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

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.

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.

When decisions of the European Court of Human Rights aren't reported

It is a well reported "fact" that foreign criminals are permitted to stay in the UK despite their convictions. MP for North-West Leicestershire, Andrew Brigden has raised the concerns of some his constituents to the Minister of State for Immigration.

Maybe he should direct those concerned to this latest decision by the European Court of Human Rights, where a Pakistani national has failed to prevent his deportation. A decision that, interestingly, hasn't yet made the news, well, not online in any case.

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.

Youtube racist tram woman released on bail

I've been ill over the last few days, but I noticed last week that the "racist tram rant woman", Emma West, was released on bail, as reported by the BBC.

I have read comments on various social network sites, and on forums expressing outrage that this woman has been locked up, whilst others have been allowed to walk. It's worth explaining that she had been remanded into custody for her own safety, following a plea before venue hearing on 6th December 2011. 

The news of her release has been muted in comparison to the reporting of her remand into custody. Either the media are concerned for her safety, and have decided not to go over the top with this news, or the story does not fit in with the agendas of certain publications.

Ms West is due back in court in the New Year, where she will be committed to the Crown Court for trial. It's worth pointing out to anyone reading this who doesn't understand court procedures, or hasn't followed the story in full, that she has chosen trial by jury. By indicating a "not guilty" plea, the magistrates have deemed the matter suitable to be tried in that court, where sentencing powers are limited. All defendants in this position are then given the choice to be tried in that court, or to have the matter dealt with in the Crown Court.

Statistically, there is more likelihood of an acquittal by jury than by magistrates, however if found guilty, the penalties could be more severe.

When court reporting falls short...

Another report in the Leicester Mercury, featuring the same Judge as in this post.

For the benefit of the lay person, a Plea In Mitigation is used to ensure that the appropriate sentence is given based upon the circumstances of the offence committed along with those of that particular defendant. If you are acting for a defendant, you are hoping to secure the most lenient sentence for your client. Bear in mind that advocates are acting on instruction from their client.

Reporting of sentencing hearings can fall woefully short, as seen in the earlier hearing. However, it's clearer from the later report that the defendant had previous convictions, and the Judge believed that he posed a risk. 

This isn't a new problem; sometimes, there can be outrage that a sentence is too high.

Media reports need to be taken at face value; ask what has not been reported, before questioning what has been reported.

When Neuroscience met Law

Findings by The Royal Society have shown what parents have known all along; it can take up to the age of 20 for the parts of the brain that govern our judgment and decision making ability to fully develop.

When considering the arguments for and against raising the age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales from the age of 10, physical development of the brain is not enough to decide if and when a young person should be held accountable for their actions. Environmental factors, most importantly, the role of parents and the wider family, or even community, can also have a significant impact on whether or not a child acts outside of the criminal law. If children are so susceptible to making decisions mean that they commit crimes, then why do most children manage to stay on the "right path"?

Most children by the age of 10 know the difference between right and wrong. I've read comments that this is not enough in itself to make children criminals. To an extent this is true; however it is a starting point, and one factor to be used. In 2010, the Children's Commissioner, Maggie Atkinson reported to the Government that under 12s did not fully understand their actions. I can remember being 12, even younger, and I can remember some children were very adapt at manipulating adults. Overhearing teenage conversations can be a real eye-opener as to what to say and what not to say to parents or teachers.

Whilst these findings are interesting, caution should be exercised in how they are applied. Children develop at different rates; plenty of adults don't make the right choices at times. There is a danger that unavoidable excuses are being provided, and that this could detract from the real reasons why children commit crimes, such as poor or irresponsible parenting, gang culture and peer pressure, and problems with society in general. Brain development is one part of an important jigsaw.

As the Muslim Girl Gang saga rumbles on...

I have been doing a bit of digging.

Last week, I wrote about a case in my home town of Leicester, which has sparked off debates on Twitter and Facebook, and to other blog posts, some of which are blatantly racist and pandering to an agenda.

Without going into the details again, many people are saying that no white girl would be "let off", and that she would be facing a jail term.

It's difficult to find a story that proves that white women are don't always receive an immediate custodial sentence. Sadly, there are many cases being processed through the criminal justice system involving alcohol-related violence; you just need to visit to the local Magistrates' or Crown Court to see this. Not every case is reported in the local media, let alone the nationals.

But I did find this story, from 2009.

Imagine the scene; a 16 year old girl has been out drinking. She is carrying a vodka glass. She gets into an argument with some other girls, and hits one of them in the face with the glass. The other girl receives injuries that required medical treatment, including stitches.

Is this an immigrant? Or someone, who because of her religion, that isn't used to drinking?

No. This is a white girl, in fact, a pretty, white girl. Like the Muslim girls causing scandal, she received a 6 month suspended prison sentence, despite having the added aggravating factor of using a weapon.

This story had passed me by, in all honesty. It's very easy to get blasé about drunken yob culture. It also appears to have passed everyone else by, as there are no comments on this story calling for this girl to actually serve the sentence handed to her. There isn't a petition either, urging the powers that be to review the sentence. The Telegraph also reports this incident, as well as The Mirror, in an article condemning the behaviour of young, drunken females. This includes another young woman given a suspended sentence after using a stiletto heel to stab someone.

In fact, the purpose and the tone of the article is to warn against the dangers of drinking, and the damaging consequences getting drunk can lead to. Again, the article doesn't go into the full reasons why that particular Judge decided to suspend the sentence, but it's a sad day when I have to take the time, trouble, and effort to find an example to show that it's not just minority groups given the benefit of the doubt in this country. The uproar surrounding the incident in Leicester smacks more of stirring up racial tensions than of shock, sadness, or surprise that girls from a religious group that normally shun alcohol have actually fully integrated into British society by drinking to excess and brawling.

A Tale of Two Reports: the Scandal of the Muslim Girl Gang

The Daily Mail has picked up on a story that was in my local newspaper, the Leicester Mercury, almost two weeks ago. Since its appearance online yesterday, it has sparked outrage amongst many, and now an online petition.

My suspicions were raised purely by the fact it was the Daily Mail, but a little digging has gone a long way.

The original headline was "Gang of women who assaulted me should have been sent to jail". A young, white, British woman, and her white, British boyfriend were set upon by four, drunk women of Somalian origin. It was a nasty, and a vicious attack, with words exchanged, and allegations of racism from both sides. The female victim sustained some nasty, but relatively superficial injuries, however the Judge accepted the basis that her partner had subjected the attackers to some kind of "unreasonable force".

Each of the four attackers received a six month prison sentence, suspended for 12 months after pleading guilty to assault occasioning actual bodily harm (s.47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861).

A look at the Sentencing Guidelines suggests that the six month sentence is at the top end of the sentence range for a s.47 offence, this being an attack that was not pre-meditated with no lasting physical injury.

Of course the Judge, as far as I understand, has the discretion to suspend a custodial sentence, which he has done on this occasion. There are no real reasons given in the report for this, such as antecedent history, personal circumstances such as family and employment. The only mention of what was said in mitigation was:

"the attack was down to alcohol"

with the further explanation that excessive drinking is not something that is culturally usual with the attackers' community.

This report in itself makes the sentence given seen lenient, however when contrasted with the report in the Daily Mail, where the headline screams "Girl gang who kicked woman in the head while yelling 'kill the white slag' freed after judge hears 'they weren't used to drinking because they're Muslims", a totally different version of events is already painted. 

"Freed" - were they ever in custody in the first place?

"Kill the white slag" - the local report says that the victim was called a "white bitch". No mention of death threats.

Was the reason these women were not imprisoned really down to their inability to take their drink?

Yet again, I have that horrible, sinking feeling I get whenever I read a report from the Daily Mail involving an immigrant group. The fact that it's two weeks since sentencing was passed does nothing to allay my fears. Here is another opportunity for this particular publication to whip up an hysterical frenzy to create a "them and us" situation between the so-called indigenous population and any Muslim group in existence in this country.

"You wouldn't see a white person get away with it", I read, as people focus on the racist element of this offence, more than the actual violence itself, or so it seems. As pointed out in the local report, both parties have made allegations of racism. It is something that is very difficult to prove without scores of witnesses, or recorded evidence. Even then, video footage is not enough. I cannot find a link, but an Aston Villa fan was cleared of racist chanting at Leicester City's old stadium, Filbert Street. Whilst CCTV footage showed him mouthing along to the chants, his defence was he had lost his voice, and therefore he didn't actually say anything racist. It was enough.

Both reports leave many unanswered questions; I wouldn't like to conclusively say if these sentences were or were not lenient based upon the information reported. I'm certainly not condoning the actions of these vile creatures. But my experience of seeing the Judges and Counsel in Leicester Crown Court, and of observing sentencing procedures, I am swayed towards this being the correct decision by this Judge. I would prefer to see a transcript before making up my mind.

* * * * *

I know that this case helps the argument for TV cameras in court. But I still don't think televising cases helps, as production companies are capable of editing those bits and pieces that fit their own agenda. The courts are open to the public, and live coverage offers nothing more. In fact, it may offer less, as it would no doubt have to be restricted for various reasons. It would not encourage more people to take an interest in local justice. Further, there aren't the resources to deal with every matter, especially instances like this one. I don't believe that there's the resources or the interest to video ever single thing that happens in court.

Leics Police Celebrate Falling Crime Rates

Today, the local Constabulary is slapping itself on it's metaphorical back.

Before joining in with the plaudits, I may be being cynical, but I do have the following questions:

• How many cautions have been issued in the 12 months in question?

• Similarly, how many fixed penalty notices have been issued?

• How many crimes have been "downgraded" so that they are not "notifiable"?

• How many Crime Related Incidents were reported but not included?

• How many incidents were reported to the Police, but they didn't turn up in time to deal with the incident effectively? 

• What are the British Crime Survey results for the county during the same period?

• How many recordable offences haven't been reported to the Police?

Obviously the answers to some questions will be harder to answer than others, but had the figures increased, I can see the headlines telling us all that the Police are reacting more quickly to incidents, and that the Force is working harder than ever to identify and bring criminals to justice.

But, as I say, I may be being cynical.

Capital punishment; further thoughts

This article, that features on the thisisleicestershire website, leaves me cold for a number of reasons.

I have every sympathy with Kath Eastwood but I was left cold by this comment; "I think the politicians should accept there is a public appetite for capital punishment".


It's such a strong choice, and not one I feel is backed up even by supporters of the death penalty. I'm left with the image of the mob braying for blood.


Even more chilling though is the fact that another man had originally confessed to the murder of Lynda Mann, Mrs Eastwood's daughter. Forensic evidence at the time backed up this confession, and it was only because of the work of scientists pioneering the use of DNA evidence that proved that he had not actually committed these crimes.


In essence, Colin Pitchfork might not have been caught, and had the death penalty been in place for child killers, another man would have died at the hands of the State for a crime that he did not commit.


Given the history of this case, I am shocked that somebody associated with it could think that State sanctioned killing is acceptable.


It begs the question; is capital punishment really about punishment, or is it simply allowing victims to exact their revenge?


Whilst I'm on this subject, capital punishment cannot be compared to sending soldiers out to war, abortion, or assisted suicide. These are three completely different scenarios with different moral objections and arguments and should be considered independently and upon their own merits.

Capital punishment - my thoughts

There is an online petition calling for the return of the death penalty in the UK. It's qualified so that it would only apply to those who killed cops and kids, but any reintroduction of the death penalty leads to a slippery slope.

My understanding is that we, living in the UK, live in a civilised society. So where, in a civilised society, is there the place for retribution in our criminal justice system? Because that's what capital punishment is, at the end of the day.

What gives the State the right to choose who is to die, how, and when? How does that make "us" any better than the people capital punishment is purporting to protect us from?

Does capital punishment protect our society from killers? Looking at data from the US, I would say no, it does not.

Acting after the event does not lead to prevention. Put simply, the death penalty does not act as a deterrent. It will not stop people from killing, let alone killing the police or our children.

The notion appears, to me, to appeal to the braying mob baying for blood. 

This is not the measure of a civilised society.