There's alot of if's and maybes there.STAR Campaigns wrote:A number of Sunderland supporters have been banned from Sunderland despite so far being not found guilty of any offence - and in all likelihood they will be not be found guilty and maybe not even get to court.
by Harpers So Solid Crew » 09 Nov 2009 15:23
09 Nov 2009 15:23Why does the petition site email SAFC from my email address? I support this campaign, and want to sign the petition, but I don't want to be involved in a counter-productive spamming of multiple Sunderland email addresses.STAR Campaigns wrote:Please sign this - even if you think it's nothing to do with us here, this sends a message to clubs and to the football authorities about the importance of due process and the rights of supporters not to be banned when they've not been found guilty of any offence.
JSC - below is the response from the FSF :Jerry St Clair wrote:Why does the petition site email SAFC from my email address? I support this campaign, and want to sign the petition, but I don't want to be involved in a counter-productive spamming of multiple Sunderland email addresses.STAR Campaigns wrote:Please sign this - even if you think it's nothing to do with us here, this sends a message to clubs and to the football authorities about the importance of due process and the rights of supporters not to be banned when they've not been found guilty of any offence.
I've talked to them and basically a petiton is worthless unless there is verification that a person is real - the fact that SAFC are getting all these e-mails proves to them that all these people signing this are real and they get to see the numbers first hand.Because that’s the way that we can register support with the club. By an email coming from an address that has been verified, the club know that it’s a real person who agrees with the protest.
Re the spamming thing, we make sure all of the emails have the same subject so that diverting them into a folder is a very straightforward task their end.
Harpers So Solid Crew wrote:Have you bothered to read the link FL???
To be honest, If I was banned I think the club would be doing me a favour, but I get your point.Harpers So Solid Crew wrote:The fans were caught up in a scene at a station, arrested on suspicion, and not charged with anything, would be the same as you going up to QPR on a train, bit of bother, and all RFC fans arrested at the scene, how would you feel to be banned from the Mad had you just been unfortunate to have been in the wrong palce at the wrong time??
Categorically, yes - due process is vitally important.Forbury Lion wrote: Some of the comments raised in my post are still valid - Would STAR back supporters claims of innocence up until such a time that they were found guilty in a court of law or charged with an offence or would they take they support he clubs judgement or even have their own jury? e.g. Reading fan banned claims innocence, police do not arrest them, no video evidence, their word against another witness.
What if the fan punches a steward, and there is evidence, but neither the steward, club or police are interested in pressing charges because there was no injury caused? It's clear the offence has been committed, but according to this (s)he can carry on going to games happy as larry until a conviction is made by a court?STAR Campaigns wrote:Categorically, yes - due process is vitally important.Forbury Lion wrote: Some of the comments raised in my post are still valid - Would STAR back supporters claims of innocence up until such a time that they were found guilty in a court of law or charged with an offence or would they take they support he clubs judgement or even have their own jury? e.g. Reading fan banned claims innocence, police do not arrest them, no video evidence, their word against another witness.
So we believe action can only be taken against supporters if there is evidence against them, which they have the right to see/hear. They also need to be give the right of appeal.
It gets more complicated in cases of "my word against his", but such cases with minimal evidence tend not to lead to bans anyway.
The FSF will also provide supporters with free legal advice where appropriate and offer a number of other services for supporters - see http://www.fsf.org.uk/fan-in-trouble.php
Those examples are pretty fatuous, and not parallels to the situation here, as both of them happen on football club premises and so the football club has clear evidence of them, through their own staff members if nothing else. In which case it's clear cut and there should be no problem with a ban, which would be fully justified.Ian Royal wrote:What if the fan punches a steward, and there is evidence, but neither the steward, club or police are interested in pressing charges because there was no injury caused? It's clear the offence has been committed, but according to this (s)he can carry on going to games happy as larry until a conviction is made by a court?
What if a fan consistently uses verbal racial abuse at a club official? Does that fan need to be convicted of something in a court of law to be banned?
Please let me know which ones you have an issue with and I'll be happy to answer them one by one, but I'm afraid your last statement is so general and indistinct that it's impossible to respond to.Ian Royal wrote:I'd support a petition asking for these fans to have their case reviewed properly by SAFC, but I think the statements on that petition stink and wouldn't sign it under any circumstances.
Has anyone asked Niall Quinn about this directly? If so, what was his response?Dirk Gently wrote:Very good article about this here
Without seeing the unedited CCTV images that the police will not release it is impossible to decide who or what sparked the trouble.
But I have little doubt that the police over-reacted that night using the sort of aggressive response in dealing with a large crowd that was discredited at the G20 protest.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests