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.

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

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.

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.

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.

As the Bubble disappears...

...and as Hampshire police congratulate themselves on a relatively trouble-free Sunday afternoon, we will never know if the early kick-off, or if the fact the vast majority of football fans want to support their teams without resorting to yobbish behaviour would have been the winner today.

One thing I'm fairly certain of is it gives the powers that be more justification to interfere with the civil liberties of law-abiding football supporters, who make up the majority of those attending matches.

Watching football is not a crime.