Unwelcome visitors - Part four

Yesterday saw Leicester City make the long trip to Ipswich. We arrived by car, parked, and headed straight to the town centre to find somewhere where we could have a civilised drink and a sandwich.

Being a City fan, the only places that would allow us in were coffee shops. We were not allowed to use any of the local pubs. Some had signs, others had door staff. If we wanted a beer, or a glass of wine, we were allowed to use a particular pub near the station, which was in the opposite direction from which we had walked. This may or may not have been at the insistence of the police, but once an establishment says that it doesn't want a particular group in there, as long as they're not being discriminatory (racist, sexist, homophobic), then it is the right of the owners or management of an establishment to exclude them. Pubs and bars are private property; if I can stop people walking into my house from off of the street, then pub management can stop football fans who have travelled 124 miles from going in.

This is not unusual for football fans, especially those who travel in colours, or in large groups, both of which indicate travelling supporters. I've known groups of friends (young and male), who have had to show ID proving they're not local, just to enjoy a pre-match beer.  Considering we have been to many towns and cities over the years, and have shared pre-match drinking facilities without any trouble, I find it disheartening that some places feel the need to segregate supporters before the match has even kicked off. This not only assumes that fans are thugs waiting to kick off, but it encourages media stereotypes of football fans with those who are not fans themselves. Measures like this also widen divisions between supporters, and will not ultimately the game by encouraging integration, which will in turn lead to fewer clashes between fans.

Of course, steps like this are very easily circumvented, which makes a mockery of such moves. Me and the Hubby don't wear colours, and unless it's a pub that's practically on the doorstep of a football stadium, we are never questioned. We look like an ordinary couple out shopping for the day.

Not all fans live in the town or city that their team is based in, and would have legitimate ID to show this. Asking people where they are from does not prevent mixed groups of fans mingling.

Larger groups can split into smaller groups, and gain admission without arousing suspicion.

Potential troublemakers are well aware of the ways in which they can get around an "away fans not welcome" policy. All it does is exclude fans who like to wear club merchandise, and from experience are the least likely to be hooligans, and those groups who haven't yet worked out how not to get the attention of the door staff.  Yet again, it's the innocent majority who are treated like potential criminals because of the few.

Football; policing the costs

Ever since Wigan Athletic challenged Greater Manchester Police over costs of policing its games, police authorities have been limited to the areas surrounding stadia, known as the footprint.

A brief report looking at the incidents of crime in areas surrounding football grounds has been published, but the full research carried out by the Jill Dando Institute of Crime Science has not (or had not at the time of writing). It's findings, according to ACC Andy Holt, indicate that football clubs should be responsible for paying for policing, in his opinion. This seems to be a strange opinion, considering that Football Banning Orders are on the decrease, as is the number of fans arrested at games.

The research has taken 5 stadia, out of the 92 professional clubs, and has analysed crimes on a match day compared with non-match days. Based on the information analysed, incidents of public disorder, violence, and theft increase when there is a match taking place, and football clubs, who have pushed the problems away from their own back yard, should be made to pay for it.

So why should football clubs, and ultimately the fans, face these increased costs?

As noted above, the problems cited above, and which were more common place decades ago, have been moved elsewhere. Were it not for these football matches taking place, these thugs would not be in the area, and so it should be the game that funds the cost of policing, not taxpayers who have no interest in the sport.

This seems to be the only argument in favour, however in the absence of any data or detailed information relating to this research, there are far too many questions.

Which stadia were used in this study? Are we looking at grounds based in city centres, where there are actually more people in the town for the football, and the increase in numbers cannot just be attributed to shoppers? Or do they include grounds that are further away from town and city centres, where there would be very few people in the area other than on a match day? Isn't it logical that crime rates would increase where there are a crowd, regardless of the event?

Geographically, are these clubs with a lot of local derbies, or are these clubs that have few rivals? This would surely have an impact on the crime figures, as would the impact on neighbouring clubs in the area, including non-league clubs etc.

What level of attendance are we looking at? Are these venues popularly supported clubs, or are they teams with fewer fans attending?

It would also be useful to know how much crime is reported to have increased by; are we talking about a significant increase, or is it a small shift? Is this why the full data has not been released yet?

How do these figures compare with other sporting events? Is it really the case that rugby or cricket matches take place without any crimes being committed? Further, how do these figures compare with other entertainment events, such as concerts or festivals? Will the police be seeking to recover costs from the organisers of Glastonbury or Download, for example?

Even if crime levels do increase, how do we know that these are direct result of football? Just because a fight breaks out between two drunken football fans, can it really be said that it is a football problem, and not a drink-related problem, which reflects society as a whole, and not a small proportion of it? Who would foot the bill if there was a football related pub brawl involving two sets of supporters watching a game on the TV, yet was taking place at the other end of the country? Will it be attributed to the club hosting a game in that town or city? Will the resources be available to go through every incident to determine if a problem is the fault of that football club, as the clubs will surely be challenging any demand for costs?

Do the figures only deal with crimes reported? Do we know how many convictions were made? Does increased police presence encourage people to report offences that they would not normally bother to report if there are fewer officers about?

How serious are these crimes, and were they dealt with through the courts, or by way of cautions and fixed penalty notices, where offenders are more likely to accept the charges against them, than risk proving their innocence in front of magistrates or juries?

It is interesting to see theft cited in the little information released. Crowds attract opportunist thieves, whether it be pick-pockets, or breaking into cars, and perpetrators may not even be attending the game. Is this not a case of criminals taking advantage of a situation? Why should football clubs, and fans, be held to account for this, which again is a reflection on society, not the sport itself?

I would argue that violent crimes and public disorder would still take place, even if there were no football matches. Organised football crime is a symptom of a part of society, and those who do take part would only find another excuse for behaving the way that they do. The behaviour seen on city and town centres on Friday or Saturday night, for example, show that this is not just confined to football. If the police are able to charge for incidents that take place 3km away from a football ground, will they be expecting the same from pub and nightclub owners?

Where exactly do we draw the line? Will 3km be enough? Will that not just push any problems elsewhere, and the next thing police will be asking for is to extend the boundaries further? 6km? 10km? 100km?

Crime is a problem that affects the whole of society. Targeting football at a time when football related crime is supposedly going down, and funding to police authorities is being cut seems suspiciously like taking advantage of a cash cow. Are football clubs being used to make up shortfalls in money that would allow busy city centres to have a more visible police presence, something which shoppers and residents have been asking for for years, and not because of football? The current economic climate has seen increases in street robberies; I would not be surprised to see shoplifting on the increase. People want greater police on patrol to give them reassurance.

The report, and the comments by ACC Holt, fail to mention the increasing number of games that are deemed 'police free'. Can clubs claim back any of the levies that they currently pay for policing against these, if they can be charged more costs for other games?

Hundreds of thousands of people attend football matches. A very small proportion commit any kind of crime. In my own experiences, I have seen very little trouble at football matches, certainly nothing that warrants the number of police present at some games, let alone increasing numbers. Isn't it time the majority of us can be trusted to be left to our own devices, than being constantly monitored? Surely the police know who the main instigators of trouble are, and should be dealing with those, not football fans as a whole?

Football clubs, at the end of the day, are not responsible for the behaviour of the fans. They can take steps to try to prevent disorder inside their stadia, and they can eject and ban anyone guilty of football related crimes, as can the courts. But how can a football club be expected to control the behaviour of a few fans intent on causing trouble, especially when it is not in the close proximity of the stadium?

Are the police using this as a means of introducing more ways to control fans? Powers already include the use of "bubble matches", as fans won't be able to go off on a folly, and cause mayhem. There are other measures open to the police to prevent people from entering areas, and there are powers that enable the police to turn travelling fans away from towns and cities. 

Clubs, and the law-abiding majority of fans, should not be expected to bear the costs of the few. Football generates over £1b in tax revenue, as it is, and clubs already pay additional sums to cover the cost of policing. By asking fans, who have already paid for policing through their Council taxes, and in the price of their tickets, to pay even more towards these costs, are we seeing the beginning of a situation where fans are priced out of the game? Is this another means of controlling what fans can or cannot do? If it costs too much to attend a game, then fans will stop going, consequently negating the need to increase the use of police resources.

Today's story raises far too many questions that as a football fan, I want answering before the subject can be properly debated. 5 out 92 clubs seems an awfully small sample from which to conclude that crime increases when a football match takes place; surely, having raised questions, there should be a fuller study conducted to see if these findings, on limited data, are indicative of a worrying trend, or if these are merely anomalies.

What can be done? Maybe if offenders were given higher financial penalties to cover some of the costs of additional policing, it may act as a deterrent. This would not only apply to football related crime, but crime in general. There would be difficulties as to how we enforce payment of such penalties, especially if offenders have little or no money themselves, but it would be fairer than making innocent people pay for a service they have little need for.

An open letter to Jermaine Beckford

Dear Jermaine,

I heard a snippet of radio commentary from Saturday's game at Peterborough this morning, as I travelled to work. It was the first time that I had heard it, but I had read all about it within minutes of the game ending, through the various social network sites.

I have to say that I was shocked, and somewhat disappointed, with what I was hearing, as it didn't reflect what I had seen on the pitch, with my very own eyes. Apparently, having sprinted the length of the pitch in the dying minutes of the game, to cover for your team mates, you were then expected to sprint all the way down to the other end for a free kick that would, and did, end up being blasted over the bar.

You might want to correct me, if I'm wrong, but I thought you had done a great job getting back, and were conserving energy. I also thought you were hanging back just in case the ball came out of the crowded penalty area (crowded because it looked like you and Kasper were the only players not in there), and be in a position to get it back into the mixer. As they say.

The radio commentary suggested otherwise. Apparently, you were throwing a strop. If you were "throwing a strop", you'd hidden it well from me.

Now I don't listen to the radio commentary as I am at the games. I can see for myself what has or has not happened. Yet those who don't go, and rely on the radio, claim that you are "lazy", "selfish", and other words and phrases that I am too polite to put into this letter.

The radio commentary team appear to have missed the clever runs that you make. The intelligent flick ons and passes that were producing a decent partnership with David Nugent. Obviously the goals that you have scored for us don't mean a thing, because you refuse to chase down lost causes that your colleagues also don't chase when in similar positions. The piece that I heard this morning does nothing to dispel theories bandied around the online LCFC community that some have an agenda.

When you arrived at Leicester City, expectations were high; not just for yourself, but for the club's own performances. You must have been excited for what looked like a promising season.

Sadly, things haven't gone to plan. With a few games remaining, we are relying on other teams to get us into the play-offs. It's been disappointing for you, as well as us fans.

Not everybody blames you, Jermaine. We are where we are because we have changed manager too many times, and we've changed personnel and systems too many times. Our failure to reach the play-offs, which looks ever the more likely, isn't down to one player or person. If anything, it's due to failings throughout the club. To blame one player is unfair, especially when some of us think that player has actually done a lot more for us this season than other fans. Some of us appreciate the work that you've put in this season. I don't want to apologise for those who are blaming you for where we are, as I don't want to be associated with them.

I wouldn't like to hazard a guess as to what will happen once this season ends. If you are still a Leicester City player at the start of next season, then you have at least one fan supporting you. If you choose to leave, and I'll be disappointed if you do, then I would like to thank you for your goals and efforts; your hat-trick against Forest has to be one of the high points of the season. I would like to wish you all the best, and if you do hear your name being chanted, then I'll be one the few joining in. 

All the best,

Leesoh x

Unwelcome visitors - Part three

So it continues...

We were given no warning, although past experience, where Barry Fry said us Leicester City fans had a "reputation", leading to an early kick off, the group I travelled with decided to get in Peterborough early for Saturday's game. As an added bonus, it enabled us to get cheaper train tickets. Bonus.

We left Leicester station at 8.15am; there was one officer from the BTP monitoring things, but very few football fans about. The train trip was quiet, reflecting the fact most fans would prefer a lie in, and take a later train.

Arriving into Peterborough almost an hour later, we were greeted by a line of Cambridgeshire Constabulary's finest, barking "Are you Leicester fans?" at almost every person alighting the train. Anyone who is a regular traveller would know that the idea would be to direct the travelling football fans to one pub, which would end up being overcrowded and noisy. There would also be a possibility that once in, we would not be able to leave the premises until the police told us to, which would be at a time of their choosing.

As far as we were concerned, we didn't want to be shoehorned into a pub we didn't want to go to, especially seeing as one of our group was a Peterborough fan!

We ignored the questions, and left the station. All we wanted to do was to have some breakfast, and then a few quiet drinks in the pub of our choosing, and there was nothing to say that we could not do this.

We arrived at the pub of choice; there was nobody on the door, and no signs outside advising us that access would be restricted to one set of supporters or the other. We went to the bar, ordered our breakfasts, and drinks, and took our seats. The staff didn't seem concerned by our presence, and didn't ask us if we were there for the football, or indeed, which team we supported.

It wasn't long after we'd sat down that two police constables came over, and asked if we were Leicester fans, as one of the group was wearing a University of Leicester hoodie. The officers were told that most of us were, but we were with a Peterborough fan. This was when we were told that we were in the designated home fans pub. I explained that it was news to us. The officers accepted our explanation that we were a mixed group of fans, and advised us that we may have to move later if our presence was causing a breach of the peace. Apart from the hoodie, there was no indication that any of us were from Leicester, so we decided to stay.

However, we were quickly approached by a sergeant, who told us that we would have to leave the pub. We were Leicester fans, and we weren't allowed in. He would not accept any explanation that this information had not being communicated to any fans, neither would he accept that we were law abiding citizens, or that we were with a friend who, according to the sergeant, was allowed in the pub. He didn't actually address me, just the male members of the group; I don't know whether to be relieved or insulted!

I tried to explain to the sergeant that we had ordered food and drink, and that given that it was 9.30am, and the pub was largely empty, we should be given the chance to consume our breakfasts, after all, there was no breach of the peace, no breach of the peace was imminent, and that it was private property, and the pub manager had not asked us to leave.

This seemed to annoy the sergeant, because he had no answer to this. He threw me a dirty look, and said "I'm not happy with this, I'm going to have to call this one in". He left with his phone to his ear.

We didn't seem him again until after our breakfasts had arrived. This time, he turned up with Leicestershire police's football liaison team. These guys travel to every away game, and are a good point of contact if we are having problems with other fans, stewards, or even police officers. They also help to advise the local police teams on the supporters at the games. I am also lucky to know some of them from my role on the Fans Consultative Committee.

So it was the icing on the cake when he came over, not to tell us to leave, but to have a bit of chat about my choice of brekkie! This was after they had been told that there had been no problems in the pub, or with any patrons.

We stayed in the pub until we left for the game, shortly after 2pm. We saw other Leicester fans in there. Amazingly (roll eyes), there was no trouble, or aggravation. Everyone seemed to be having a quiet drink. We did notice that there were fewer people in there than in previous seasons. Outside, it looked as though there were more police officers in the street than was necessary, and several vans parked up and down the street. It seemed like complete overkill when there was nobody causing any trouble anywhere. 

No doubt the constabulary will argue that their presence was responsible for this, however, I would like to put my faith in the ability of the majority of fans to behave themselves. We have taken over 8,000 fans to Nottingham this year, with fewer than 0.1% of fans arrested on the day. We went to Norwich, after being branded "high risk", and there was no trouble. There was no reason to turn Peterborough town centre into a mini-police state, where law abiding citizens are told where they can or cannot go.

Further, splitting fans into designated pubs encourages divisiveness. Yes, there are a minority of fans who want to cause trouble, but I suspect these are the sort of people who would be spoiling for a fight even if football didn't exist. Football clubs talk about encouraging families, or minorities to their stadia, but how can people feel safe when some city and town centres are overrun with police? Does this not say that hooliganism is still a huge problem, when the opposite is true?

I dream of a day when I can go where I want, when I want, even if I follow a football club.

London Road, Peterborough
Taken with a steady hand, despite alcohol consumption