"Come and have a go..." - Is footy responsible for domestic violence?

First things first; domestic violence is a serious issue. Nobody should ever suffer at the hands (or, indeed, words) of a partner, or other relative. Many lawyers, campaigners, and organisations do a lot of hard work in raising awareness of the issue, and they should be applauded for it.

The BBC has taken it upon itself to look at how football and domestic violence interact. A Freedom of Information request was made to look at reports of domestic violence during England's games in the 2010 World Cup. These were then compared with reported rates for the same dates in 2009. The stats for the four games showed that when England won or lost, there were more reported incidents, however when England drew, figures were about the same.

Pretty conclusive, huh? Well...

Statistics are great, in that they can be used to prove any point that you like. On the face of it, yes, it does look like football does have a significant effect, but I have the following reservations:

• Sample size

The BBC data looked at four games. Yes, four games. Did they look at any other tournaments? No. Considering the number of games England has played over the years, there shouldn't be an absence of relevant date.

What then about other England games? Did rates increase during qualifying games? Or is it just when a tournament is played?

How about domestic football? Are more cases reported after Premier League matches? Or Championship games? Are spouses more at risk during the FA Cup Final?

There is ample data to easily conduct a more thorough study into the cause and effects of football on domestic violence, so why has it not been used? Could it be that it doesn't assist in making such claims?

Further, how many people watched the games, and how do those figures compare with viewing figures? 

The study fails to take into account that there is more interest in the game during a tournament, and people who would not ordinarily watch a football match, will be watching the national side.

• Match results

It would be understandable to see football being directly responsible for domestic violence where teams lost. "Taking it out on the other half", is a compelling argument.

So why did rates increase when England won AND lost games? Why were there no more reported incidents after the draw with the USA, which from memory, was a hugely disappointing performance and result? It certainly felt like a defeat at the time, and there would be plenty of reason for fans to take out their frustrations.

• Comparisons with other sports or events

Games like these are usually watched by large groups, and involve a lot of drinking. Maybe even drug use. Both are a factor in domestic violence. Rather than blaming football, per se, we should be looking at our attitudes to alcohol consumption, and not the game.

One way of seeing if this is the case would be to see if report rates increase at Bank Holidays, where similar large groups congregate to drink. It's regularly reported that rates of domestic violence increase at Christmas; it isn't Christmas that is the cause, it's the increase in drink that is. Data is available, why hasn't football tournaments been compared to those? Could this data show that the increase around football tournaments isn't as significant as, say Christmas?

How do these results compare with rugby or cricket matches? Or Ascot, Cheltenham, or Grand National week?

• Interpretation

What exactly is classed as "domestic violence"? One of the things I have noted from my observations of the criminal justice system is the way in which even the police or the CPS label incidents as "domestic violence" is inconsistent. It would be great to think that offences are dealt with correctly, but they are not.

Further, the BBC has looked at reported incidents. Not all of these matters are taken any further, so it would be helpful to see how many resulted in charges, and ultimately, in convictions. 

As noted above, drink can be a significant factor in domestic violence cases, as well as in any offence against the person. Have incidents been classed as domestic violence, when it is a case of an argument getting out of hand? Neither incident is desirable, but it can be misleading when dealing with the issue of domestic violence itself. In the absence of any statutory guidance into the definition, it is plausible that police forces are interpreting incidents in a different manner.

It is also not known how many incidents occur; many will go unreported. Victims are often too scared, or too forgiving. That's not to say incidents don't increase at certain times of the year, but why are more incidents being reported? Could it be the victim has also had the benefit of drink, and is feeling braver about reporting an incident that he or she would usually let pass?

Given not everybody who watches England games during a tournament would even class themselves as a football fan, it seems unfair that the sport can be blamed. Would any other social group be subjected to such a study? It's highly unlikely. So why has the BBC chosen to do so? 

The overall tone of the report is to yet again demonise football fans. In the absence of any news regarding hooliganism, the BBC looks to have conducted a study designed to blame football for one of society's problems. Rather than proving anything, the report raises more questions. Four matches is not enough to prove anything.

The only positive to come from the story is that maybe there will be the impetus to conduct a full and detailed study into the factors that cause domestic violence, and whether football is, or is not, one of them.

The Baseball Experience; what an English football fan learned.

On holiday, I took the opportunity to see the Miami Marlins take on the Colorado Rockies. The game took place at the newly opened Marlins Park, right in the heart of Miami. It is the 6th baseball stadium to feature a close-able roof, preventing games from being rained off, something that could have been a problem earlier in the day! 

The stadium itself is impressive from the outside, and quite futuristic to look at. It has its own parking garages, which can be pre-booked, located close to the entrances, although there are plenty of businesses, and residents, offering their own spaces to arriving fans. A check on the web beforehand told us that exiting from the official car parks can be a nightmare, so we chose to risk finding alternative parking. We managed to find a great place, within a short walk of our entrance, advertised at $10; sadly, having parked up, the attendant then asked for $20! 

We looked at using public transport to get from Miami Beach to the game; sadly, it's not a practicable option, something that as an English football fan, I have plenty of experience of. A 10 minute car journey would have taken an hour longer to make by bus. The concierge at our hotel informed us that a taxi would cost $20 each way. Back home, transport problems like these usually affect the new, out of town stadia. It seems strange that a stadium in a city like Miami would suffer with the same problems, but it could be more like the American love affair of driving. 

The view from our cheap seats

Entry into the stadium was easy, but that could be down to the fact that we were incredibly early. Our seats were located on the uppermost tier, near to the third base. Unlike football stadia, it's possible to move around the entire ground (legitimately, in any case). There is no fan segregation, although we didn't see any Rockies fans. Travelling a couple of hundred miles to watch an away game is dedication; a couple of thousand miles is amazing. Because of the layout, fans can watch the warm up from any seat, up to about 30 minutes before the start of the game, whee they are expected to make their way to their designated seats. This allows fans to get a closer view of the warm up, or to meet up with friends. The game we went to was not a sell out, and I would suspect fans might have moved to other areas during play itself, as they do at football games. This practice, whilst tolerated more at away games where fans pay the same price for tickets, at home games, it's not permitted, usually because of the difference in price structure between the different areas. This includes before the game. In some stadia, it's not physically possible to move to other areas. The matter is taken so seriously in England, that using the "wrong" toilet can lead to your ejection. Clubs will no doubt say that this is to protect the integrity of their pricing structures, and make it fair on supporters who pay a premium for match tickets, however, should it really matter during the warm up? This is just one reason, another being the need for clubs to control where football fans can congregate before, during, and after games. Allowing fans freedom inside a stadium should not pose problems, yet it seems that clubs and the authorities are too scared to give the benefit of the doubt. 

Fans take advantage of the bar

One other area that differs significantly is in the catering and hospitality. In terms of food, there is a variety on offer at Marlins Park, with traditional far, such as hot dogs, down to pizza, subs, nachos, and sweet treats. Variety at a typical football ground is limited to pie flavours, or if you want cheese on your burger or not. Vegetarian choice in England is even more limited. Whilst the US isn't the most veggie friendly place, there's more choice. It's even possible to have a healthy sub, if you are careful over what you eat!

The main difference is that in England, it is illegal for fans to drink alcohol where the pitch is in view. Again, this is a measure taken to control what fans can or cannot do during a match. Whilst hooliganism and alcohol are linked, this law prevents law abiding fans from enjoying a beer during the game. This law is at odds with a society that is struggling to deal with a binge drinking culture, as fans will try to consume as much booze as they can before a game, and at half time. This in turn leads to more arrests for drink related offences at games. Fans are allowed to drink during baseball games, and whilst many fans took advantage of the sellers who walk around the seated areas selling ice cold lager, or the specially designed bar, I didn't notice fans drinking to excess. This may have been down to the fact the game was being played on a Wednesday night, however plenty of English football fans drink before and after midweek fixtures. that's not to say hooliganism doesn't exist in any form, judging from the huge sign inviting fans to report "fan misconduct".

Shop-A-Fan exists outside the UK

The atmosphere at games differs hugely. There is very little chanting compared with even the less vocal football clubs I've visited in England. Most chanting and clapping is orchestrated by the Hammond organist, who periodically plays little ditties throughout the game. As good as it is to see tradition carrying on inside such a contemporary stadium, the quaintness of it did amuse this cynical, and experienced footy fan! Being told when to show support, and how is an alien concept to me. It was staged, there was no humour, and to be honest, bland. It also means that the club has control over what the fans are doing. No naughty words, no freedom of expression, and in a country that prides itself on such a principle. The absence of any banter was hugely noticeable, with no away fans to chant at.

Having the roof closed also gave the atmosphere a different feel. Miami had been having storms and torrential downpours throughout the day, and so the roof was closed ensuring the game went ahead.. Whilst I'm used to watching sport in cold conditions, an air conditioned stadium is a new experience!

Fancy a dip? A new meaning for corporate hospitality?

The Marlins have clearly thought about making their stadium different. As well as the architecture, they appear to have considered those fans who choose to pay more for tickets. There are executive boxes, similar to back home. There are packages which include "all you can eat and drink", which on reflection would have been a better deal, even for someone with a small appetite like me (I would have had my fair share of beer to make up, but sadly it doesn't include alcoholic drinks). It's not aimed at the Prawn Sandwich Brigade, either. It's available in an ordinary seating area, for ordinary fans. This is one of several types of ticket offers including food and drink. There is also an area with its own pool, which would be great on days when the roof is open.

Whether us fans like it or not, football is changing. It is becoming more corporate, and owners are looking at the match day experience, no doubt looking across the Atlantic at what the Americans are doing. Football has its traditions, which should not be allowed to be slowly eradicated from the game under the banner of progress. However, there is a lot to be learned from American sports that would enhance even the most hardened fans' experiences.

Enjoying a pint. In view of the
pitch!

Clubs, like my own, want to attract fans to the grounds earlier; after all, they could be spending money there, instead of handing it to local pubs and food outlets. Improving the selection and the quality is a start. More offers, like the "all you can eat and drink" deal, would help. Admittedly, Leicester City has tried "Pie and a Pint" deals, but with the lack of choice with flavours, and the variable quality throughout the stadium, it doesn't seem to have been that popular. It isn't as though the club lacks the infrastructure to offer a variety of food styles, or drinks on offer. Not every fan drinks beer, or likes the beer offered, in the same way not every fan wants a greasy burger.

Another factor that stops fans from going into grounds earlier is the lack of mobility inside the ground. If clubs could be more flexible in allowing fans to mingle, certainly before the game, they would be more inclined to go straight to the ground, rather than the pub.

Selling food and drinks in the seated areas would prevent fans from moving about during games, which is an annoyance to some of the other supporters. It could mean a fan who fancies something to eat, but doesn't want to queue for ages, will buy something rather than going without. It may also ease the pressure on kiosk staff at half time, enabling them to deal with customers more efficiently.

More importantly, relaxing the laws on alcohol consumption, in my opinion, needs to be looked at. Fans in Scotland can drink during the game, and doesn't appear to be an issue with regards to hooliganism. Drinking at other sports events does not lead to trouble. Trouble makers can be identified more easily than they could on the terraces of the 1970s and 80s. The laws are there to deal with them. Deal with the crimes when they occur, rather than treating all fans as potential criminals.

Finally, we can learn what not to do. Football clubs are stopping just short of playing music at periodical intervals during the game. Goal music is bad enough, and I'm thankful that we don't have music played over the PA system telling us when to clap and cheer. One of the things that makes the atmosphere at football matches special is the spontaneity. It can lead to amusing and witty exchanges. There's no better experience than the crowd encouraging the team from the stands when up against it. Surely that kind of support is better for the players than had it come about because a club official had "told" the fans to chant, and on top of that, what to chant? In an effort to make the game experience "inclusive", it has created an atmosphere, or lack of, that suffers for losing imagination, spontaneity, and most importantly, humour. 

Football clubs in England should be mindful of creating the right balance between experience and atmosphere to retain fans, and to encourage new supporters. I found my night at the baseball more "interesting" than "enjoyable", which is a shame given how much money has been spent on creating an "experience".

Double standards - where's the justice?

A little belated, I know, but I'm on holiday...

Joey Barton has been handed a 12 match ban for his behaviour in QPR's game against Manchester City. In that game, there was an "altercation" with Carlos Tevez, leading to the QPR captain being sent off. After being shown the red, he then kicked out at Sergio Aguero, and then looked like he wanted to take on Vincent Kompany and Mario Balotelli.

His fellow professionals (some now ex-professionals) have questioned the length of the ban. Surprisingly, some have said that the action taken is too harsh.

Whether or not the ban is harsh, had Barton been in the stands instead of on the pitch, the treatment would have been very different. 

At the very least, he would have been ejected from the stadium. His details would have been taken down, and it is likely that the club would have given him a three match ban from entering the stadium, or if he was an away supporter, his details passed on to his own club, who could then ban him from attending home games for the same length of time.

It's likely that the ejection would follow an arrest, however, either for the violent behaviour, or for a public order offence at the very least. The fan could then be facing the courts, and a potential prison sentence.

Following this, the fan would then be subject to a Football Banning Order, which doesn't just prevent them from entering a football stadium, but from being within a designated area for a designated time period before and after a game. An FBO can last for a minimum of 3 years, up to 10 years, if the fan is sent to prison.

On top of that, fans subjected to an FBO are required to surrender their passports if there is a major tournament, or if their club is involved in playing football outside of the UK. If they wish to travel abroad, say for a holiday, then they need to ask the police for permission.

If Barton remains a QPR player, and especially if he keeps the captaincy, I would expect him to serve his ban from the sidelines, physically at the games, to lend his team mates his support. There is nothing preventing him from entering a football stadium during his ban.

His actions, which would be seen as criminal had he been a fan, have not been treated proportionately. In that respect, and like so many other professional footballers over the years, his conduct has been dealt with in-house, and without the intervention of the criminal law.

Given that he is supposed to be representing his club, and that his behaviour is seen by millions, should the fact that he is a man in a privileged position, earning a lot of money, mean that he is treated outside of the law? If players are supposed to be role models, then should they not be treated in the same way as fans, to set an example?

Football Banning Orders & the Back Door

Football Banning Orders (FBO) are serious business. They don't just prevent those convicted of football related offences from attending matches. They include a requirement to report to a police station with your details, including your passport details. You are not allowed to leave the country without permission if there's a match or tournament taking place. Anyone subjected to an FBO who wants to go on holiday during the Euros, for example, will need to ask the police for permission, and if it's not granted, appeal to their local magistrates. Making an FBO therefore has a huge effect on the civil liberties of convicted football supporters.

The purpose behind an FBO is preventative; it's there to stop future disorder, and is therefore subject to a two stage test. Pass both, and you're banned. Firstly, it has to be a specified offence contained within a Schedule in the Football Supporters Act 1989.

If it meets that criteria, then the judge has to be satisfied that the FBO would prevent further disorder.

This may seem wooly, but it gives judges the scope to exercise some common sense, and apply FBOs only where they are applicable (see Boggild v Ors v R [2011] EWCA Crim 1928).

FBOs are not a means of punishing offenders. They will already be punished in their sentences, after all.

However, a judgment by the Court of Appeal in Doyle & Ors v R [2012] EWCA 995, has highlighted an anomaly in the provisions. At the end of the judgment, Hughes LJ pointed out that;

"If non-custodial sentences had been passed, then conditions could have been attached to either community orders or suspended sentences, and the conditions would then no doubt also have served as effective punishment (at paragraph 27)."

Whilst conditions can be attached to an FBO giving specific restrictions, the court must find that the criteria for making an FBO are met before these can be given. If they are not, the offender is sentenced to a custodial sentence, and that is the end of the matter.

However, if the conditions are not met where the offence does not cross the custody threshold, or the judge finds it appropriate to suspend a custodial sentence, the court can impose conditions that have the effect of restricting the civil liberties as part of their punishment, even if the offence does not meet the criteria for an FBO.

This can lead to serious restrictions on the movement of supporters who have been convicted of minor offences that may not be connected with a football match itself, but were committed at or around the time of a game.

How can it be right that those guilty of a minor offence be subjected to Draconian measures just because they are a football fan, when those who commit more serious offences are not subject to such restrictions?

Do other member of society have their civil liberties interfered with as much as football fans? Whilst it is possible to prevent someone who commits an affray, for example, from entering a town centre on a Friday night, it would be interesting to see just how many revellers are subjected to such conditions compared to those who are subject to FBOs or other such restrictions as football fans.

Football's Future

With great pride, my football club has today announced that it has been awarded the prestigious "Football League Family Excellence Award for the season that has just finished. No doubt, various staff members are happily slapping each other on the back, and congratulating themselves on another fantastic achievement from a season that saw inconsistent mediocrity on the pitch itself. Given the time, effort, and, no doubt, money involved in finding out what the modern footballing family wants, to be acknowledged for it must, well, be just reward. Or something like that.

Football has come a long way from the days where fans turned up and expected nothing more than a decent performance from their side, if the clubs are to be believed. Football is now big business. We are no longer fans, but customers. There are huge markets to be tapped into, fans who have never been to games, with pockets full of cash to spend on the match day experience They happily watch Premier League football on the TV, yet they sit within the catchment areas of those clubs that may not be "lucky" enough to play in England's top division. The trick is, how to get them in through the turnstiles.

As a footy fan, logic dictates that the way to get bums on seats is to produce a successful team. Give the fans exciting football, and the fans who no longer go will return. Job's a good un!

The clubs themselves, and certainly my club, see families as the future. Get them in when they're young, they'll never want to leave. The problem is, the fans of the future are only appreciated to a point. Then they're left to burden the cost of holding ticket prices in the family areas, to encourage the fans of the future, and then stop going.

So the cycle will continue...

Clubs are turning family areas into multi-entertainment complexes. Does your child get bored watching the game? No worries, take them out the back to get their faces painted, or a balloon sculpture. I've heard talk of games areas, and kiosks serving food aimed at young children. At the King Power stadium, you can even access the Fanstore during the game. Yes, that's right. You've paid to watch a football match, but you can take advantage of the lack of queues by purchasing your club merchandise in the 58th minute of the game. These measures aren't aimed at fans who want to watch their teams. It's aimed at getting in people who seem to want more for their money; an "experience". Surely for a football supporter, it's results on the pitch that matter, not the availability of Fruit Shoots. If it's cold, and my team is performing badly, I stay in the stands hoping for a miraculous turnaround. I may harbour thoughts of going back to the pub, but I don't go anywhere. The thought, "I know, I'll go and see if they have any new scarf designs in the club shop" has never, ever entered my head. Not once.

What the clubs are failing to address, or refusing maybe, is that families change. Parents split up, or they lose their jobs. They may relocate somewhere too far away to justify travel. Most importantly, children grow up, and no longer want a Wacky Warehouse experience at the football. 

Rather than asking families what would entice them into a football stadium, clubs need to be asking why fans are not returning.

From reading various social networking sites and forums, and by talking with fellow fans, the most disaffected group are the 16 to 25 year olds. This is the young blood the clubs have been looking for. They are also the potential parents of the fans of the future, yet clubs are happy to alienate them by turning football into an experience, whilst at the same time taking away everything that they enjoy about the game. 

At the same time, this group are expected to accept some of the biggest price increases between categories. Bearing in mind many will still be students, and those who work will not be on huge salaries, it's easy to see why price alone is keeping these fans away. Take, for example, someone moving from the Under 18 category to Under 22. Last season, a season ticket would have cost £130 throughout the stadium, if renewed early, and £140 thereafter. Next season, they (or their parents) will need to find £265 to £430, if renewed early, almost doubling in price for the cheapest seats, which are limited in number. If they renew after the deadline, prices range from £305 to £495. How is this encouraging supporters to remain part of the fan base? That's without the arguments over atmosphere (or lack of) that young adults prefer.

As a cynic, it would seem that the authorities and the clubs themselves are promoting family friendly initiatives with the aim of alienating those supporters who are seen as potential troublemakers. For two adults taking two under 8s to see Leicester City, the cheapest cost is £820 for the season. This is a huge financial commitment, considering the current economic climate. 

Is football guilty of socially cleansing the game? 

Clearly pricing levels like this are aimed at the more affluent supporter, not those on lower incomes. Football, and the hooliganism associated with it, are seen as a working class problem. The middle classes wouldn't indulge in such behaviour, of course.

There are also the cost implications. Groups of young adults need to be policed. Apparently. They cannot be controlled as easily, and are guilty of heinous crimes such as persistent standing, consuming alcohol, and shouting naughty words. Young, middle class families do not do this. They are happy to sit in identikit stadia, and to dance along to goal music. If grounds can be filled with nice people, police costs can be reduced, and maybe fewer stewards, sorry, customer relation officers would be needed. As the traditional atmosphere is being eroded, lifelong fans feel excluded. Clubs are implicitly saying "we don't want your sort here anymore".

All fans want to feel that their club wants them, not just the football virgins, and their young offspring. Football clubs should remember this, just in case the football bubble bursts.

When the FA Cup sold out...

FA Cup Final Day used to be a bit special. Coverage would start in the morning, interrupting the usual Saturday morning Tiswas viewing (or Multi-coloured Swap Shop, if Mother was at home...) to show the teams arriving at hotels for their pre-match meals, or interviews with fans making their way to Wembley, and the ones who couldn't get tickets who had organised parties in their local pubs for the occasion. 

Saturday lunchtime, we would opt to eat our ham, egg, and chips with Saint and Greavsie rather than Grandstand. But we would always choose the BBC coverage for the game itself.

My Nana would stop everything she was doing to watch the fans singing "Abide With Me"; it was her favourite part of Cup Final Day. The adults would settle down with beer, us kids had pop and crisps. 

It might be nostalgia, but it all seemed so much more exciting back then.

It's been a few years since I got excited about the FA Cup Final. I'll watch it, but I'm not really bothered. Why? Here are my reasons:

• Constant TV coverage

Back "in the day", televised games were rare. If a game was on the TV, it was novel, and something to take advantage of. The Sound of Music on BBC1? I'm sorry Mother, but it's the Central Match Live!!

Now, if you want to, you can watch football every day of the week. Even if there is no football actually being played, there'll be a match replayed for our televisual enjoyment. But that's the problem, it's no longer an enjoyment. I may be in a minority here, but as much as I love football, you can have too much of a good thing. I'm bored of it.

• Hype

Linked to the constant stream of footy available to watch, is the idea that the next game to be broadcast is "THE BIGGEST GAME OF THE SEASON. EVER. IN THE HISTORY OF THE GAME. SINCE BEFORE FOOTBALL WAS INVENTED". 

The constant bigging up of games to attract TV audiences (and sponsors) serves to dilute the importance of matches. When a genuine BIG game comes along, it doesn't feel special any more. It's on a par with a fixture between two mid-table Premier League teams. How am I supposed to gee myself up for the Cup Final now?

• Subservience to the Premier League

The Premier League is worth a lot of money. Consequently, football outside of it doesn't really exist, or it's seen as bit of a novelty, to be paraded about as some token gesture. After all, the only games that really matter outside of the Premier League that are of any interest involve teams that are trying to reach the Premier League. The rest is something that happens.

The FA Cup Final was the season finale. Today's Final will be played on a day where the only division that has finished it's normal season is the Championship. It's no longer the showpiece that it was.

Even worse, it's due to kick off at 5.15pm, and not in its traditional 3pm slot. No doubt, this is to accommodate fans who will be watching their own team playing.

It feels as though the Cup Final has been relegated to some insignificant slot in the season, and has consequently lost its importance.

Further, winning the FA Cup isn't seen as an honour in the way that it used to be. It's a way of guaranteeing European football, and increasing the winning club's revenue. The romance of the Cup has died. Rather than being a dream to win the FA cup, it's now part of the job.

• Selling out to corporate hospitality

The FA Cup was never the "Fans' Final"; that was the League Cup. FA Cup Final tickets have always been distributed far wider than the two finalists, and have been a bone of contention since I can remember.

The new Wembley stadium has far more corporate hospitality; this is the new cash cow, football as entertainment. This has reduced the number of tickets available to be shared out, and fewer fans of the teams involved will have the chance to watch a Cup Final in person. This is before the cost of the tickets is taken into account.

Of course, the FA has to some how pay for the cost of building the new Wembley stadium. As a cynic, it's the only reason I can see for the semi-finals being played there, and not at a neutral venue, as in the old days. Surely the Liverpool and Everton fans would have been happier to have played their semi at Old Trafford, and not Wembley? It certainly would have been more affordable to those fans than having to travel down to London?

Having only the Final at Wembley also makes the event more special. Where's the magic of a trip to Wembley if you've already seen your team win the semi final there?

Clearly, the new stadium has its corporate customers, who pay huge sums of money for the privilege of using the facilities. These would not be available, certainly not in the numbers the FA appear to want, at a club football ground. This would cut the revenue made from the semi-final. Rather than thinking of the fans, it appears to this fan that the FA is more concerned with how much money it can make from the event.

Today's FA Cup Final shows the FA's intentions clearly. Protect the Premier League, which is the real money maker, and devalue the FA Cup in the process. It's only a matter of time before the Cup Final is nothing more than a token competition, taken as seriously as the Charity Shield at the start of the football season. Top teams already field understrength sides for the League Cup, how long before they do the same with the FA Cup?

This is why I cannot muster any enthusiasm.

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

Confession time,,,

I hate to have to admit this, but my car is not fitted with Telepathy. It wasn't even an optional extra.

This may cause problems, but being the resourceful chappess that I am, I have resorted to using those little orange, flashy lights to inform other road users of my intentions. You know the ones; the ones that you use to say sorry, or thanks, depending on whether you're cutting someone up, or being allowed to aggressively push in. That's them, the same ones that also allow people to park up in the most stupidest of places to save walking too far from the cash machine, or with the bottle of Chateauneuf du Pape.

Sadly, other road users don't seem to have twigged. Like the woman from down the road, who didn't seem to think that sticking on the left sided flashing light, and pulling into the side of the road meant anything. Even when I stuck the car in reverse, she still didn't twig that I wanted to reverse onto my drive. The lack of Telepathy clearly hindered her progress home, as I was unable to communicate my intentions to her. I was not able to make my manoeuvre, and allow her on her way, seeing as she was practically sitting on the back of my inadequate motor. I can only apologise to her. Well, I could, but it's not worth driving that far to speak to her.

Having said that, if she'd invested in the Clairvoyant extra as well as Telepathy, she would have known exactly what it was I wanted to do. Pfft.

Clare's Law - my thoughts

The family of Clare Wood has campaigned for a scheme similar to Sarah's Law, whereby people can find out if their potential partner has a history of domestic violence.

In principle, this sounds like a good idea; anything that prevents one human being abusing another should be applauded. If any lives can be saved through the implementation of such a scheme, it will be hailed as a success.

There are also a number of reasons, and assumptions, why this scheme may not be the panacea to domestic violence.

• Those who have abused their previous partners will be known to the police

The first assumption is that those who abuse their partners are convicted for these offences.

Victims of domestic violence do not report these crimes. They make excuses for their partner's behaviour. Even when they do call the police, they may retract their statements, or refuse to speak out against them. So having been reported, the chances of securing a conviction may be slim.

The scheme does not take into account the potentially thousands of men and women who physically, verbally, and mentally abuse their partners, who have never been reported to the police. So your perfect new boy/girlfriend could still be a potential bully; you just won't know about it until it happens.

• The right charges were brought in the first place

This can work either way.

Somebody who attacks their partner the once, could be charged with an offence relating to domestic violence.

Another person who has been regularly violent to their partner(s) may be convicted of a violent offence not specifically related to domestic violence, say for example, if the victim has been unwilling to assist, or if the offender has agreed to plea to a such a charge.

Will details of convictions, such as the whys and wherefores, be included with any request? Or will all offences against the person be disclosed?

There is a danger that a person with a history of fighting after a few too many beers in the pub could be branded a wife beater by a well-meaning but misinformed family. A list of convictions tells us one thing but it does not paint a full picture.

• A leopard never changes his spots

There is a dangerous precedent that once convicted of violent offences, an offender could always be seen to be a potential murderer at worst, or abusive partner at best. No credit is given for any programmes that may have changed an offender's behaviour for the better. Or  that the circumstances that were present at the time of offending have changed, enabling an offender to alter their own behaviour. 

Again, with no details on how and why someone has been convicted, how can an informed decision on the potential danger posed by that person be fairly assessed?

Further, there's an implicit assumption that a person who has never been violent towards their partner in the past couldn't possibly find themselves in a situation where they begin to abuse the one person that they claim to love. A clear search could lead to complacency from the searching party, who may then find themselves in a very dangerous situation.

• Informed potential victims will give that person a wide berth

The most dangerous assumption to make is that armed with a list of convictions against a new partner, the now suspecting victim can walk away from potential harm.

But what happens if you're already in love with someone when you found out they beat their last other half black and blue? Would you really walk away?

Or would you risk it? After all, s/he hasn't laid a finger on you - yet.

This doesn't even begin to take into account we do not know how many couples have abusive relationships. There are women, and men, already refusing to walk away from a situation where they are fully aware of what their partner is capable of. Love is a powerful emotion.

So why is this scheme going to make any difference?

Are we going to see people vetting their first dates for any criminal past? Surely this is the only way one can be protected? Isn't it? Will dating websites be asking for CRB checks on all their members? Should single men and women be requesting them, just on the off-chance?

Or are we merely bolting the stable door after the horse has done one?

• The invasion of privacy

What's to stop me from going into a police station and telling the officer at the desk that the bloke from down the road, who I don't actually like, is a new boyfriend? I could then use this information to drag his name through the mud, which would be a great thing because I don't actually like him.

Well, nothing. I guess

What may surprise some readers is that I can do this anyway. Even without Clare's Law, the police have the power to disclose this information to me, if I present myself as a potential victim. 

So what exactly are we gaining? Apart from undermining the civil liberties of those people who have a past from which they are trying to move away from?

• So what should be done?

Education is key. Resources could be better used in empowering victims to report crimes against them to the police. Many victims know that the treatment they receive is wrong, but lack the strength to do anything about it. Maybe support is needed, as well as educating them.

It may also be that a lack of faith in the criminal justice system doesn't help. The media is quick to report cases where the police or the CPS has failed, but we don't hear of the many victims who have seen their abusers dealt with appropriately. I'm not saying that authorities don't get it wrong; far from it. But we do need to see more success stories.

That doesn't absolve the police and the CPS from their duties in protecting the public. The question shouldn't be "what information can I get to protect me", but "what are the authorities going to do to protect me"?

There is no formula for stopping domestic violence. I have every sympathy with the Wood family, and I wouldn't wish the fate of Clare on anyone. They may take comfort in believing that she would have been safe if she had known her killer had a history of violence towards women. But I have seen too many cases where even armed with such information, women have accepted abusive behaviour on far too many occasions, believing that the last time really will be the last. I may be being cynical here, but I can't see this scheme making much difference to domestic violence in the UK.

Trial by Facebook?

I've been busy, and write this post a little late, however the general theme is a recurring one that I witness on social networking sites, albeit not as extreme as the example given.

My local police force is keen to promote itself on social networking sites. This is a good thing, it gives the public the chance to engage with the police on a level and in a way that feels more comfortable with them.

As part of their postings, the force posts links to news stories. One story concerned the arrest of a woman on suspicion of child neglect. The child had been removed, and the woman released on bail pending further enquiries.

I became aware of it when a few friends shared the link. At first the comments were harmless enough ("how could someone do that to their child"). Some questioned why the woman had been bailed, and the misunderstandings over bail are a blog post in their own right, so won't be dealt with here.

As the thread developed, two different types of comment were being added to the story.

The first concerned the woman herself. They started along the lines of "I know her, this isn't the first time this has happened". These then developed into further allegations, going into explicit detail. Some comment makers named the woman in question.

The second type, following on from the first, were from potential vigilante types, who gave details of the type of "justice" that should be doled out in the circumstances.

All of this, as far as I could tell, was based on rumour and conjecture.

Social networking sites are brilliant places to gossip. Facebook is great for finding out that the popular kids at school are now fugly. Or that the school bullies are now fugly. It's like a virtual pub, or supermarket, or school playground, where groups gather to spend their time idly speculating about people they shouldn't give a hoot about. But whereas face to face gossip can remain insular, writing allegations on the internet can have far wider implications.

It's very easy to cross the line when criminal investigations are taking place. We've already seen the consequences of jurors using the internet to find out about defendants. We have no idea whether the woman in this incident is guilty of any wrongdoing or not. If she is guilty, who's to say she won't admit it, and be dealt with in the appropriate manner? If she says she's not guilty, rumour-mongering could potentially damage the chances of securing any conviction.

Further, it would be hoped that this woman, if she has been cruel to her child, will be dealt with by the courts. It may be that many have no confidence in the system following the Baby P incident, however, many cases like this escape the public attention. Why? Because they are being dealt with properly, and children are being saved from dangerous situations. It's sad that the success stories are not reported. There is no excuse for taking matters into your own hands. If there are failings in the system, challenge the system, not the perpetrators. 

There is, of course, the other side to the story; that this woman has done nothing wrong. Or even worse, the Facebook gossipers have named and shamed the wrong person. Maybe there is another mother who shares the same name, who cannot understand why people are avoiding her, or are calling her names. Lives can, and have, been ruined through the making of false allegations, or by having the misfortune of sharing the same name as a criminal.

The link to this story was pulled within a few hours. Hopefully, not too much damage has been done, and the matter can be dealt with in the fairest and most appropriate way.

I would also ask my Facebook friends and Twitter followers to think before posting.

PCSO cut to lead to more arrests?

Leicestershire County Council is reported to be proposing to cut its funding for PCSOs. Around 20 will be relieved of their duties over the next two years, that's apparently a 6th currently employed.

I heard the story on the local radio, and I also heard the comments of Dr Sarah Hill, who is the deputy leader of the Lib Dem council group. She said:

"They have a valuable role in the community helping the police ... They're around the community more than police officers because they don't change ... and they have links with the people".

She went further on the radio interview, saying that PCSOs don't have warrant cards, and will therefore speak to people before wading in, preventing potentially inflammatory confrontations. Or words to that effect.

Now forgive me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't police officers also speak to ordinary citizens before throwing their weight around, and using their powers of arrest? Just because they have more powers than the ordinary citizen, or a PCSO, it doesn't mean that they are obliged to use them?

Does it?

Unwelcome visitors - Part Two

In the 3rd round of this season's FA Cup, my team, Leicester City, were drawn away to local rivals, Nottingham Forest. 8,000 tickets were sold to Leicester fans, however in the days leading up to the game, we were given some "guidance" on where we could and could not go.

Unofficial reports suggest 9 Leicester fans were arrested during the relevant time for this game; that's around 0.11% of the travelling support. I was not able to find out how many of those 9 fans have been subsequently charged with any offence, as I was told that this information was not available.

We are now preparing for a 5th round tie against Norwich City, with fans from both sides confident of reaching the quarter-finals. Leicester City can have a decent away following, and fans were confident that there would be demand for the full 15% allocation we should have been entitled to, which is around 4,200 tickets.

Norwich City's Safety Advisory Group (SAG) has, after acting on police advice, said that we are only entitled to 2,400 tickets.

The reason for this is that Leicester City fans are seen as "high risk". This is all based on two events that took place in February 2008.

The first took place between Leicester City and Norwich City fans on February 16th 2008, after the Norfolk club had lost 4-0 at the then named Walkers Stadium. The second took place a week later on February 23rd 2008, in Earlsdon, a suburb of Coventry, before Leicester's visit to the Ricoh Arena, a good five or so miles away.

The second incident is pretty damning; it was an organised ruck, involving a very large group of men. 36 were eventually convicted for their part, from both sets of fans; 18 Leicester fans were named and shamed in the local press.

The first is slightly more confusing, however. 11 men were given prison sentences, and a further 3 given suspended sentences. Just 2 of those men were Leicester City fans. The rest were Norwich City supporters.

Anyone convicted of a football-related offence is subject to Football Banning Orders (FBO), which prevents them from being within a prescribed area around a football ground for not just the duration of the game, but for the 2 hours preceding and following the game. Furthermore, they must surrender their passports when designated games are played outside of the UK. There are also restrictions on the use of the rail network, and those under an FBO have to seek permission to travel by train from the British Transport Police. 

All those involved in the incidents the Norfolk Constabulary have raised concerns over have FBOs ranging from 5 to 10 years. If any were to turn up to the game, they would be committing a further offence.

Aside from the fact that these incidents happened 4 years ago, if the Norfolk Constabulary have concerns with regards to the safety of law-abiding fans who want to watch the game in peace, then will the Norwich City fans also be subjected to a reduced ticket allocation for this cup tie? After all, their fans are just as, if not more, complicit in any trouble that took place between the two sets of fans.

Or will Norwich fans be sitting in the seats that really should have been allocated to the visitors, whose fans are capable of travelling in large numbers and behaving properly?

Watching football is not a crime, yet the law-abiding majority of fans are still being made to suffer because of a minority who are intent on causing trouble.

Aylestone Meadows - "best and most extensive area of wildlife in Leicester"

Last year, some members of Leicester City Council wanted to build football pitches on part of Aylestone Meadows.

Thankfully, for the residents and visitors to the park, the Planning Department had more sense, and the application was rejected. The pitches will now be built on an old, disused school in the area, a site touted by those opposed to the plans as the most sensible option.

Today, it has been reported in the Leicester Mercury that Aylestone Meadows is home to over 600 species of flora and fauna, including a rare tree, the only one of its kind reported in the world.

It would have been a tragedy to have lost any of these, especially at a site so close to a city centre. It also reinforces, to those few who were ever in doubt, that the right decision was made.

One of the worst arguments against reintroducing standing

In England and Welsh football grounds is that it will see the return of hooliganism.

The latest figures since records relating to arrests at football matches show a decrease not only in those arrested on suspicion of committing an offence, but also in the number of fans currently subject to a Football Banning Order.

The suggestion that standing will automatically lead to an increase in trouble is based on the perception of football around thirty years ago. Since then, the demographic of the fan has changed. Clubs have focused on attracting more affluent (safer?) fans to games. There are more middle-classed families attending matches. There are more women at games. The corporate side of football is seen as a priority at some clubs. There are more people attending matches now than there were in the Eighties, and yet trouble at games is decreasing.

At present, teams in the top two divisions are meant to have all-seater stadia. In the Championship during the period November 2010 - November 2011, two clubs had terracing; Scunthorpe and Peterborough United. Compared with other teams in the Championship, there were fewer arrests at their grounds than at those clubs with all-seater stadia.

Further, arrests in League One and League Two are lower still, where more clubs still have terracing.

On top of that, surveillance at grounds is far superior to the methods at the disposal of the police and clubs thirty years ago. At an induction at the then named Walkers Stadium back in 2002, I was told by a very proud Head of Security that the CCTV cameras could focus in on a spot on a suspect's face, so it would be reasonable to assume that the identification of any troublemaker would be relatively simple, should any trouble ensue in a safe-standing area.

To suggest that I, or my fellow like-minded fans, are potential hooligans is not only factually incorrect, but quite frankly insulting. Watching football is not a crime, even if it is done so from a standing position, and not from a plastic seat.

The dangers of misinformation

Last year, I wrote about a story that had been reported in two different ways; there was a local newspaper story, which was followed up two weeks later by some of the more right-wing nationals. Needless to say there were disparities between the earlier publication and the versions reported later, which I highlighted in my blog post.

I'm not the only person who picked up upon the discrepancies, however the EDL held a short protest last week, and now plans a march in Leicester on 4th February, where the attack on Rhea Page took place.

The Leicester Mercury has sought to clarify things, basically confirming what people like myself have commented upon regarding the sentencing of the attackers, and the fact that these women were never charged with a racially aggravated offence. However, it would appear that this will not deter the EDL from their agenda of trying to cause a rift in a city that is proud of its multicultural heritage.

I can only hope that the EDL will find themselves just as unwelcome as they were the last time that they visited my home city.

Unwelcome visitors

Tomorrow, I'll be going to watch a football match. Along with many thousands of others up and down the country. My team, Leicester City, have a game against Nottingham Forest in the FA Cup, a match that has excited one set of supporters more than the other (or so they would have us believe). 

However, I have been "asked" by Nottinghamshire Police to get to the ground early, because they have told the pubs in the area not to admit me, or my husband, or my friends, or any other Leicester City fan, for that matter.

Just in case we haven't seen the message from the Constabulary, our local paper has published a polite reminder for us to behave ourselves. Despite Supt Mark Holland's belief that 8,000 travelling supporters won't "increase the risk of disorder", he's still deploying extra officers for this fixture. I'm pretty sure the fans travelling by train will be "politely dissuaded" from going into the city centre to enjoy Nottingham's fine pubs, cafes, and restaurants before the game. The reports also suggest that we'll be "asked" to leave the city as soon as possible after the game too.

Sadly, as a naive youngster, I have been subjected to the Nottingham Police's "friendly welcome"; in 1994, I arrived by train and was held at the station in an enclosure with my fellow fans for over an hour, with no access to toilet facilities, let alone food or drink, even of the non-alcoholic kind. We were then escorted to the City Ground; the numbers were so huge that it was difficult to stay on the pavements, and I was threatened with arrest for being accidentally pushed onto the road. Luckily, the brave constable didn't lay a finger on me, unlike one poor man who was thrown up against the wall for "looking funny".

I've never had to go through this kind of experience when travelling to a game in Nottingham since that day, but the fear that it could happen again worries me. For this reason, I travel early, and without "colours"; items that identify me as a Leicester fan. I feel like I am an on an undercover mission. A young(ish) woman out for a day's shopping. I understand, having spoken to friends, that escorts do take place with later arrivals, but so far I have avoided them.

Now don't get me wrong; I've seen stuff on social networking sites and forums suggesting that the "boys" are fancying a kickabout of their own variety. But if I've seen this stuff, surely the police officers assigned to specifically dealing with football hooliganism have also seen it. They must know who these guys are. Why not spend the time and resources in dealing with the problem itself, rather than taking a "pro-active" approach that impinges on the civil liberties of law-abiding football fans, who are in the huge majority.

Whilst football fans are portrayed as violent, drunken thugs, latest figures from the Home Office show that arrests at football matches are the lowest since records began in 1983. Football Banning Orders are lower, and the majority of those whose bans have expired have been deemed no longer a threat to the public. 0.01% of fans who attend football matches are arrested at games. Over 70% of matches have no arrests at all, and over half of games had no policing at all.

In the year from November 2010 to November 2011, 17 Leicester City fans were arrested at the club's 23 league away games. This would include the games against Forest on 20th August 2011, and 22nd April 2011. Similarly, just 11 Forest fans were arrested at their 23 home games. That's less than one fan per side arrested at any one game. What the statistics don't show is how many of those arrests result in a conviction.

Overall, more fans are arrested for public order or alcohol related offences. Most arrests of City and Forest fans have been for the former. Again, nothing is said, but it is likely alcohol is a factor with the public order offences.

The suggestion is that this is not orchestrated violence either. These are not the hooligans we know from days of old, but people who drink too much and consequently behave in an unacceptable way.

It would be interesting to see how the football arrests compare with arrests made in town and city centres at the weekend, where people go out, get drunk, and get into fights, or behave in antisocial ways. I wouldn't be surprised if the numbers arrested were proportionately higher for night-time revellers in Leicester on a Friday or Saturday than at the King Power Stadium, yet we don't see the police threatening to restrain the civil liberties of those out for a "good time" to prevent any potential disorder.

Watching football is not a crime. The vast majority of those who do are well-behaved, law-abiding citizens who want to follow their respective teams, and enjoy the company of their friends and fellow supporters. Shouldn't we be allowed that freedom, whilst the powers that be concentrate on the less than 0.01% intent on causing trouble?

So I offer my sincere apologies now to Supt Mark Holland. Thank you for your words of advice, but me and the hubby will spend our pre-match in the city centre, where we can get a coffee, maybe a nice lunch somewhere, and to see what's left in the sales. If that's a crime, then that's where you'll find me.