Sit Down and Shut Up

[HatterDon]

http://roopaprika.blogspot.com/2010/03/sit-down-shut-up.html


Sit down, shut up?

I am a 30-something female, with a good job and a squeaky clean criminal record, yet every weekend, according to the Football Supporters Federation, my human rights are compromised. My freedom of movement and right to assemble is restricted and my image is captured, despite having never committing or being accused of any crime. This is all because I regularly attend football matches. Football matches are subject to policing and stewarding unheard of at any other public event of its kind, beyond the laws brought in to apply within football grounds as a result of the Taylor Report on Hillsborough. The Football Supporters Federation is increasingly concerned about the discrimination shown towards football supporters by the Police and the law.

Section 27 of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 allows the police to move someone, over the age of 16, from a specified area for a period of up to 48 hours. No offence needs to have been committed for the act to be enforced (Football Supporters Federation 2008). The Home Office's guidance to the Police on the implementation of this power states, "the power is to be used where the presence of that person in that locality is likely to cause or contribute to the occurrence of alcohol-related crime or disorder in that locality and the direction is considered necessary to prevent or reduce the likelihood of such alcohol-related crime or disorder. The aim of the new power is to minimise the likelihood of alcohol-related crime or disorder arising and/or taking place" (Home Office 2007). The Home Office advice goes on to say that the power should be used "proportionately and reasonably", however, the Football Supporters Federation has increasing accounts of this not being the case for football fans. For example, in 2008 80 Stoke City fans were rounded up in a pub in Manchester prior to a game at Old Trafford, were detained for up to four hours and forcibly transported by the police back to Stoke-on-Trent on coaches, missing the game. The fans had been well-behaved and the pub landlord made no complaints about their behaviour. Greater Manchester Police later conceded that there was no evidence to enforce Section 27 on the Stoke City Supporters and that its use in this case was unlawful and compensation was awarded to some of the fans (Football Supporters Federation 2009)

Unfortunately the examples of football fans being policed on prejudice and reputation rather than evidence are not limited to the unlawful use of Section 27. Regular attendees at football matches would, at some point, have had their freedom of movement restricted. A personal example from attending a Norwich v Ipswich game involved being rounded up by Norfolk police from the platform at Norwich Station and escorted to Carrow Road. There was no option and requests or attempts to leave the escort to make your own way to the ground or in to the City Centre were met with the reply that not conforming would result in being put on a train back to Ipswich, an occurrence that is increasingly known in football as a 'Bubble Trip'. My freedom of movement would not be restricted this way in any other circumstances without legal evidence, yet this kind of policing occurs somewhere in the Country every weekend.

At a recent Football Supporters Federation event a representative from the Metropolitan Police said that football supporters were policed on behaviour not on reputation and that disorder at football has reduced. However, the overwhelming opinion of other panellists and the audience was that football fans experienced regular discrimination, were treated as 'second class citizens' and a 'riot waiting to happen'. The panellist from the Crown Prosecution Service implied that some of the treatment of football fans such as being filmed and stopped and searched was not a problem if you were not doing anything wrong. But football has changed, why should we all be subject to this kind of authoritarianism? The demographic of the fan base has changed significantly since the 'darker days' of football, often cited to justify this kind of policing. Why should someone be discriminated against and their freedoms eroded on the ground of what sport they choose to watch? If you are not persuaded by the human rights argument, what about the cost to the taxpayer of this heavy and unnecessary use of our police service?

One solution is political lobbying for laws to be changed and the removal of laws that apply just to football and increased awareness of unlawful practices by some the Country's police forces towards football fans. Much work is being done by organisations such as the Football Supporters Federation and with millions of people attending football matches every week in the UK the political strength would be enormous, however, football support is rivalrous in nature and without more unity between factions of supporters this political power risks not being realised.

Posted by Roo Paprika at 2:11 PM

[finnster01]

Obviously this person didn't attend the fairly recent West Ham vs Millwall match (or this weekend Chelsea vs Stoke).

It still goes off. It is the way it is.

We (the football fans) are not a big happy family on holiday in Disney World.

[HatterDon]

Over the last few years that I've been visiting football sites, I've seen a lot of complaining about this and about the way stewards in the various football grounds treat supporters. It wasn't until I read this article and did a little google-like research that I realized how much statutory power the police and quasi-police have over individual fans. Yes, I know all about Hillsboro and I've experienced more than my share of the idiotic supporters of the 60s and 70s, so I know what inspired the laws. Here's my questions for those of you who've lived in England since I left in 1992:

Is Association football the only sporting discipline that gets this treatment? Conversely do these laws similarly affect supporters of Rugby Union, Rugby League, Speedway, county or test cricket? Has anyone challenged the ligitimacy of these laws in the European courts?  Just wondering. Thanks in advance.

[finnster01]

In my experience, it is only football.

You can watch Scotland play England in Rugby and everyone will have a great day out, north or south of the border.

But bring on football, people get hurt.

[Jimpav]

Is Association football the only sporting discipline that gets this treatment? Conversely do these laws similarly affect supporters of Rugby Union, Rugby League, Speedway, county or test cricket? Has anyone challenged the ligitimacy of these laws in the European courts?  Just wondering. Thanks in advance.

I would expect so HD for the simple reason that spectators of the other sports mentioned can be trusted to sit together, have a few drinks (in the stadium I add), sing offensive songs and heckle but without the need to want to smash each other (and the stadium) up. I'm not saying this is what all football supporters want to do but there are plenty that do.

I'm not sure that anyone has challenged this but do you think they would have a leg to stand on if they do?

[White Noise]

A well written piece IMHO. We are subject to a policy based on 1980's levels of misbehaviour. Stuff like Wet Spam V 'wall is very isolated. When you look at the number of police at Fulham home games relative to the number of arrests made there on average for the
Last 5 seasons its a massive waste of manpower and money. But who pays? We do - because the club gets charged for the policing. Surely it would make sense to decrease the levels of policing at grounds like ours to see if they are really needed. If not then it could act as an incentive to others - behave yourselves and the policing will be lighter. Fulham pay £350k - £400k a season on policing but when was the last time you saw them intervene in anything? The little bits of interplay in Bishop's Park are never really bothered with and we have the best record of behaviour in the league. Yes there are clubs like Cardiff, Stoke, Leeds etc that can give you grief but their hardcore is diminishing. A lighter touch is needed all round to create a virtous circle of behaviour. We are treated childishly at football and cricket but, as Finnster says, not Rugby. Some of the big wigs need to attend a match with the plebs and see how they like it. The bottom line is that the police are getting lots of lovely overtime for doing sweet Fanny Adams. There is no way they are going to mess with the comfortable status quo. What football desperately needs is some visionary (or even half capable) administrators to fight footballs corner. Why does the biggest sport in the solar system not have anyone of ability putting its case and shaping its future? If politicians wants votes they should take the national sport in hand and do is all a favour.

[The Equalizer]

WN, sadly I think that it is a requirement of all large gatherings to have a police presence. There is very little trouble at or around Twickenham when England are playing, yet there still needs to be a massive police presence.

It would be nice to have a beer in my seat though. I hope that they do change things soon...

[White Noise]

You are probably right Eq but I just don't notice the wallopers so much at the rugby. I am sure they would say it is their deterrent effect that keeps trouble to a minimum but I just don't see it. I guess you could say that £10k a game to police is worth the money but we managed fine for 80 or 90 years without this sort of close attention.

[finnster01]

All I know is that when I lived in Glasgow on my first trip to Hampden Park to watch the sweaty socks play England, I stopped in a pub in Sauchiehall Street for a brew and breakfast/brunch, and before I even got to the door, the glass in the front window shattered and a lad in an England shirt (still sitting in his chair by the way) came flying through it.

[bigalffc]

I sympathise with everyone except the louts from Stoke. Lock 'em all up the morons!

[Peabody]

Unfortunately, we Football fans are all tarred with the same brush and yes it is unjustified but from the authorities point of view, it is the easiest way to handle the situation. One thing I did notice on saturday was the large police presence in Bishops P ark. Far larger than normal and I dont know why, I am not aware of any history between us and Tottenham. Funny enough, there were no touts to be seen.

[finnster01]

Funny enough, there were no touts to be seen.

Mr Peabody,

They probably had sold out already.

[Logicalman]

Ok, lets get this into a little perspective.

The Law that the article relates to is the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006, which amended certain parts of the following:
Football Spectators Act 1989
Football (Disorder) Act 2000
Sexual Offences Act 2003
Section 8 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998
Section 23 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969
Mobile Telephones (Reprogramming) Act 2002

So, it is used not only for football, but also for all public places and can be used at all events that take place at public venues.


The particular Section 27 mentioned in the Article, is (in full):

27 Directions to individuals who represent a risk of disorder

(1) If the test in subsection (2) is satisfied in the case of an individual aged 16 or over who is in a public place, a constable in uniform may give a direction to that individual—
  (a) requiring him to leave the locality of that place; and
  (b) prohibiting the individual from returning to that locality for such period (not exceeding 48 hours) from the giving of the direction as the constable may specify.

(2) That test is—
  (a) that the presence of the individual in that locality is likely, in all the circumstances, to cause or to contribute to the occurrence of alcohol related crime or disorder in that locality, or to cause or to contribute to a repetition or continuance there of such crime or disorder; and
  (b) that the giving of a direction under this section to that individual is necessary for the purpose of removing or reducing the likelihood of there being such crime or disorder in that locality during the period for which the direction has effect or of there being a repetition or continuance in that locality during that period of such crime or disorder.

(3) A direction under this section—
  (a) must be given in writing;
  (b) may require the individual to whom it is given to leave the locality in question either immediately or by such time as the constable giving the direction may specify;
  (c) must clearly identify the locality to which it relates;
  (d) must specify the period for which the individual is prohibited from returning to that locality;
  (e) may impose requirements as to the manner in which that individual leaves the locality, including his route; and
  (f) may be withdrawn or varied (but not extended so as to apply for a period of more than 48 hours) by a constable.

(4) A constable may not give a direction under this section that prevents the individual to whom it is given—
  (a) from having access to a place where he resides;
  (b) from attending at any place which he is required to attend for the purposes of any employment of his or of any contract of services to which he is a party;
  (c) from attending at any place which he is expected to attend during the period to which the direction applies for the purposes of education or training or for the purpose of receiving medical treatment; or   (d) from attending at any place which he is required to attend by any obligation imposed on him by or under an enactment or by the order of a court or tribunal.

(5) A constable who gives a direction under this section must make a record of—
  (a) the terms of the direction and the locality to which it relates;
  (b) the individual to whom it is given;
  (c) the time at which it is given;
  (d) the period during which that individual is required not to return to the locality.

(6) A person who fails to comply with a direction under this section is guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.

(7) In section 64A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c. 60) (power to photograph suspects), in subsection (1B), after paragraph (c) insert— "(ca) given a direction by a constable under section 27 of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006;".

(8) In this section "public place" means—
  (a) a highway; or
  (b) any place to which at the material time the public or any section of the public has access, on payment or otherwise, as of right or by virtue of express or implied permission; and for this purpose "place" includes a place on a means of transport.


This Act further relates to:
Sale and disposal of tickets by unauthorised persons (for a football match)
Football Banning Orders (Amending The Football Spectators Act 1989)


If you want to read the whole 89 pages of the Act, here you go: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2006/pdf/ukpga_20060038_en.pdf

[FC Silver Fox]

Its the interpretation of the law that I have trouble with. Its not always the troublemaker hooligan element who are subjected to the act. Some fans are innocent of any wrongdoing and are only there to appreciate their team and sport. Their wrongdoing is simply that they are in the minority. Rather than deal with the people who are threatening and carrying out violent acts, its easier to consider the minority as a catalyst for trouble, invoke the law, and give them the hassle and inconvenience, sometimes to the extent of not seeing the event they came for in the first place. Its an easy solution for the police because that group of people aren't likely to give them any trouble.

I also applaud the valid points put by the other contributors to this thread.
How do the laws apply to stewards at an event?  Surely, in law, they have the same powers as a citizen?  No more, no less ? I could be wrong though.

[Rupert]

A very well written piece.

One thing to remember is that the Supporter's Federation and similar bodies have been warning us for years about this sort of thing, the increase in powers for the police, the abuse it potentially allowed them, and to be honest that is most of what it is, potential.
I recall some terrific cartoons in various magazines and fanzines in the '90's, warning us that we could be arrested for singing at a game or whatever, that three football fans going to a game together could be nicked for riotous assembly, etc. The problem the doom-mongers have is, with the odd exception like the Stoke example quoted, these mass round-ups and deportations simply have not happened.

Yes, I have experienced the bubble trip experience, it was years ago at Notts County, I got off the train, a copper asked me if I was going to the game, I said yes, he told me to use gate whatever, and I was escorted, along with a few dozen others, straight to the ground. After that, if asked (rarely) I say no, not me, and peacefully go on my way to do the type of sightseeing I enjoy before going to the game. The thing is, a large group of boozed up football fans, singing, chanting, swearing, all this can be very intimidating to the uneducated masses who fail to understand that they are just a bunch of lads enjoying themselves.
Remove the alcohol and things change, the lads are less likely to chant, swear, etc, less likely to group together and less likely to attract police attention or do things which upset the public.
Of course, asking fans in general to show such restraint is a waste of time, half the reason for away trips is the clan feelings experienced, the us against them, the band of brothers ideal, but by the same token expecting the local authorities to stand by and smile indulgently while a few misbehave, well, that simply won't happen either.

[finnster01]

But the question I keep asking myself (and I don't pretend to be no saint) is why is it always football?

Rugby doesn't have it, you can still watch Scotland vs England, bring your children, and they won't steal the goalposts or other fixtures.

But Millwall still can't play West Ham without a Brixton riot.

[AlFayedsChequebook]

Whilst I understand that hooliganism still exists and has the potential to be a big problem, these days it simply isn't.

The powers that be have decided that it is easier to restrict everyone then try to actually sort out the root of the problem. I like the idea by a previous poster -- gradually reduce the police presence at places like Fulham, and take clubs to task when dealing with bad behaviour. If you start punishing the clubs with troublesome fans rather than everyone maybe hooliganism will actually be dealt with. A message has to be sent out that bad/violent behaviour has no place in modern football.

[Rambling_Syd_Rumpo]

Speaking as somebody who grew up watching Rugby League it's policed in a different way for an example-Last years Challegne Cup final at Wenbley,everybody mixed in all the pubs,not one team in one and one team in an other an I mean everyone as it's treated a day out in London for the North and every team had a shirt being worn,lots of people in fancy dress(blokes and girls) lots of singing and no trouble at all-the only police we saw was a couple poped in the pub to see if everything was all right and a few police horses at the stadium.There where more police at the Fulham vs Portsmouth game than at a final with 85000 people :dft012:

[AlFayedsChequebook]

I would also argue that the very presence of the police changes the mood and puts people on edge.

[Peabody]

The whole problem is that when it comes to football, the authorities generalise, "if thier going to the match, then they are trouble". To some extent, you can sympathise with that view, coming out and heading for Putney Bridgeon saturday, the Spurs fans were singing 'boring boring Fulham, clearly trying to antagonise the Fulham Fans. Some years ago, I remember Gillingham fans taking over Fulham High Street (right outside the Golden Lion and marching towards the Cottage spread across the road. So you can understand were the police are coming from. The trouble is, they have no need to exercise common sense and that is why the ordinary peace loving fan (the vast majority) are labelled with "potential hooligan" sign.