Protest Against The Bans (Merged)

[chipdawg]

RegC, do you not feel some of the life bans are over the top?

I know of one person, who acted foolishly at Cardiff, he was later arrested and placed before he courts. He did not hit anyone during that day etc.

The courts decided, that no banning order was needed and he was left with a 1 month youth offender referral which has now of course finished.

The club wrote to him, to make him sign a behavioural order, which basically says you have to behave at Ashton gate. He fully understood that his mistakes at Cardiff, however small was not acceptable, he signed the contract and was happy.

The courts did not impose a banning order of any length on him, they did not see it was fit. He assumed the matter with the club had been already dealt with, due to them making him sign this behaviour order.

5 months down the line, he nows finds himself banned for life from Ashton gate.

Is he a hooligan, no. Simply someone who foolishly got over excited and drank too much at a young age.

Why does the club feel a life ban is needed, when the police didn't feel he was any threat at all, therefore no banning order?

Can you explain something; if the club made him sign a behaviour contract but he's now banned for 5 months, what happened in those 5 months? Or has he never been allowed back to The Gate?

I'm sure some people will get the rough end of the stick with banning orders and the such like, but everybody knows that there is little tolerance of any form of bad behaviour at football these days. For the clubs part, they'll no doubt get both barrels from the police and the council if something more serious happens and those involved already have convictions and weren't banned

[phantom]

Young and a bit daft. Players did worse. Hokey cokey with wheelie bins ..

 

Interesting how the club and the supporters were all behnid the trio

[St. Aldhelms Red]

Perhaps Harman, Lansdown and whoever the ******* Chairman is these days, should go in the escort at Swindon, Cardiff, Walsall etc. They may have a different perspective then. What would happen if they were innocently caught up in a bit of so called "trouble" and wrongfully arrested? Would they ban themselves?

Another point, i cant remember Orr, Partridge and Brooker being banned for life!!

[RegC]

 

Interesting how the club and the supporters were all behnid the trio

 

Wasn't it four? Partridge, Brooks, Bradders & Scott Brown. Only the first three got to "go away" though.

Not that what happened 7 or so years ago should serve as a precedent for now, mind.

[leftwingfullback]

Can you explain something; if the club made him sign a behaviour contract but he's now banned for 5 months, what happened in those 5 months? Or has he never been allowed back to The Gate?

I'm sure some people will get the rough end of the stick with banning orders and the such like, but everybody knows that there is little tolerance of any form of bad behaviour at football these days. For the clubs part, they'll no doubt get both barrels from the police and the council if something more serious happens and those involved already have convictions and weren't banned

He attended games since signing the order, 5 months after signing that he is now banned for life like many others.

Spike, this was after the game, you cannot support the players after the game.

That's the last I'm posting on this, if people feel that someone being foolish at a young age without hurting anyone is worth a life ban r, that is down to them.

[Libertine Dream]

I'm good friends with someone who was arrested after Cardiff game, he is in no way a hooligan and never been involved with the police before. He was accused of throwing a missile although there was no CCTV that shown anything like this, the officer said the reason he was picked out was for the fashion label he was wearing!! His solicitor said pleading guilty would greatly reduce his punishment.

I don't think the problem is handing these bans out to certain people it's the fact that once again they are tarring all football with the same brush and not looking into individual cases. I put it to any of the board to go into an escort in a high profile game I.e Cardiff, gas, Swindon and see how we get treated for supporting our team.

[Bristol Rob]

I'm good friends with someone who was arrested after Cardiff game, he is in no way a hooligan and never been involved with the police before. He was accused of throwing a missile although there was no CCTV that shown anything like this, the officer said the reason he was picked out was for the fashion label he was wearing!! His solicitor said pleading guilty would greatly reduce his punishment.

I don't think the problem is handing these bans out to certain people it's the fact that once again they are tarring all football with the same brush and not looking into individual cases. I put it to any of the board to go into an escort in a high profile game I.e Cardiff, gas, Swindon and see how we get treated for supporting our team.

Should have pleaded not guilty and taken it to Crown.

If police are arresting people because of what they are wearing then that is the thin edge of a very thick wedge. Imagine the outcry if people sporting religious apparel were automatically arrested based on the fact they might be a fundamentalist.

He might want to consider reporting his brief as well, if the police offer no evidence then without a guilty plea the CPS would never send it to court.

[Cowshed]

This club is falling apart behind the scenes and something, anything needs to be done to protest against how they are treating people for banning orders and other things that go on.

If it starts with a silent protest and escalates from there then I'm all for it. The club have a lot of work to do, somebody within the club needs to grab this by the horns and listen.

Do you think a silent protest would be observed? EE young un's?

[thatcham red]

[Bristol Rob]

Do you think a silent protest would be observed? EE young un's?

Well maybe the kids could protest by not running towards the netting in an embarrassing attempt to intimidate fifty Crawley fans when we win a corner.

If that doesn't make the club sit up and take notice we're doomed. DOOMED I TELLS YA!

[Mr Wendall]

First half silence won't have the impact required, arriving 10 late on mass to a home game will visually show how many people are against the way the club are dealing with bans.

[Drew Peacock]

Where does the Supporters Trust stand on this?

 

Who is planning to raise it at the next fans parliament?

[chipdawg]

He attended games since signing the order, 5 months after signing that he is now banned for life like many others.

Spike, this was after the game, you cannot support the players after the game.

That's the last I'm posting on this, if people feel that someone being foolish at a young age without hurting anyone is worth a life ban r, that is down to them.

So did he then do something to irk the authorities at the derby game? In which case it's not 1 youthful mistake, it's 2; presumably by someone who is now 18 years old and signed a bit of paper that said he'd be on his best behaviour. I have sympathy for many people banned from football matches, but not your friend I'm afraid. And you were a little 'fast and loose' with the facts of the case there LWFB

[thatcham red]

Given that the protest has only just emerged, it is too early to have formed a collective opinion on it.

 

However, raising the protocol with the football club as a better way of dealing with bans gives you some idea of our feelings about potential injustice for some fans.

[Barrs Court Red]

[leftwingfullback]

So did he then do something to irk the authorities at the derby game? In which case it's not 1 youthful mistake, it's 2; presumably by someone who is now 18 years old and signed a bit of paper that said he'd be on his best behaviour. I have sympathy for many people banned from football matches, but not your friend I'm afraid. And you were a little 'fast and loose' with the facts of the case there LWFB

Woah, hang on a minute. How have a been fast and loose with the facts?

This has nothing at all to do the rovers game

. None of the 33 bans handed out by bristol city last week were for the rovers game, all were for Cardiff.

I find it hard to understand, how you cannot have sympathy for someone, who didn't throw a punch, didn't throw a Coin, didn't push anyone, is now banned for life. It amazes me.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Just a slight aside, I have just subjected myself to watching SOD's post match interview after the Rovers game.

 

First question "what was the key to that victory?" and SOD dives into a 2 minute diatribe about the crowd trouble, absolutely unreal.

[terpin]

[Puckle_red]

Do you think a silent protest would be observed? EE young un's?

 

I'll be honest I can't see the young netters observing it, I'd imagine the lads around where I stand would but the young netter kids are too interested in goading away supporters and I couldn't see them observing it.

[BCFC_Mike]

City till I'm banned, I am City till I'm banned.......

[phantom]

WhilstEither way a 17 year old drinking is breaking the law anyway and so he's lucky he wasn't prosecuted for that too.

 

 

WRONG!

 

It is against the law for someone under 18 to drink alcohol in licensed premises, except where the child is 16 or 17 years old and accompanied by an adult.

In this case it is legal for them to drink, but not buy, beer, wine and cider with a table meal.

 

It is NOT illegal for someone over 18 to buy a child over 16 beer, wine or cider if they are eating a table meal together in licensed premises.

 

It is NOT illegal for a child aged 5 to 16 to drink alcohol at home or on other private premises.

[Libertine Dream]

Should have pleaded not guilty and taken it to Crown.

If police are arresting people because of what they are wearing then that is the thin edge of a very thick wedge. Imagine the outcry if people sporting religious apparel were automatically arrested based on the fact they might be a fundamentalist.

He might want to consider reporting his brief as well, if the police offer no evidence then without a guilty plea the CPS would never send it to court.

In hindsight that would have been more sensible but at the time he wanted his mugshot taken down off evening post, bbc, sky etc (this was before being convicted of anything). He assumed once he handed himself in the images would be stopped from being put out again and maybe stop is employer/relatives/inlaws thinking he was a flag burning, drug taking football thug but no it was used a further 3 times

[sportingmad0209]

[REDOXO]

WRONG!

 

It is against the law for someone under 18 to drink alcohol in licensed premises, except where the child is 16 or 17 years old and accompanied by an adult.

In this case it is legal for them to drink, but not buy, beer, wine and cider with a table meal.

 

It is NOT illegal for someone over 18 to buy a child over 16 beer, wine or cider if they are eating a table meal together in licensed premises.

 

It is NOT illegal for a child aged 5 to 16 to drink alcohol at home or on other private premises.

WOW I didnt know that!

[Monkeh]

There is two sides to every stroty, the club have only heard one side and decided to act,

People issued banning orders by the courts will only have theirselfs to blame but once that order us up then they should be aloud to attend, What the club is doing is punishing someone for the same offence twice which is out of order,

 

of the 33 banned a percentage would of deserved it I've no doubt about that but the courts and not the club should decide the punishment,

I've been a big defender of the club in the past but the more things like this that keeps happening the more they are alienated the fan base, Take last night and Puckle_red with the flag for instance the way he was treated (and I was at the incedent in question so what he said in the post in the other thread during the game is 100% true) you would of thought he was a prisoner, 

The football club wants a family club image which is far enough but in turn they should treat paying customers like adults and with repect, not everyone is like the ***** at the rovers game who threw coins and ripped up seats some simply want to watch and support their club,

 

Phantom posted a good link in another thread from the FSF and my advice too anyone who feels they have been harshly treated is to follow that link,

[chipdawg]

Woah, hang on a minute. How have a been fast and loose with the facts?

This has nothing at all to do the rovers game

. None of the 33 bans handed out by bristol city last week were for the rovers game, all were for Cardiff.

I find it hard to understand, how you cannot have sympathy for someone, who didn't throw a punch, didn't throw a Coin, didn't push anyone, is now banned for life. It amazes me.

Right, I think I've jumped to a conclusion here- sorry. So to clarify, he was arrested and convicted of some bad behaviour at the Cardiff game, signed a behaviour contract with the club, attended more games and then the club arbitrarily went back and decided to ban him for life? If so, that is pretty harsh and he has my sympathies, but it does seem odd that the club would go to the trouble of having him sign some sort of agreement and then ban him for life arbitrarily after a couple of months where he's attended games and done nothing- that's the bit I'm confused about

Apologies for jumping to the wrong conclusion

[NickJ]

Perhaps Harman, Lansdown and whoever the ******* Chairman is these days, should go in the escort at Swindon, Cardiff, Walsall etc. They may have a different perspective then. What would happen if they were innocently caught up in a bit of so called "trouble" and wrongfully arrested? Would they ban themselves?

Another point, i cant remember Orr, Partridge and Brooker being banned for life!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/5308624.stm

[semblar]

 

Should have pleaded not guilty and taken it to Crown.

If police are arresting people because of what they are wearing then that is the thin edge of a very thick wedge. Imagine the outcry if people sporting religious apparel were automatically arrested based on the fact they might be a fundamentalist.

He might want to consider reporting his brief as well, if the police offer no evidence then without a guilty plea the CPS would never send it to court

 

I agree completely - and here is why.

 

I was once arrested for a non-football related accusation that was completely groundless (my employer decided on circumstantial evidence that a person taking from the till was me) My brief also advised me to admit it as I would probably get a caution. I stood my ground, said not guilty at the magistrate's court and it was sent to crown court.

 

Before the first CC date it was decided to drop the case due to lack of evidence (I had still been sacked and had started tribunal proceedings which were ultimately successful). A month later they arrested the chief cashier after installing a CCTV camera in the cash office when the till losses continued to crop up.

 

If you plead guilty it does not matter a damn what really happens - in the eyes of the law and on public record you *are* guilty. If I had decided to take the easy route I would never have been allowed to be in the profession I am in now. I cannot think of any circumstance where I would plead guilty to something for which I was not - even if that led to me having a heavy sentence if I was not believed. My brief told me I was risking jail over my principles but I am very glad that I stuck to telling the truth.

[Libertine Dream]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/5308624.stm

"The board will review each player's situation after taking legal advice to decide what action, if any, should be taken against them."

Interesting 2 tier system they have operating at Ashton gate

[Monkeh]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/5308624.stm

and thats the problem, lansdown for all his critics was pretty level headed when it came to the fan experiance at Ashton Gate, it hasn't rubbed off on his son or Mr Silent it seems