order to try and shed a bit of light? 

In fairness mate, I assumed you were referring to our rates of overtime pay. 

I know nothing about how much we charge the clubs. I can’t see the charges being much different from club to club. 

[JulieH]

1 hour ago, Loon plage said:

Bubble way to go but it won't happen.

It would mean you lot can't justify so many on duty at matches and have to go catch the bad guys elsewhere .

2500 away fans being inconvenienced by simply attending a match to support their team or the preference of over 1,600,000 residents of Avon and Somerset the vast majority of whom don't give a stuff about football and would like to see what they pay for better employed.

You listen to fans complaints do you ? News to me by the way.

By all means come to the meeting next week , you can see me listening then 

[JulieH]

8 hours ago, BessexRED said:

Personally has shocked me to learn that Bristol Rugby games don’t have any officers at all on duty, yet there are midweek games down at Ashton Gate against Birmingham, Bolton and the like and there are old bill on police horses marshalling Bedminster high street two hours before the game.

I’d say policing at football is very over zealous in the main, yet when there was a presence needed against Swansea they were busy taking Swansea fans on the tour de Bristol deliberately making them late to the match.

For Birmingham game there were approx 45 police on duty for it, including 4 police horses 

for both Bolton games there were 4 police spotters only on duty . 

[Robbored]

23 hours ago, BigTone said:

I hope not

Please explain

No chance their Tone. TM never ever backs up any his rare comments.............

[RedLionLad]

5 minutes ago, Robbored said:

No chance their Tone. TM never ever backs up any his rare comments.............

Kettle, Pot, Black...

[Robbored]

26 minutes ago, RedLionLad said:

Kettle, Pot, Black...

My comments are exactly rare RLL...

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 hours ago, Fordy62 said:

In fairness mate, I assumed you were referring to our rates of overtime pay. 

I know nothing about how much we charge the clubs. I can’t see the charges being much different from club to club. 

Apologies mate, my bad probably.

Yeah, wires crossed by me- perhaps getting overtime and club charges mixed up.

I believe there's a London weighting for police, but likely no great differentials between WMP and Avon & Somerset.

[CotswoldRed]

5 hours ago, Loon plage said:

You cannot possibly say that.

You could very easily simply be stuck in the middle of something, push someone out of the way to escape and get nicked. If spomeone gets badly hurt during that fracas you are in the midst of an affray and will go to Crown Court where they don't piss around.

Plenty of miscarriages of justice as i'm sure you are aware.

 

I just did. 

Beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law. Like the majority of crimes. 

If we are deciding what statutory punishments should be based on possible miscarriages then we're in a bad place. 

A judge and jury can decide based on evidence. I don't see your point. 

[CotswoldRed]

6 hours ago, Red-Robbo said:

Reasonable, but you'd have to thoroughly revamp the list of football offences, as some are ridiculous. Even officer Julie - speaking in a personal not professional capacity - has acknowledged that the offence of trespassing on a pitch is too all-encompassing and needs to be refined to only punish those intent on disrupting the match.

 

 

A very good point. 

I have in mind unprovoked fisty-cuffs and the like.