Police Today

[The Fat Controller]

eastend , eastend, eastend, you got a bee in your bonnet about the f'ing eastend

As much as i admire your campaign, this comment strikes me as slightly ironic.

Also, i feel that this topic does have relevance to the EE.

Only just started reading this thread, so there may be replies to this, but I'd like to point out that RedTop isn't in a minority of one. I usually agree with his perspective (minority of two? :noexpression: )

But he usually makes his points in a reasoned, well-informed and intelligent way, which prevents me from having a reason to post...

..until people start attacking him personally instead of dealing with his actual points. Clearly I'm the naive sort who assumes one strong argument counters 1000 pieces of nonsense. I'll start posting in support more in future.

Top post, add me to the minority.

"Section 166 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 makes it a criminal offence to sell an unauthorised ticket at regulated football matches (both at home and abroad). This is a public order provision which explicitly applies to football in view of the importance of segregation in reducing the potential for disorder between rival fans."

The above specifically applies to ticket touts but could also apply to the half-wits at BCFC that sold premier seats to Coventry City FC supporters. No matter what RedTop and Co write in defence of this club's hierarchy, selling seats in the Williams Stand to Coventry City supporters was dangerous and probably illegal with regard to Section 166 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

Reading your quote, it gives me the opinion that, like you say, this section of CJPOA is mainly for Ticket Touts. As far as i can see, it does not imply nor explicitly state that "under no circumstances are two opposing supporters to sit in the same area". The club have reduced the potential of Violence my limiting (presumably) the number of away supporters in the hospitality area, and my enforcing that all other away supporters are segregated, therefore not allowing "mixing" en-masse.

I can see your POV on this one, but I'm sure the club would have checked this out beforehand and taken some legal advice.

What was the stewarding like in/around the Premier Seating? I wasnt there.

I think that it is a very sad state of affairs that life-long supporters were evicted from the Williams stand in the first place when this Premier seating thing started out. Then to see that there was no demand for the new seats so they resort to giving the seats away or selling them to away fans who misbehave adds insult to injury.

And now to have the supporters of the East End campaign - again, life-long supporters - branded as knuckle draggers is taking things way too far.

RZ- I don't think (please point out if ive missed this) that any supporters of the EE campaign have been directly called knuckledraggers. If you are reffering to RedTop, then read his quote below...

EE does not equal knuckle draggers. Knuckle-draggers refers to those fans (in any part of the ground, or outside) who try to physically attack rival supporters and think that such action can be successfully defended in an argument. That does not mean everyone in the East End would be a knuckle-dragger by any means. But I know where my money would be on knuckle-draggers deciding to go if the East End is opened again.

[Ian M]

I think that it is a very sad state of affairs that life-long supporters were evicted from the Williams stand in the first place when this Premier seating thing started out. Then to see that there was no demand for the new seats so they resort to giving the seats away or selling them to away fans who misbehave adds insult to injury.

And now to have the supporters of the East End campaign - again, life-long supporters - branded as knuckle draggers is taking things way too far.

Actually, if you ever attended Ashton Gate, you'd know these seats (and the equivalent before the upgrade) are and always have been used by visiting supporters and home supporters. It is the behaviour of the Coventry fans that is in question and the lack of action taken to stop them.

The policy of allowing fans of both teams has been in place for years, the fact you didn't even realise shows that it passes off without incident week in week out.

Also, the fans who sat in these seats originally were offered first refusal on the new seats, and if they decided otherwise they were given a discount in alternative areas of the ground.

[cider head]

As much as i admire your campaign, this comment strikes me as slightly ironic.

mabe so but you got to keep going for what you belive in my only motive for this EE being open

is to make a difference for fans who want a better match day experience,

what motive do those have that are against it if not say working for the club in some capacity?.

Also, i feel that this topic does have relevance to the EE.

this could be about any part of ashton gate not twisted to say this will kick off in the EE

it's stated that these cov fans tried the patients of the most sainted city fans and it was them

enticing trouble and again there is no evidence to say that those city fans who bit back want to sit in the EE

[Barrs Court Red]

.

Also, i feel that this topic does have relevance to the EE.

PLEASE share us your wisdom and tell us how!

[bucksred]

PLEASE share us your wisdom and tell us how!

You may be waiting quite a while methinks.

[bucksred]

Alternatively, he might just be expressing an honestly-held alternative opinion to your own! I apologize if doing so winds you up. Take a tablet and some deep breaths, and calm down. The forum is for debating issues, and that's all we're doing.

As for megansdad, it seems a bit harsh to have a pop at him just because he disagrees with you too, doesn't it? Not being there yesterday doesn't automatically strip him of any right to an opinion on the topics raised here, such as whether verbal winding-up can ever justify physical violence whether Coventry fans should be allowed to avail themselves of City's hospitality facilities without fear of beign attacked and whether the fact that some knuckle-draggers tried to get to Coventry supporters in a separate sectioned-off area of the Williams Stand and attack them has any significance to the debate over the East End.

Incidentally, there is no campaign to keep the East End shut. I just disagree with the campaign to reopen it. I'm not alone but again, I apologize if that interferes with any attempt to portray support for the campaign as universal. I think it's been an extremely well-run, if misguided, campaign. Those that have masterminded it deserve credit for it, but at the same time I think it's a pity they haven't put their energy into something more productive and less of a sideshow.

Redtop, as you admit being a journo, with a paper with an absolutely outstanding record on accurate reporting on football violence, specifically Hillsboro..and we all know how Liverpool fans love your rag, perhaps, should you really be commenting on this sort of behaviour? Just a thought like.

and if friends of mine, who live in Germany, are right in what they were told the Scum tried to pay to incite England fans to kick it off a few years back.

[The Fat Controller]

PLEASE share us your wisdom and tell us how!

If you insist

The reason given by the club (and PLEASE correct me if i am wrong), whether right/wrong/accepted/not/justified or whatever was violence or the potential for violence, no? The cost of policing was also mentioned.

This thread is about violence amoung football supporters/potential violence/reaction to violence/the issue of policing?

Maybe I'm wrong, but they both seem linked.

Thankyou for your politeness also.

[Barrs Court Red]

I'm sorry, can you go into specifics for me please. How can anything that occured on saturday be an issue with fringes wth that of the east end issue?

[Nibor]

Redtop, as you admit being a journo, with a paper with an absolutely outstanding record on accurate reporting on football violence, specifically Hillsboro..and we all know how Liverpool fans love your rag, perhaps, should you really be commenting on this sort of behaviour? Just a thought like.

Much as I detest the Scum, hate Rupert Murdoch, and believe that most of the tabloid gutter press papperazzi should be mercilessly beaten to death with their own spleens, I would not judge RedTop just on his employer. I disagree with him frequently on here but he usually posts his argument clearly, without resorting to childish personal attacks and he seems to even have a couple of morals unlike some of his colleagues.

and if friends of mine, who live in Germany, are right in what they were told the Scum tried to pay to incite England fans to kick it off a few years back.

I can't see why they'd risk prison for a story they can just fabricate as per usual anyway. Very, very far fetched.

[Barrs Court Red]

I can't see why they'd risk prison for a story they can just fabricate as per usual anyway. Very, very far fetched.

It certainly isn't

[WTFiGO!?!]

If you insist

The reason given by the club (and PLEASE correct me if i am wrong), whether right/wrong/accepted/not/justified or whatever was violence or the potential for violence, no? The cost of policing was also mentioned.

This thread is about violence amoung football supporters/potential violence/reaction to violence/the issue of policing?

Maybe I'm wrong, but they both seem linked.

Thankyou for your politeness also.

How is actual violence in The Williams Stand linked reasonably in any way to potential (although imo only in the minds of the paranoid/deluded/stubbon - I certainly never witnessed any last time and no cctv footage of any incidents have been forthcoming or even mentioned) violence in The East End?

So any fight kicking off inside Ashton Gate, whether it be in The Dolman, The Atyeo or The Williams explains the justifification for the non-opening of The East End?

Absolutly absurd mate, I'm literally shaking my head in disbelief.

You may as well have a smilie -

[Flaxbourton Red]

RZ- I don't think (please point out if ive missed this) that any supporters of the EE campaign have been directly called knuckledraggers. If you are reffering to RedTop, then read his quote below...

As far as I'm concerned it just demonstrates why a few knuckle-draggers who follow our team can't be trusted in the East End.

[NickJ]

So any fight kicking off inside Ashton Gate, whether it be in The Dolman, The Atyeo or The Williams explains the justifification for the non-opening of The East End?

Absolutly absurd mate, I'm literally shaking my head in disbelief.

Absolutely spot on Tim, and the minority that have insinuated this really do have their prejudices against the EE fully exposed.

The skirmish in the Prem Seating actually strengthens the case for having the EE properly re-opened. It proves that if people want to make trouble, they will do it wherever. In fact, in years gone by it used to kick off in the Dolman, before that the Grandstand and before that the Park End.

[Ian M]

It has already been pointed out that RedTop was not calling the people who are campaigning for the EE to re-open knuckle-draggers but that if these campaigners were successfull, the knuckle-draggers amongst our support would be attracted to the EE like moths to a flame.

But I understand that there's a witch hunt to be had so carry on.....

[Ian M]

Absolutely spot on Tim, and the minority that have insinuated this really do have their prejudices against the EE fully exposed.

The skirmish in the Prem Seating actually strengthens the case for having the EE properly re-opened. It proves that if people want to make trouble, they will do it wherever. In fact, in years gone by it used to kick off in the Dolman, before that the Grandstand and before that the Park End.

Yes, the area next to the away fans. So, to precis, you concur that areas in immediate proximity to the visiting support attract the hooligan element.

I want it opened too but with measures to combat incidents taking place. I would therefore be labelled by yourself as having "exposed prejudices" when in reality I have "genuine concerns".

[cider head]

It has already been pointed out that RedTop was not calling the people who are campaigning for the EE to re-open knuckle-draggers but that if these campaigners were successfull, the knuckle-draggers amongst our support would be attracted to the EE like moths to a flame.

i understand what your saying but any real knuckle-draggers would not want the attention the EastEnd would bring them,

they would be right under the spot light in there and would not want the risk of a banning order.

interesting listening to talk sport this morning

some coventry fan slagging city off from fans to stewards,

this person was one sat in the prem seating with the other coventry

who were playing up, after his rant he said the lads i was with all had a bit of form

but we were not doing anything? says it all...

[Flaxbourton Red]

Yes, the area next to the away fans. So, to precis, you concur that areas in immediate proximity to the visiting support attract the hooligan element.

I want it opened too but with measures to combat incidents taking place. I would therefore be labelled by yourself as having "exposed prejudices" when in reality I have "genuine concerns".

and with the same logic what do you do about the dolman and the williams attracting the "hooligan element"? Have they got effective measures to combat "incidents" that take place, baring in mind no incidents have took place this season in these areas in immeditate proximity to visiting support?

[Ian M]

and with the same logic what do you do about the dolman and the williams attracting the "hooligan element"? Have they got effective measures to combat "incidents" that take place, baring in mind no incidents have took place this season in these areas in immeditate proximity to visiting support?

The Dolman has an absolutely massive gap between it and the away fans, something that cannot be created in its entireity if you are to place City fans in this gap.

The Williams Stand has a permanent fence, a gap between where the fans "sit" plus a tunnel shielding the away fans as they enter.

It's not entirely "no incidents" as there was a little bit of missile throwing at the Millwall game but broadly "yes" these measures seem to be successful.

However, again you seem to be replying to me as if because I have concerns I am immediately anti-EE. I am not.

I would like to see City fans in the EE and would like to investigate what sort of compromises can be met with regards to measures being put in place by sitting the Club, the campaigners and the Police round a table and thoroughly debating the subject.

Just because I have concerns about the opening of the EE does not make me "the enemy".

[tompo]

I would like to see City fans in the EE and would like to investigate what sort of compromises can be met with regards to measures being put in place by sitting the Club, the campaigners and the Police round a table and thoroughly debating the subject.

That meeting is in the process of being arranged.

[cider head]

The Dolman has an absolutely massive gap between it and the away fans, something that cannot be created in its entireity if you are to place City fans in this gap.

The Williams Stand has a permanent fence, a gap between where the fans "sit" plus a tunnel shielding the away fans as they enter.

It's not entirely "no incidents" as there was a little bit of missile throwing at the Millwall game but broadly "yes" these measures seem to be successful.

However, again you seem to be replying to me as if because I have concerns I am immediately anti-EE. I am not.

I would like to see City fans in the EE and would like to investigate what sort of compromises can be met with regards to measures being put in place by sitting the Club, the campaigners and the Police round a table and thoroughly debating the subject.

Just because I have concerns about the opening of the EE does not make me "the enemy".

but saturday proved any old tom, d### and harry can get in to the prem seating which has no segregation or nets over it

to stop away fans (that should not be there) mixing with home fans, the eastend would have segregation, nets,

stewards that know who will be sitting each side of the ee

and on this note would the prem seating have to be netted over now becuse the so called knuckle draggers

can get in there now and mix with away fans? it seems more contact can be made in there than

there ever was in the EE it seems this could attract then, same argument different stand.

[Flaxbourton Red]

The Dolman has an absolutely massive gap between it and the away fans, something that cannot be created in its entireity if you are to place City fans in this gap.

The Williams Stand has a permanent fence, a gap between where the fans "sit" plus a tunnel shielding the away fans as they enter.

It's not entirely "no incidents" as there was a little bit of missile throwing at the Millwall game but broadly "yes" these measures seem to be successful.

what missile throwing? i was in the williams next to the millwall and saw nothing save for some insults being thrown.

However, again you seem to be replying to me as if because I have concerns I am immediately anti-EE. I am not.

That's your inference not my implication

I would like to see City fans in the EE and would like to investigate what sort of compromises can be met with regards to measures being put in place by sitting the Club, the campaigners and the Police round a table and thoroughly debating the subject.

Just because I have concerns about the opening of the EE does not make me "the enemy".

On the coventry issue i would say this;If you take any club and place a group of away fans who act in an obnoxious manner in the middle of the home fans, I'm sure you will provoke some sort of response, especially if their team have scored an equalising goal after you were 3.1. Rather than the fact we have so-called as fans knuckledraggers, it is common sense that people are not going to appreciate, having forked out a load of money to sit in an area they would consider the home end, to have their faces rubbed into the equalising goal by drunken away fans.

As for the measures set up to "protect the peace" at ashton gate, it seems in some people's eyes there is will always be trouble and titillating potential for "trouble" at the "wild west" of ashton gate, even when it is a load of brouhaha over nothing. If there was "trouble" then the culprits should have been processed by the law. Were they?

Any way I understand your concerns and would put this to you;

These concerns about the behaviour of the crowd exist now, yet they seem to arise only when we play teams with large numbers of visiting fans.

When we play teams with small numbers of fans do these concerns still raise the same levels of apprehension?

You also hold that areas with a close proximity attract "troublemakers".

What would be the difference in closing the gap between the dolman and the away section of the east end have on these concerns? Is hooliganism prevented through the dissuse of half a stand?

Would it be so different from the same level of risk we see now in the distance between the williams and the away section of east end?

You mention a small fence and other apparatus in this gap between said area of the east end and the williams, would a similar design in the gap between the east end and the dolman satisfy your concerns over this issue?

I ask these questions as a fellow fan and do not consider you or anybody else in this thread as being anything other than that. I think the reasons we have been given about the closure of the east end lack consistency and common sense and need to be re-considered.

It's time to give us Bristol City fans some respect and have faith in ourselves. When was the last time we had serious crowd disturbances at Ashton Gate? Should we continue to consider ourselves as animals and thugs, untrusted to sit in our own ground?

No.

[cider head]

On the coventry issue i would say this;If you take any club and place a group of away fans who act in an obnoxious manner in the middle of the home fans, I'm sure you will provoke some sort of response, especially if their team have scored an equalising goal after you were 3.1. Rather than the fact we have so-called as fans knuckledraggers, it is common sense that people are not going to appreciate, having forked out a load of money to sit in an area they would consider the home end, to have their faces rubbed into the equalising goal by drunken away fans.

As for the measures set up to "protect the peace" at ashton gate, it seems in some people's eyes there is will always be trouble and titillating potential for "trouble" at the "wild west" of ashton gate, even when it is a load of brouhaha over nothing. If there was "trouble" then the culprits should have been processed by the law. Were they?

Any way I understand your concerns and would put this to you;

These concerns about the behaviour of the crowd exist now, yet they seem to arise only when we play teams with large numbers of visiting fans.

When we play teams with small numbers of fans do these concerns still raise the same levels apprehension?

You also hold that areas with a close proximity attract "troublemakers".

What would be the difference in closing the gap between the dolman and the away section of the east end have on these concerns? Is hooliganism prevented through the dissuse of half a stand?

Would it be so different from the same level of risk we see now in the distance between the williams and the away section of east end?

You mention a small fence and other apparatus in this gap between said area of the east end and the williams, would a similar design satisfy your concerns over this issue?

I ask these questions as a fellow fan and do not consider you or anybody else in this thread as being anything other than that. I think the reasons we have been given about the closure of the east end lack consistency and common sense and need to be re-considered.

It's time to give us Bristol City fans some respect and have faith in ourselves. When was the last time we had serious crowd disturbances at Ashton Gate? Should we continue to consider ourselves as animals and thugs, untrusted to sit in our own ground?

No.

whats even more annoying is the fact these away fans were sat in converted seats no bugger wants to sit in and the fact

these converted seats hosted home fans for 30 odd years who were turfed out only now to see away fans

sat there giving the wind up.

[bucksred]

Much as I detest the Scum, hate Rupert Murdoch, and believe that most of the tabloid gutter press papperazzi should be mercilessly beaten to death with their own spleens, I would not judge RedTop just on his employer. I disagree with him frequently on here but he usually posts his argument clearly, without resorting to childish personal attacks and he seems to even have a couple of morals unlike some of his colleagues.

I can't see why they'd risk prison for a story they can just fabricate as per usual anyway. Very, very far fetched.

Normally I don't issue with your posts, but this time I will.

If as you say (And I don't disbeleive you either) he has morals what the hell is he working for the Scum, a paper which has consistantly sensationalised any reporting on violence., real or imagined, everytime its occurred over theyears???

A paper which specialises in character assassinating anyone who does'nt achieve what they want (Examples Turnip Taylor, the Erikson stuff).

Even when they do something responsible the sting on said greedy Erikson, bungs, they consistently blow it by going OTT.

This is the same rag that constantly idolises "our boys" (and girls these days) but back in the Falklands War (The gotcha one)attracted some criticism of its sensationalist headlines...remember them well, guys were worried these would backfire on anyone taken prisoner.

As for the argument about paying our muppets to fight: thats one that I've known about since the early '80's first heard it when we went to watch Ipswich (One cup game, cant even remember who against)in Dusseldorf, and at every competition since (Club & Country). Was in the RAF then...watched every British team play out in Germany/Holland/Belgium/Denmark

worse all the other rags have now begun to emulate the lousy style, just to keep circulation. Quality journalism, I think not, ESPECIALLY after Hillsboro

And thats why I query his comments. Hypocritical, I think, given his papers track record. One he still (?) works for despite all of the stuff mentioned.

I don't condone it, or want it, but thew provocation in the Williams aint about City fans, its about the Cov numpties who tried to start it off. and Sextones stupidity in allowing Cov fans to be in an area of City fans.

How the EE and all the rest got dragged in, is quite beyond me

[Nibor]

Bucks I've got no idea why RedTop works for them, you'd have to ask him. I can only base my opinion on what he posts on here, I'm sure he can reply himself if he wants to but I just think it's a bit unfair to slate someone because of where they work.

I agree with everything you say about the Sun except that if they were paying muppets to fight they'd have got caught by now. They don't need to, there's plenty enough muppets and they can make up the extra sensational stuff as they always have done.

Coventry fans shouldn't have been allowed into the Williams hospitality in enough numbers to cause aggro, the club need to stop doing it and I hope the ST take it up with them. When they did go over the top they should have got the boot from the stewards. But, being violent towards someone for celebrating a goal regardless of which side they're on, irrespective of where they were sitting or whether the club should have let them in there is behaviour befitting a moron who should be getting a banning order.

[RedTop]

I'm not going to get into an argument about my employers because this is a forum about BCFC, and I post on here as a lifelong City fan just like anyone else. If anyone wants to debate journalistic ethics there are plenty of places to do it, and if they PM me I'll direct them to websites where they can participate in an informed debate about it without filling up this one. Everyone entitled to their views about the paper I work for, and indeed about me from the posts I put on here. But no, I don't consider that who I work for precludes me in any way from stating my own views on here as a diehard City fan. If it colours how you read them, fine. That's an issue for you.

In among some of the diatribes on this thread, there have been some excellent posts and decent points made. Clearly I'm not in a minority of one in my views on this, and I thank all those who have spoken up and agreed with me, have defended the points I have made when my meaning has been misinterpreted or have stuck up for my right to post without being personally abused even if they disagree with it. As has rightly been pointed out, I am not suggesting all those who want to go into the East End are knuckledraggers. Nor am I suggesting that the behaviour of Coventry fans was beyond reproach, and some fair points have been made about that on here too.

What I AM suggesting is that nothing they did, no matter how much they wound up City fans, can in any way be seen as justifying physical violence or the behaviour of some of those in the Williams.

As stated elsewhere, away fans do sometimes sit in the Dolman and Williams, and the Coventry fans clearly did nothing wrong in going into the hospitality area, because they declared their allegiance when they booked and the club gave them permission to go in there. Those areas that are 'home fans only' are clearly marked, including those areas in the Williams Stand. The hospitality area is NOT marked as home only, neither is the directors' box. Therefore, as far as I can see away fans currently have every right to go in there and to expect to be able to support their team there without physical violence.

As far as I'm concerned, there was no reason from past games for them to think this would be a problem. When I booked, I was informed that there would be a lot of Coventry fans in there. As I've said before, everyone in the hospitality area mixed perfectly happily. Indeed, there were some Coventry fans on our table that I'd never met before and it added to the banter. At half time, there was a lot of upset from Coventry fans because of the actions of City fans and the man with the mike did say that any Coventry fans who wanted to transfer to the away end could do. The general attitude, though, was why the hell should they when they had shelled out £82.50 a head for the facilities offered in the hospitality area, and when the club had accepted their money? Perhaps the compere should have requested that Coventry fans tone down their celebrations a bit, but that's a matter for debate. If he did, I didn't hear it (and it's perfectly possible as I wasn't within earshot for the whole of half time)

Personally, I think that it is a great shame that the club has been put in this situation, by both the Coventry fans and, especially, their own fans. It is a shame that away fans can't book places in the sectioned off Premier Club without fear for their safety from yobs, or that the club may have to consider stopping selling hospitality to away fans as a result because:

1/ In a civilised society it hardly reflects well on any of us at BCFC that away fans celebrating their goals feel under physical threat in our ground (and the Coventry fan who was with me certainly felt that way, despite not having done more than jump up, cheer and clap when Coventry scored).

2/ It is a great shame if friends who differ in allegiance cannot go to a City game and sit together without fearing for their safety, as they could in the hospitality area.

3/ If just 40 Coventry fans bought hospitality, it covers that week's salary for at least one player. From what I could see, there were more than that. They probably paid the salary or two or three of the players in our team just by going into hospitality rather than the away end (and that's without the bar takings which, like some of you, I suspect were considerable). If the club can't maximise income from away fans at fixtures against clubs with big followings, we all lose - and if we get promotion next season, then that is one hell of a lot of money down the drain because you can bet that we would be missing out on a similar number of away fans in hospitality for probably half of the fixtures, which when you consider that may pay for the salaries of a quarter of our starting XI, is money we could do with. If we want to progress as a club and afford the best possibly players, that's food for thought. You can quibble with the approximations I've made, but you can't ignore the fact that it is serious money that we would lose out on week after week. Not Coventry, Us.

4/ If we don't let other teams book hospitality, that could end up being reciprocated, and it would be a shame if we were not even given the chance of splashing out occasionally as a treat. Imagine a group of you deciding to hire a box or hospitality as a big day out if we got a famous team in the cup, only to be told 'sorry, you can't, because you might have to mix with home fans. Okay, so not everyone would want to do this, but it's yet another thing that we would be deprived of. I'm hoping to go into the hospitality area at Coventry. It will be interesting to compare the experience.

However you look at it, the actions of our Neanderthal element are neither defensible nor in our interests. I do not see why people are focusing their anger on Coventry fans who did not try to physically assault people, instead of those of OUR fans who did and who drag OUR names through the mud and could deny OUR club money we badly need. We can't do anything about Coventry fans. We can try to put our own house in order or at the very least not try to excuse the actions of knuckledraggers just because they are 'our' knucledraggers. If those yobbos (assuming they can read) have come on this forum and read some of the comments on here, they've probably gone off feeling completely vindicated and like they've got enough support to justified their actions. Worse still, they probably feel there are people out there who would defend them if they did it again, which quite frankly is appalling.

To spell out why I think it is relevant to the EE (and yes, I did spot the irony of someone who was in favour of opening the EE complaining that a thread had been twisted to talking about the EE after the way this forum was all-but hijacked when the campaign started), then it is this: To see brainless yobs trying to physically attack away fans (and on at least one occasion succeeding) who have been sectioned off from the area they are in, to see the fervour with which they acted, to see them uninhibited in doing so with CCTV and stewards around, and to read on here people supporting what they did and trying to justify it on the basis that fans of a rival team were 'asking for it' by vehemently celebrating their team's goals (shock, horror) surely has implications worth discussing. Yes, Coventry fans may have acted without due respect by going o.t.t. with their celebrations, maybe even goading home fans (again, shock horror. Whoever heard of that?). But that does NOT equate to 'nearly putting yourself in hospital', nor does it give anyone a free pass to try to attack them, though as I say, knuckledraggers reading this thread could be forgiven for thinking otherwise.

We are all adults (well, most of us). How the hell can any adult - especially a so-called diehard who has presumably experienced enough games to be familiar with the odd bit of goading or '###### sign' from a rival fan - really be so incensed and shocked by a few gestures from an away fan sitting in another area which has been sectioned off from his own that he is either unwilling or physically unable to control his own body and feels compelled to rush out of his seat and launch a physical attack? No, some of the Coventry fans may not have been polite. They may have gone beyond the accepted 'etiquette' of toning down your celebrations if you are in the home end (as I did at both Swansea and Cheltenham). But can anyone honestly defend someone who says: "Well he was sat in the same stand and he was taunting us, so he deserved to be attacked"?

I hope not.

I would love it if the club or the police studied the CCTV footage from the Coventry game and picked out any of those fans who were involved and who turn up in the Williams Stand on Saturday. Will it happen? I doubt it. Given the response on here, the club would probably face a huge backlash if stewards or cops moved in and plucked them out of the crowd. Equally, of course, any away fans in the hospitality area whose bahaviour can be picked out on CCTV as unacceptable should also be dealt with.

Anyway, the bottom line is this: Can the actions of City fans on Saturday be justified? No. Who loses from their actions? We all do. Which is why it's such a shame to see some people apparently rushing to excuse them.

P.S. If those of you who have been abusing me fancy a laugh at my expense, feel free to imagine the look on my face at 6.55pm this evening when I arrived at the Winterstoke Road entrance after driving down to Ashton Gate straight from work in London ready for the Brighton game in the Paintpot Trophy. Or imagine what it would have looked like if there had been any lights on.

[Nibor]

P.S. If those of you who have been abusing me fancy a laugh at my expense, feel free to imagine the look on my face at 6.55pm this evening when I arrived at the Winterstoke Road entrance after driving down to Ashton Gate straight from work in London ready for the Brighton game in the Paintpot Trophy. Or imagine what it would have looked like if there had been any lights on.

That's twice inside what - 6 weeks? - that you've been to an imaginary match...

I think you should recommend to Mr Murdoch that the Sun get on t'internet - news was out at midday but obviously the carrier pigeon didn't arrive in time?

Sorry I can't help it I am having a chuckle especially considering all the god damn middle lane drivers on the m4 weeknights. That must be painful.

[Guest]

I'm not going to get into an argument about my employers because this is a forum about BCFC, and I post on here as a lifelong City fan just like anyone else. If anyone wants to debate journalistic ethics there are plenty of places to do it, and if they PM me I'll direct them to websites where they can participate in an informed debate about it without filling up this one. Everyone entitled to their views about the paper I work for, and indeed about me from the posts I put on here. But no, I don't consider that who I work for precludes me in any way from stating my own views on here as a diehard City fan. If it colours how you read them, fine. That's an issue for you.

In among some of the diatribes on this thread, there have been some excellent posts and decent points made. Clearly I'm not in a minority of one in my views on this, and I thank all those who have spoken up and agreed with me, have defended the points I have made when my meaning has been misinterpreted or have stuck up for my right to post without being personally abused even if they disagree with it. As has rightly been pointed out, I am not suggesting all those who want to go into the East End are knuckledraggers. Nor am I suggesting that the behaviour of Coventry fans was beyond reproach, and some fair points have been made about that on here too.

What I AM suggesting is that nothing they did, no matter how much they wound up City fans, can in any way be seen as justifying physical violence or the behaviour of some of those in the Williams.

As stated elsewhere, away fans do sometimes sit in the Dolman and Williams, and the Coventry fans clearly did nothing wrong in going into the hospitality area, because they declared their allegiance when they booked and the club gave them permission to go in there. Those areas that are 'home fans only' are clearly marked, including those areas in the Williams Stand. The hospitality area is NOT marked as home only, neither is the directors' box. Therefore, as far as I can see away fans currently have every right to go in there and to expect to be able to support their team there without physical violence.

As far as I'm concerned, there was no reason from past games for them to think this would be a problem. When I booked, I was informed that there would be a lot of Coventry fans in there. As I've said before, everyone in the hospitality area mixed perfectly happily. Indeed, there were some Coventry fans on our table that I'd never met before and it added to the banter. At half time, there was a lot of upset from Coventry fans because of the actions of City fans and the man with the mike did say that any Coventry fans who wanted to transfer to the away end could do. The general attitude, though, was why the hell should they when they had shelled out £82.50 a head for the facilities offered in the hospitality area, and when the club had accepted their money? Perhaps the compere should have requested that Coventry fans tone down their celebrations a bit, but that's a matter for debate. If he did, I didn't hear it (and it's perfectly possible as I wasn't within earshot for the whole of half time)

Personally, I think that it is a great shame that the club has been put in this situation, by both the Coventry fans and, especially, their own fans. It is a shame that away fans can't book places in the sectioned off Premier Club without fear for their safety from yobs, or that the club may have to consider stopping selling hospitality to away fans as a result because:

1/ In a civilised society it hardly reflects well on any of us at BCFC that away fans celebrating their goals feel under physical threat in our ground (and the Coventry fan who was with me certainly felt that way, despite not having done more than jump up, cheer and clap when Coventry scored).

2/ It is a great shame if friends who differ in allegiance cannot go to a City game and sit together without fearing for their safety, as they could in the hospitality area.

3/ If just 40 Coventry fans bought hospitality, it covers that week's salary for at least one player. From what I could see, there were more than that. They probably paid the salary or two or three of the players in our team just by going into hospitality rather than the away end (and that's without the bar takings which, like some of you, I suspect were considerable). If the club can't maximise income from away fans at fixtures against clubs with big followings, we all lose - and if we get promotion next season, then that is one hell of a lot of money down the drain because you can bet that we would be missing out on a similar number of away fans in hospitality for probably half of the fixtures, which when you consider that may pay for the salaries of a quarter of our starting XI, is money we could do with. If we want to progress as a club and afford the best possibly players, that's food for thought. You can quibble with the approximations I've made, but you can't ignore the fact that it is serious money that we would lose out on week after week. Not Coventry, Us.

4/ If we don't let other teams book hospitality, that could end up being reciprocated, and it would be a shame if we were not even given the chance of splashing out occasionally as a treat. Imagine a group of you deciding to hire a box or hospitality as a big day out if we got a famous team in the cup, only to be told 'sorry, you can't, because you might have to mix with home fans. Okay, so not everyone would want to do this, but it's yet another thing that we would be deprived of. I'm hoping to go into the hospitality area at Coventry. It will be interesting to compare the experience.

However you look at it, the actions of our Neanderthal element are neither defensible nor in our interests. I do not see why people are focusing their anger on Coventry fans who did not try to physically assault people, instead of those of OUR fans who did and who drag OUR names through the mud and could deny OUR club money we badly need. We can't do anything about Coventry fans. We can try to put our own house in order or at the very least not try to excuse the actions of knuckledraggers just because they are 'our' knucledraggers. If those yobbos (assuming they can read) have come on this forum and read some of the comments on here, they've probably gone off feeling completely vindicated and like they've got enough support to justified their actions. Worse still, they probably feel there are people out there who would defend them if they did it again, which quite frankly is appalling.

To spell out why I think it is relevant to the EE (and yes, I did spot the irony of someone who was in favour of opening the EE complaining that a thread had been twisted to talking about the EE after the way this forum was all-but hijacked when the campaign started), then it is this: To see brainless yobs trying to physically attack away fans (and on at least one occasion succeeding) who have been sectioned off from the area they are in, to see the fervour with which they acted, to see them uninhibited in doing so with CCTV and stewards around, and to read on here people supporting what they did and trying to justify it on the basis that fans of a rival team were 'asking for it' by vehemently celebrating their team's goals (shock, horror) surely has implications worth discussing. Yes, Coventry fans may have acted without due respect by going o.t.t. with their celebrations, maybe even goading home fans (again, shock horror. Whoever heard of that?). But that does NOT equate to 'nearly putting yourself in hospital', nor does it give anyone a free pass to try to attack them, though as I say, knuckledraggers reading this thread could be forgiven for thinking otherwise.

We are all adults (well, most of us). How the hell can any adult - especially a so-called diehard who has presumably experienced enough games to be familiar with the odd bit of goading or '###### sign' from a rival fan - really be so incensed and shocked by a few gestures from an away fan sitting in another area which has been sectioned off from his own that he is either unwilling or physically unable to control his own body and feels compelled to rush out of his seat and launch a physical attack? No, some of the Coventry fans may not have been polite. They may have gone beyond the accepted 'etiquette' of toning down your celebrations if you are in the home end (as I did at both Swansea and Cheltenham). But can anyone honestly defend someone who says: "Well he was sat in the same stand and he was taunting us, so he deserved to be attacked"?

I hope not.

I would love it if the club or the police studied the CCTV footage from the Coventry game and picked out any of those fans who were involved and who turn up in the Williams Stand on Saturday. Will it happen? I doubt it. Given the response on here, the club would probably face a huge backlash if stewards or cops moved in and plucked them out of the crowd. Equally, of course, any away fans in the hospitality area whose bahaviour can be picked out on CCTV as unacceptable should also be dealt with.

Anyway, the bottom line is this: Can the actions of City fans on Saturday be justified? No. Who loses from their actions? We all do. Which is why it's such a shame to see some people apparently rushing to excuse them.

P.S. If those of you who have been abusing me fancy a laugh at my expense, feel free to imagine the look on my face at 6.55pm this evening when I arrived at the Winterstoke Road entrance after driving down to Ashton Gate straight from work in London ready for the Brighton game in the Paintpot Trophy. Or imagine what it would have looked like if there had been any lights on.

Each to his own, it takes allsorts; and there is a god; how does that song go the lights are on theres no-one in; telephones are wonderfull things mate

Maybe you should of also paid particular attension to the"MID DAY PITCH INSPECTION"news topic on the main site

[Flaxbourton Red]

I'm not going to get into an argument about my employers because this is a forum about BCFC, and I post on here as a lifelong City fan just like anyone else. If anyone wants to debate journalistic ethics there are plenty of places to do it, and if they PM me I'll direct them to websites where they can participate in an informed debate about it without filling up this one. Everyone entitled to their views about the paper I work for, and indeed about me from the posts I put on here. But no, I don't consider that who I work for precludes me in any way from stating my own views on here as a diehard City fan. If it colours how you read them, fine. That's an issue for you.

In among some of the diatribes on this thread, there have been some excellent posts and decent points made. Clearly I'm not in a minority of one in my views on this, and I thank all those who have spoken up and agreed with me, have defended the points I have made when my meaning has been misinterpreted or have stuck up for my right to post without being personally abused even if they disagree with it. As has rightly been pointed out, I am not suggesting all those who want to go into the East End are knuckledraggers. Nor am I suggesting that the behaviour of Coventry fans was beyond reproach, and some fair points have been made about that on here too.

What I AM suggesting is that nothing they did, no matter how much they wound up City fans, can in any way be seen as justifying physical violence or the behaviour of some of those in the Williams.

As stated elsewhere, away fans do sometimes sit in the Dolman and Williams, and the Coventry fans clearly did nothing wrong in going into the hospitality area, because they declared their allegiance when they booked and the club gave them permission to go in there. Those areas that are 'home fans only' are clearly marked, including those areas in the Williams Stand. The hospitality area is NOT marked as home only, neither is the directors' box. Therefore, as far as I can see away fans currently have every right to go in there and to expect to be able to support their team there without physical violence.

As far as I'm concerned, there was no reason from past games for them to think this would be a problem. When I booked, I was informed that there would be a lot of Coventry fans in there. As I've said before, everyone in the hospitality area mixed perfectly happily. Indeed, there were some Coventry fans on our table that I'd never met before and it added to the banter. At half time, there was a lot of upset from Coventry fans because of the actions of City fans and the man with the mike did say that any Coventry fans who wanted to transfer to the away end could do. The general attitude, though, was why the hell should they when they had shelled out £82.50 a head for the facilities offered in the hospitality area, and when the club had accepted their money? Perhaps the compere should have requested that Coventry fans tone down their celebrations a bit, but that's a matter for debate. If he did, I didn't hear it (and it's perfectly possible as I wasn't within earshot for the whole of half time)

Personally, I think that it is a great shame that the club has been put in this situation, by both the Coventry fans and, especially, their own fans. It is a shame that away fans can't book places in the sectioned off Premier Club without fear for their safety from yobs, or that the club may have to consider stopping selling hospitality to away fans as a result because:

1/ In a civilised society it hardly reflects well on any of us at BCFC that away fans celebrating their goals feel under physical threat in our ground (and the Coventry fan who was with me certainly felt that way, despite not having done more than jump up, cheer and clap when Coventry scored).

2/ It is a great shame if friends who differ in allegiance cannot go to a City game and sit together without fearing for their safety, as they could in the hospitality area.

3/ If just 40 Coventry fans bought hospitality, it covers that week's salary for at least one player. From what I could see, there were more than that. They probably paid the salary or two or three of the players in our team just by going into hospitality rather than the away end (and that's without the bar takings which, like some of you, I suspect were considerable). If the club can't maximise income from away fans at fixtures against clubs with big followings, we all lose - and if we get promotion next season, then that is one hell of a lot of money down the drain because you can bet that we would be missing out on a similar number of away fans in hospitality for probably half of the fixtures, which when you consider that may pay for the salaries of a quarter of our starting XI, is money we could do with. If we want to progress as a club and afford the best possibly players, that's food for thought. You can quibble with the approximations I've made, but you can't ignore the fact that it is serious money that we would lose out on week after week. Not Coventry, Us.

4/ If we don't let other teams book hospitality, that could end up being reciprocated, and it would be a shame if we were not even given the chance of splashing out occasionally as a treat. Imagine a group of you deciding to hire a box or hospitality as a big day out if we got a famous team in the cup, only to be told 'sorry, you can't, because you might have to mix with home fans. Okay, so not everyone would want to do this, but it's yet another thing that we would be deprived of. I'm hoping to go into the hospitality area at Coventry. It will be interesting to compare the experience.

However you look at it, the actions of our Neanderthal element are neither defensible nor in our interests. I do not see why people are focusing their anger on Coventry fans who did not try to physically assault people, instead of those of OUR fans who did and who drag OUR names through the mud and could deny OUR club money we badly need. We can't do anything about Coventry fans. We can try to put our own house in order or at the very least not try to excuse the actions of knuckledraggers just because they are 'our' knucledraggers. If those yobbos (assuming they can read) have come on this forum and read some of the comments on here, they've probably gone off feeling completely vindicated and like they've got enough support to justified their actions. Worse still, they probably feel there are people out there who would defend them if they did it again, which quite frankly is appalling.

To spell out why I think it is relevant to the EE (and yes, I did spot the irony of someone who was in favour of opening the EE complaining that a thread had been twisted to talking about the EE after the way this forum was all-but hijacked when the campaign started), then it is this: To see brainless yobs trying to physically attack away fans (and on at least one occasion succeeding) who have been sectioned off from the area they are in, to see the fervour with which they acted, to see them uninhibited in doing so with CCTV and stewards around, and to read on here people supporting what they did and trying to justify it on the basis that fans of a rival team were 'asking for it' by vehemently celebrating their team's goals (shock, horror) surely has implications worth discussing. Yes, Coventry fans may have acted without due respect by going o.t.t. with their celebrations, maybe even goading home fans (again, shock horror. Whoever heard of that?). But that does NOT equate to 'nearly putting yourself in hospital', nor does it give anyone a free pass to try to attack them, though as I say, knuckledraggers reading this thread could be forgiven for thinking otherwise.

We are all adults (well, most of us). How the hell can any adult - especially a so-called diehard who has presumably experienced enough games to be familiar with the odd bit of goading or '###### sign' from a rival fan - really be so incensed and shocked by a few gestures from an away fan sitting in another area which has been sectioned off from his own that he is either unwilling or physically unable to control his own body and feels compelled to rush out of his seat and launch a physical attack? No, some of the Coventry fans may not have been polite. They may have gone beyond the accepted 'etiquette' of toning down your celebrations if you are in the home end (as I did at both Swansea and Cheltenham). But can anyone honestly defend someone who says: "Well he was sat in the same stand and he was taunting us, so he deserved to be attacked"?

I hope not.

I would love it if the club or the police studied the CCTV footage from the Coventry game and picked out any of those fans who were involved and who turn up in the Williams Stand on Saturday. Will it happen? I doubt it. Given the response on here, the club would probably face a huge backlash if stewards or cops moved in and plucked them out of the crowd. Equally, of course, any away fans in the hospitality area whose bahaviour can be picked out on CCTV as unacceptable should also be dealt with.

Anyway, the bottom line is this: Can the actions of City fans on Saturday be justified? No. Who loses from their actions? We all do. Which is why it's such a shame to see some people apparently rushing to excuse them.

P.S. If those of you who have been abusing me fancy a laugh at my expense, feel free to imagine the look on my face at 6.55pm this evening when I arrived at the Winterstoke Road entrance after driving down to Ashton Gate straight from work in London ready for the Brighton game in the Paintpot Trophy. Or imagine what it would have looked like if there had been any lights on.

That's rather a long winded way to say "If confronted by a group of drunken away fans in the home end verbally abusing you and giving you the old anchor sign; turn the other cheek, especially if they have paid £82 for the privilege". Perhaps we should laugh it off as high jinks and wish them well on their journey back up north.

I also imagine it's a little bit more than your respect for etiquette that prevented you from wildly celebrating city's goal at Swansea.

[flying fokker]

1) were these coventry fans in the williams stand holding complimentry tickets?

2) will we be kept behind at the replayed game?

3) Reference the police: The horses were put to bed (in the horsey van by 3:30pm)

So if the Four horse woman of the apocalipse didn't think it was worth putting thier

arses on thier orses until the final whistle

Was it worth the police being thier in the first place?

1)Probably..

2) The Ricoh is well Stewarded and at some games there is low profile policing. I have seen as many as 2000 away supporters and only half a dozen police. Away supporters have never been kept back and you will often see fans walking peacefully wearing their colours with pride. It is no different to your place except that the outside concourse is wide enough to accomodate large numbers of people comfortably.

The Ricoh is not the place for trouble although some Birmingham fans did cause some earlier this year on the roads surrounding the stadium.

3) Why would you need horses to police a crowd of Coventry City supporters? in my view this would have been intimidatory and dangerous if horses were anywhere near both sets of fans in a narrow road.

Just a final note: I have been on the receiving end of football violence against Aston Villa fans in the late 1970's. They picked on me becuase i was wearing my colours in Sky Blues terracing. It is nowhere near as bad now and I would not want to go there again.

[OC 1645]

What I AM suggesting is that nothing they did, no matter how much they wound up City fans, can in any way be seen as justifying physical violence or the behaviour of some of those in the Williams.

RedTop, this is slightly off track but related to the issue you've replied at length to - as a journalist do you condone Prince Harry's actions against a fellow journalist? Were Prince Harry's actions justified? Why were charges not pressed against this royal public school educated thug? Is there one law for some and another for the rest of us?

Prince Harry recently photographed coming out of a London nightclub, somewhat inebriated, where he punched a photographer for daring to take his picture........