What I’ve seen from here a couple of so called Charlton fans wound them up and thus the gate broke and escalated. Some people not all had a longer walk back ..
That's okay then. There was me thinking that around 20,000 people were inconvenienced and put in harm's way.
I’m sure the people affected will be delighted that the club is going to talk to a selected group on October 16th. More can-kicking.
If I were to seek a less pessimistic interpretation I would suppose that the Club have sought a meeting with Plod about this before coming back to the fans, and plod being plod, that meeting is not happening as quickly as we'd like.
Either way @castrust should be on the Club's case. In the event that the Club in some way confirms the scenario I describe, and say they are reluctant to say anything before such a meeting with plod, the CAST should say "OK we understand you want to stay quiet but the silence is making things worse with the fanbase , so why don't you let us explain that you are seeking that meeting before talking to the fans?"
In other words: the Club may understandably feel constrained regarding their working relationship with the police. They depend on it being at least reasonable. Fans have no such constraint. The police are public servants and accountable to the 20,000 Charlton fans who were there. A democratically organised group of them has every right to demand that the police as well as the Club account for themselves, and if they are the body slowing that process down, they can say so without fear of consequences.
Ultimately it is the level of customer service you get everywhere in today's world. Nobody will admit fault, nobody will apologise, nobody will stand up and say "here's what went wrong", neither will they say what will actually be done to alleviate the problem - "lessons will be earned", "steps will be taken" - but there will be no decision made in the here and now. The can will be kicked down the road, after all, when the fixture comes up next year, someone else might be in charge, so well paid executives won't need to actually earn their wages because someone else will be paying them at the next stop on the merry-go-round.
The irony is, that virtually everyone in the real world actually admires someone who puts their head above the parapet and says "Yes, it was me, it was my fault. I made a mistake, I am totally aware of what that mistake was, and next time we will do A, B and C to make sure that doesn't re-occur".
Not strictly true.
This is an extract of an email I sent to a client yesterday when my team fucked something up while I was away on holiday.
Unfortunately, it appears that having
received the information from your team, a number of issues at our end meant
that we were late in providing you with the draft [redacted] for
your approval. We have addressed these issues internally, but I would like to
take this opportunity to apologise to you and the team at {redacted] for any
inconvenience or disruption this may have caused. We will ensure that all
future [redacted] are reviewed, and responses are sent to the {redacted] team within
the previously agreed parameters.
And in saying "we have addressed these issues" I meant I've given the people responsible a bloody good talking to. It can be done.
I would hate getting that. The phrase "apologise for ANY inconvenience caused" winds me up no end. Of course there was inconvenience - it should say "the" not "any". It's a train service thing. Of course there was inconvenience.
Please be assured that your feedback is important to us. (*drops into the bin)
Comments
Either way @castrust should be on the Club's case. In the event that the Club in some way confirms the scenario I describe, and say they are reluctant to say anything before such a meeting with plod, the CAST should say "OK we understand you want to stay quiet but the silence is making things worse with the fanbase , so why don't you let us explain that you are seeking that meeting before talking to the fans?"
In other words: the Club may understandably feel constrained regarding their working relationship with the police. They depend on it being at least reasonable. Fans have no such constraint. The police are public servants and accountable to the 20,000 Charlton fans who were there. A democratically organised group of them has every right to demand that the police as well as the Club account for themselves, and if they are the body slowing that process down, they can say so without fear of consequences.