Latics and England Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 There's a lot in the press and media today about calls to put up netting in front of fans following yesterday's Manchester derby and also about a number of clubs coming out in support of safe standing. Both these issues seem to show just how badly football fans are treated as a segment of society. I've written a blog on the Ernieflag site on this if anyone wants a read. I must stress that the views in it are my own as I appreciate that they may not be universally popular. I'd be interested to see what other people think both about these specific issues and also the general view that football fans are treated as second class citzens. http://www.ernieflag.co.uk/site/index.php/bloggs/17-football-issues/148-standing-up-for-your-rights Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewBlue Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 (edited) Really enjoyed the article, first of all. You raise some interesting points about the treatment, in general, of football fans whilst in the stadium which for the most part are very accurate. The benefits of standing outweigh the almost non-existent disadvantages. I've always been astonished that football fans accept being treated in this manner, after all it is us that pays for the experience yet we are so often criminalized and condescended by the clubs themselves. Football clubs are now more like businesses than they have ever been and naturally with this progression you'd think that the clubs would treat us like customers, but no, we're treated like employees. We are bossed as soon as we enter the stadium. As a customer in a shop you'd be appalled if treated in the same authoritarian style that football fans are treated with. The fact that to a lot of us it is a duty for us to turn up to home matches and support our team is exploited, with the knowledge that they could do almost anything and we'd be back next week. Standing would change all of that. As for trialing, that is another useless bureaucratic process. They have had standing in Germany for a long time and it evidently works so I can't see why it would be any different for us. It's not like we are another species to Germans. As for netting, I can't see many coins being halted in their tracks by netting, if you was to put up netting tight enough to stop a coin from getting through it then it would almost be opaque. The call for netting is clearly just a knee-jerk reaction to the events at Hillsborough (Kirkland push/punch) and Eithad at the weekend. Overall, police do a sufficient job in deterring fans from confronting players. Edited December 11, 2012 by NewBlue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 I think you make a very decent point about the cost of installing the "safe standing"- the fans are going to end up paying for it. I just hope those that want to sit don't have to pay for those that want to stand. As for the rugby and other sports in comparison. In Union there is very little segregation and little or no violence between different teams' fans and much, much fewer arrests. Until football can say the same then football fans are not going to have the same privileges re booze etc. It's not fair but neither is getting your head kicked in for supporting a different team or stopping fans from kicking each others heads in. Football fans are treated like second class citizens but so are other groups where a small minority have caused significant problems in the past. As for the netting, it's very difficult to make netting that will stop coins. Although they have it on the continent it's mainly to stop much larger objects like flares. I think that is very reactionary and like many have said in the media sometimes footballers need to take more responsibility to keep themselves safe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 The one bit I would question is about what would happen if someone threw a coin in the theatre - well, they wouldn't/don't. If they regularly did, it wouldn't be viewed like a Saturday night fight, it would be treated as something in it's own right. I do think that netting is the worst idea ever. Like putting up a sign saying, "Do not throw stones at this sign." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 ... Football fans are treated like second class citizens but so are other groups where a small minority have caused significant problems in the past. As for the netting, it's very difficult to make netting that will stop coins. Although they have it on the continent it's mainly to stop much larger objects like flares.... I've always decried the treatment of football fans as second class citizens and asked why we are the only group in society to have our own Act of Parliament - the Football Spectators Act 1989, as amended by the Football (Disorder) Act 2000, when the harassment of any other group would be condemned as discriminatory. I'd be interested to know who the other groups are to which you refer. They used to have netting at Millwall's Den back in the day. It kept out the large items, as you say, but was no barrier to coins. Large items, such as plastic bottles fillied with urine, get thrown on stage at music festivals and stage invasions are common at gigs, normally for stage-diving purposes, but that seems to be accepted as boisterous behaviour, like some of the antics rugger fans/players get up to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 like some of the antics rugger players get up to. What have rugby players got to do with anything? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pukka Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 David Conn in todays guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/dec/11/police-consider-terraces-standing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 What have rugby players got to do with anything? I mention them along with rugger fans, because some of their boisterous behaviour (off the field and particularly on tour), accepted as the customary norm rather than the spasmodic incidents involving football players, would be seen by society as hooliganism if done by 'second class' football fans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 I've always decried the treatment of football fans as second class citizens and asked why we are the only group in society to have our own Act of Parliament - the Football Spectators Act 1989, as amended by the Football (Disorder) Act 2000, when the harassment of any other group would be condemned as discriminatory. I'd be interested to know who the other groups are to which you refer. They used to have netting at Millwall's Den back in the day. It kept out the large items, as you say, but was no barrier to coins. Large items, such as plastic bottles fillied with urine, get thrown on stage at music festivals and stage invasions are common at gigs, normally for stage-diving purposes, but that seems to be accepted as boisterous behaviour, like some of the antics rugger fans/players get up to. Have you ever tried to get on a plane whilst being Arab or Pakistani- they get treated like second class citizens. Or what about those who have metal implants in their body, especially pacemakers. Or actually anyone with a mental health disorder- they get banned from a whole list of places every day? You really need to read the incredibly long list of Acts of Parliament. Are Opticians not a group in society as they have an act of parliament? What about the armed forces, or the reserve forces, as ditto? Often groups in society have an act of Parliament named after them because naming Acts is not rocket science if it covers a specific area then politicians name the act for the specific area. Are you seriously complaining about an act of Parliament that bans people from a public place during certain hours as a result of a history of violence or disorder with convictions of such offences? As for your slight on rugby players- are you talking about urinating in public and stuff involving fire, or things of that ilk? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy_Fent Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 There have been some grounds I've visited where the lack of leg room where the seating is has made it probably more dangerous than if there was a terrace there, Elland Road and Millmoor spring to mind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 (edited) Have you ever tried to get on a plane whilst being Arab or Pakistani- they get treated like second class citizens. Or what about those who have metal implants in their body, especially pacemakers. Or actually anyone with a mental health disorder- they get banned from a whole list of places every day? You really need to read the incredibly long list of Acts of Parliament. Are Opticians not a group in society as they have an act of parliament? What about the armed forces, or the reserve forces, as ditto? Often groups in society have an act of Parliament named after them because naming Acts is not rocket science if it covers a specific area then politicians name the act for the specific area. Are you seriously complaining about an act of Parliament that bans people from a public place during certain hours as a result of a history of violence or disorder with convictions of such offences? As for your slight on rugby players- are you talking about urinating in public and stuff involving fire, or things of that ilk? Obviously I'm aware of all sorts of legislation regulating your examples, but my point related to your comment about "other groups where a small minority have caused significant problems in the past". I've covered rugger players in my reply to rummytheowl. P.S. I've no complaint about Banning Orders. Edited December 12, 2012 by Diego_Sideburns Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Obviously I'm aware of all sorts of legislation regulating your examples, but my point related to your comment about "other groups where a small minority have caused significant problems in the past". I've covered rugger players in my reply to rummytheowl. So you are saying that a small minority of those two ethnic groups have never caused problems with transport? I take it the reply to my question about rugby players was a yes - good because I was actually talking about two notorious incidents involving professional footballers at this time of year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 So you are saying that a small minority of those two ethnic groups have never caused problems with transport? I take it the reply to my question about rugby players was a yes - good because I was actually talking about two notorious incidents involving professional footballers at this time of year. Legislation protecting national security is not comparable to discrimination against only one group of sports fans. In my reply to rummytheowl I covered spasmodic incidents involving football players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 P.S. I've no complaint about Banning Orders. Funny, because that's what the football supporters act of 1989 (FSA 1989) covers. In actuality, I was talking about the crime and disorder act of 1998 (CADA 1998) responsible for ASBOs. An act with harsher punishments, covering potentially less serious offences than the FSA 1989. If the legislation of FSA 1989 and it's subsequent amendments were merged with the CADA 1998 in one new act that covers the whole remit of violence disorder and anti-social behaviour at sporting grounds and other public places but with the penalties of the CADA then it would be a lot harsher than the current FSA 1989 (+ amendments). As it would cover more than football grounds it would no longer be called the football supporters act. As I don't particularly care about what an act of parliament is called but I'm more concerned about the scope of the act I wouldn't be happy. You appear to be more bothered about what the Act is called as you have no problems with banning orders but dislike the Football supporters Act being so named. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Funny, because that's what the football supporters act of 1989 (FSA 1989) covers. In actuality, I was talking about the crime and disorder act of 1998 (CADA 1998) responsible for ASBOs. An act with harsher punishments, covering potentially less serious offences than the FSA 1989. If the legislation of FSA 1989 and it's subsequent amendments were merged with the CADA 1998 in one new act that covers the whole remit of violence disorder and anti-social behaviour at sporting grounds and other public places but with the penalties of the CADA then it would be a lot harsher than the current FSA 1989 (+ amendments). As it would cover more than football grounds it would no longer be called the football supporters act. As I don't particularly care about what an act of parliament is called but I'm more concerned about the scope of the act I wouldn't be happy. You appear to be more bothered about what the Act is called as you have no problems with banning orders but dislike the Football supporters Act being so named. I'd have no problem with legislation covering all sports spectators. I am bothered about what the Act is called because, by its name, it only covers football spectators. When rugby league was played at BP, if a spectator ran onto the pitch, there was no penalty. If the same spectator ran onto the BP pitch when Latics are playing, the maximum penalty is I believe in the region of £2,000. I don't condone anyone running onto any sporting surface, or any other offences covered by the legislation. Change the name of the Act to cover all sports spectators and I'd be happy to the ending of the discrimination. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 I'd have no problem with legislation covering all sports spectators. I am bothered about what the Act is called because, by its name, it only covers football spectators. When rugby league was played at BP, if a spectator ran onto the pitch, there was no penalty. If the same spectator ran onto the BP pitch when Latics are playing, the maximum penalty is I believe in the region of £2,000. I don't condone anyone (not permitted - otherwise some Oldham players might get into trouble ) running onto any sporting surface, or any other offences covered by the legislation. Change the name of the Act to cover all sports spectators and I'd be happy to the ending of the discrimination. I'm not sure you are right about the running on to the pitch during a Rugby League game being without punishment as they could still be victims of the crime and disorder act 1998. The LTA applied and was successful in banning two (in)famous sporting invaders from Wimbledon- the Irish priest that interrupted an Olympic Marathon and F1 race and the Scouse streaker who was a paid streaker at one point. If we were having this discussion prior to 1998 but after 1989 then only football supporters could be banned from attending games. Nowadays, every sporting miscreant can be banned from attending events. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hands on Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 It is all very well representing football fans as second class citizens because of our treatment but in reality there are football fans who don't even rate as second class citizens. Netting would just be another nail in the coffin so let us hope 'they' see sense and the 'real' football fans start to police rather than applaud the bad behaviour of the underclass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 It is all very well representing football fans as second class citizens because of our treatment but in reality there are football fans who don't even rate as second class citizens. Netting would just be another nail in the coffin so let us hope 'they' see sense and the 'real' football fans start to police rather than applaud the bad behaviour of the underclass. Agreed and the same applies to the rest of the underclass not labelled 'football fans'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forte_Baby Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 There have been some grounds I've visited where the lack of leg room where the seating is has made it probably more dangerous than if there was a terrace there, Elland Road and Millmoor spring to mind REMEMBER KNEILWORTH ROAD Luton being lack of space and that coming from a skinny bloke. Although i was at Eintracht Frankfurt on Saturday i enjoyed the terrace but was not big on the netting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 would be seen by society as hooliganism if done by 'second class' football fans. Football fans and police, not a brain cell between them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamjonesyyoafc Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 I seem to recall a distinct lack of space at Anfield last season.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keep_the_faith Posted December 13, 2012 Share Posted December 13, 2012 Leicester city , would hate to score a last minute promotion clinching goal there. Also here rotherham's new place is very steep with a lack.of leg room. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SholverBlue Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 I'm all for Safe Standing. I'd love to see a Safe Standing area introduced at Boundary Park and as for the paying for it part, I'm sure we could have a fundraising event and Volunteers, when there's a will there's a way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IceStationLatic Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 Am I missing a trick here or couldn't we re-introduce old-style terracing, let-alone the new safe sanding kit, in a section of the ground. Seating is only mandatory in the PL and Championship, or is there a rule that you 'can't go back'? I guess it wouldn't be the best publicity! But a massive proportion of clubs in L1 and L2 have some section of terracing in their ground, so why couldn't we - we've been in this league long enough! What's to stop the club introducing any form of standing in the lower tier of the new stand, or the lower part of the Chaddy? As long as it was well watched by stewards, and limited by ticket to ensure numbers aren't too high, what's the problem - it certainly doesn't look like we are going to sell out any time soon! It's understandable why Premier League clubs are against it. They don't need it. The likes of United pretty much pack their grounds anyway so no point risking bad pr. There isn't a financial incentive for clubs. The Government and PL don't need to risk the bad pr that 'going back' would lead to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlossopLatic Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 That debate has been had before and no we can't go back to this until legislation changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.