Football arrests rising..lies, damned lies and statistics?

[Mr Popodopolous]

Good thread by the FSA.

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/sport/football/bristol-city-rovers-fans-arrests-8787718

With us they are down anyway, a mere 14 last season, 32 the year before.

It included interestingly World Cup figures for the first time, perhaps this was because the World Cup was during the season whereas usually a major tournament is June and July although at the same time arrests for misbehaviour watching football at a pub and fanzone, inflates the stats a tad!!

https://thefsa.org.uk/news/football-arrest-stats-home-office-moves-the-goalposts/

Edited September 29, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

10 banning orders from 14 arrests is a very high ratio!

Our neighbours had 15 arrests..and 0 new banning orders yet the offences sound similar on the face of it.

Can someone explain how the Class A drugs related ones and violent disorder ones for them, at the very least wouldn't result in a banning order.

Edited September 29, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[exAtyeoMax]

20 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Good thread by the FSA.

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/sport/football/bristol-city-rovers-fans-arrests-8787718

With us they are down anyway, a mere 14 last season, 32 the year before.

It included interestingly World Cup figures for the first time, perhaps this was because the World Cup was during the season whereas usually a major tournament is June and July although at the same time arrests for misbehaviour watching football at a pub and fanzone, bit naughty to include?

https://thefsa.org.uk/news/football-arrest-stats-home-office-moves-the-goalposts/

Is that serious? Do they mean in the pub/public space?

[Mr Popodopolous]

3 minutes ago, exAtyeoMax said:

Is that serious? Do they mean in the pub/public space?

It's the first I had heard of it but I assume it doesn't mean in Qatar proper so can only assume so.

Edited September 29, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

@Fordy62 you often defend the Police in a football context, any insight into the banning order ratio etc?

Edited September 29, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[chinapig]

The addition of drug possession as an offence under the Football Spectators Act accounts for the increase.

If you're going to make comparisons over time you also have to consider other factors e.g. how many people attended matches in the years concerned?

Some of the reporting is typical of journalists being poor with numbers or deliberately misrepresenting them.

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 minute ago, chinapig said:

The addition of drug possession as an offence under the Football Spectators Act accounts for the increase.

If you're going to make comparisons over time you also have to consider other factors e.g. how many people attended matches in the years concerned?

Some of the reporting is typical of journalists being poor with numbers or deliberately misrepresenting them.

That and the World Cup figures and yet I bet even wirh that the ratio of arrests to attendees is lower than the prior season, never mind adjusted to take that into account.

[Northern Red]

Worth noting that the banning orders don't necessarily relate to offences committed in the season in which they were issued.

As an example, Man Utd have seen a big increase in the number handed out last season, but many of them are from the game against Liverpool in 2021 that was postponed due to fans storming the stadium in protest at their owners, but it took a long time to get it to court.

[chinapig]

7 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

@Fordy62 you often defend the Police in a football context, any insight into the banning order ratio etc?

A matter for the CPS more than the police I would have thought.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Just now, chinapig said:

A matter for the CPS more than the police I would have thought.

Fair.

[Nogbad the Bad]

2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

10 banning orders from 14 arrests is a very high ratio!

Our neighbours had 15 arrests..and 0 new banning orders yet the offences sound similar on the face of it.

On the face of it City fans are being banned for offences where Rovers fans committing the same - or worse - offences are not.

Offences do sound similar for both clubs but presumably violent disorder - City 0 arrests last season, Rovers 4 arrests - is more serious than public disorder, and Rovers fans (presuming they are convicted) are apparently not facing bans for a more serious offence than City fans are being banned for.

[Mr Popodopolous]

13 minutes ago, Nogbad the Bad said:

On the face of it City fans are being banned for offences where Rovers fans committing the same - or worse - offences are not.

Offences do sound similar for both clubs but presumably violent disorder - City 0 arrests last season, Rovers 4 arrests - is more serious than public disorder, and Rovers fans (presuming they are convicted) are apparently not facing bans for a more serious offence than City fans are being banned for.

Yeah I was perhaps understating it tbh, erring on the side of caution but yeah that seems right.

There maybe club bans for a period or indefinitely for either, but that is separate to FBOs which are banded down by a magistrate or similar I believe? The discrepancy is unusual...to say the least. In the same city too.

Edited September 29, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[Harry]

Those banning order anomalies are mental! 
As someone who has served 3 separate banning orders (1 of them for pretty much eff all), I find that quite astonishing. 
How are Rovers fans not receiving banning orders but City fans are. 
That’s very odd. 

[chinapig]

4 minutes ago, Harry said:

Those banning order anomalies are mental! 
As someone who has served 3 separate banning orders (1 of them for pretty much eff all), I find that quite astonishing. 
How are Rovers fans not receiving banning orders but City fans are. 
That’s very odd. 

Perhaps the Rovers fans had character references from Barton. After all he's a loyal customer of the courts.

[weepywall]

Oh dear..Brentford and Luton are beating us in the arrest table now...sort it out City

[fisherrich]

Bristol City have a good lump of young uns coming through from the HPC. Give it time.

Edited September 29, 2023 by fisherrich

[slartibartfast]

2 hours ago, Harry said:

Those banning order anomalies are mental! 
As someone who has served 3 separate banning orders (1 of them for pretty much eff all), I find that quite astonishing. 
How are Rovers fans not receiving banning orders but City fans are. 
That’s very odd. 

I blame the Evil Post !   Of course it could be that the judge considers making the Slags attend games is a more vicious punishment !

[italian dave]

One each for driving under the influence. Surely that’s a road traffic offence, not a footballing one?

[Mr Popodopolous]

This is a  bit of an eye opener. Glastonbury 17.5 per 100,000...

[BCFC1959]

Why is it that it that the Police continue to have the power to dictate to football that their over the top intimidating presence at football is required? No doubt part is as a means to justify their overtime. My experience is that they do not police games but wait and encourage confrontation and then react to justify their presence. Stats can be interpretated any you want but alcohol and drug related cime is unfortunately a society issue and should not be inclued or viewed as football related incidents in isolation to distort the stats/facts. Unfortunately, football fans still have a 70's stigma that the police are only too quick to promote

[Fordy62]

5 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

@Fordy62 you often defend the Police in a football context, any insight into the banning order ratio etc?

I would guess that there must be a discrepancy in the way they’re dealt with… do we have a dedicated football officer and they don’t? Do we have a proactive Bobby and they have a lazy ***?

I could never say without reading every case, but I bet you if I did I’d find it wasn’t a level playing field. Those figures are far too skewed. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

57 minutes ago, BCFC1959 said:

Why is it that it that the Police continue to have the power to dictate to football that their over the top intimidating presence at football is required? No doubt part is as a means to justify their overtime. My experience is that they do not police games but wait and encourage confrontation and then react to justify their presence. Stats can be interpretated any you want but alcohol and drug related cime is unfortunately a society issue and should not be inclued or viewed as football related incidents in isolation to distort the stats/facts. Unfortunately, football fans still have a 70's stigma that the police are only too quick to promote

I would say a certain amount of policing for some games is inevitable but seemingly some are police free now. It varies IMO.

40 minutes ago, Fordy62 said:

I would guess that there must be a discrepancy in the way they’re dealt with… do we have a dedicated football officer and they don’t? Do we have a proactive Bobby and they have a lazy ***?

I could never say without reading every case, but I bet you if I did I’d find it wasn’t a level playing field. Those figures are far too skewed. 

Thanks for this Fordy, who would push for the ban a club deployed specific Football Officer? I seem to recall Tommy Alford was one or the name rings a bell.

Yeah those figures are fairly striking, there is a chasm. Maybe a question of the representation sought out too? I would recommend anyone handed an FBO approaches the FSA, Faircop or solicitors who specialise in these. I saw one posting that they had 11/11 overturned in a given period a few years ago! A 100 pct hit rate 

Edited September 29, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[Lewisdabaron]

So can someone explain this then?

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/bristol-rovers-forest-green-fans-7864247?int_source=amp_continue_reading&int_medium=amp&int_campaign=continue_reading_button#amp-readmore-target

[Mr Popodopolous]

12 minutes ago, Lewisdabaron said:

So can someone explain this then?

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/bristol-rovers-forest-green-fans-7864247?int_source=amp_continue_reading&int_medium=amp&int_campaign=continue_reading_button#amp-readmore-target

That is a good find! Poor reporting? Maybe they would be classed as 2021-22, I dunno even though the ban was handed down in 2022-23, the actual offence was during 2021-22. Good find though, some of the reporting seems suspect.

[Nogbad the Bad]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

That is a good find! Poor reporting? Maybe they would be classed as 2021-22, I dunno even though the ban was handed down in 2022-23, the actual offence was during 2021-22. Good find though, some of the reporting seems suspect.

The point is Bristol Live reported that Rovers have no current banning orders (compared to City's 34)

Yet all those Rovers fans arrested in that one incident against FGR (inexplicably not named in the article btw) should currently be serving bans - at least one of them reportedly for 10 years.

Rovers have had more arrests than City in each of the last 2 seasons for incidents of at least equal seriousness and Bristol Live have previously reported long bans for Rovers fans which would certainly still be active.

Their statement that no Rovers fans are currently serving bans is contrary to their previous reporting and must be a nonsense.

Very odd indeed.

 

[maxjak]

Yep!............ 8 supporters running on to the cabbage patch....(sorry playing surface?)...........constitutes a "Major Pitch Invasion"    Apparently.........It will NOT be tolerated?   How very sad?

[Lanterne Rouge]

12 hours ago, slartibartfast said:

I blame the Evil Post !   Of course it could be that the judge considers making the Slags attend games is a more vicious punishment !

It would never get past the ECHR. A cruel and unusual punishment if ever there was one.

[Lanterne Rouge]

9 hours ago, Nogbad the Bad said:

The point is Bristol Live reported that Rovers have no current banning orders (compared to City's 34)

Yet all those Rovers fans arrested in that one incident against FGR (inexplicably not named in the article btw) should currently be serving bans - at least one of them reportedly for 10 years.

Rovers have had more arrests than City in each of the last 2 seasons for incidents of at least equal seriousness and Bristol Live have previously reported long bans for Rovers fans which would certainly still be active.

Their statement that no Rovers fans are currently serving bans is contrary to their previous reporting and must be a nonsense.

Very odd indeed.

 

They probably rang up the s*gs and asked them how many they had and they said none. The BP just printed that without checking like they always do with their bollocks.

[BanburyRed]

18 hours ago, Harry said:

Those banning order anomalies are mental! 
As someone who has served 3 separate banning orders (1 of them for pretty much eff all), I find that quite astonishing. 
How are Rovers fans not receiving banning orders but City fans are. 
That’s very odd. 

Only 3 banning orders @Harry? I'd have had you down for way more than that! 

[slartibartfast]

3 hours ago, Lanterne Rouge said:

They probably rang up the s*gs and asked them how many they had and they said none. The BP just printed that without checking like they always do with their bollocks.

I wonder how rigorously these banning orders are "policed".Maybe, with the historical small crowds the gash get, they don't worry too much, tell the gate men not to look too hard as they need the dough !