One of the worst arguments against reintroducing standing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The dangers of misinformation

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

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

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

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

Unwelcome visitors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Footballer and the Social Network Site

A Championship footballer with a Twitter account decided this morning to offer his followers a brief Q & A session before heading off to training.

I don't mean to be disingenuous, but I am pretty certain that this player honestly believed that he would be asked questions like "who snores the loudest on away trips" or "what is your favourite flavour Monster Munch". Despite this player's performances being under par, in spite of his recent spate of goals, in an average Championship side, I would happily wager that he did not expect questions relating to his form, the form of his team-mates, and further, that of his team.

Which is a pity, because those are the kinds of questions that he did get; some from genuinely concerned supporters, some maybe tinged with sarcasm. Needless to say, those questions went unanswered, and in fact, were retweeted, probably under some misguided notion that the player felt "picked on".

Footballers are not like us ordinary folk. They lead sheltered lives, to an extent, and then use their status to live the kind of lives us mere mortals can dream of. Footballers of even a modest level can hide behind their clubs, their agents, and various PR people. Social networking can seem, to players and fans alike, a great way of engaging with each other, but it is also presents potential problems. Time and time again, some footballers have shown that despite all of their training and advice, they are not able to engage constructively with members of the public.

If this player did not want to answer questions relating to his and his club's on-field performances, he could have avoided it by adding a simple caveat to his initial invitation.

If he had inadvertently omitted to do this, he could have tweeted after receiving awkward questions, that he could not, or was not able to discuss these matters.

However, by retweeting those questions without a reply, he has made himself out to be a victim, whether intentionally or not, and set genuinely concerned fans, who will be with his club long after he has left, up to be abused.

Not a great way of dealing with fans who are already struggling to justify his inclusion in their team's line-up.

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.