i now understand that following a complaint from CAFC the CPFC police liason officer claims he was misquoted by PISA.
PISA claimed he said he was banned from Charlton, that he thought the stewarding was way over the top etc and that he would support any complaint. So either he or the palace fans were lying. My money is on the Palace fans.
Tel, we did write to him earlier, I think by post then we received another letter and replied by email and post to ensure they had a response within an adequate time. I received most of the comaints and always responded that day either by email or letter confirming receipt and informing them someone will be in touch. There were a few others that wrote and said they would escalate it!
[cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]i now understand that following a complaint from CAFC the CPFC police liason officer claims he was misquoted by PISA.
PISA claimed he said he was banned from Charlton, that he thought the stewarding was way over the top etc and that he would support any complaint. So either he or the palace fans were lying. My money is on the Palace fans.
this would be the same guy i take it who said there were stabbings before the match at Selhurst last season, when no such incidents took place.
[cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]i now understand that following a complaint from CAFC the CPFC police liason officer claims he was misquoted by PISA.
PISA claimed he said he was banned from Charlton, that he thought the stewarding was way over the top etc and that he would support any complaint. So either he or the palace fans were lying. My money is on the Palace fans.
this would be the same guy i take it who said there were stabbings before the match at Selhurst last season, when no such incidents took place.
Someone got slashed by a ski glove (I kid you not).
[cite]Posted By: suzisausage[/cite]Tel, we did write to him earlier, I think by post then we received another letter and replied by email and post to ensure they had a response within an adequate time. I received most of the comaints and always responded that day either by email or letter confirming receipt and informing them someone will be in touch. There were a few others that wrote and said they would escalate it!
Fair enough Suzi......if that was the case then he is an attention seeking knob....lol
A ski glove?!! That's put the middle class thing to bed then. Glad that Palace's use of flares is going to receive police attention too. Perhaps they can confiscate their bottle top glasses, built up shoes, home knitted jumpers and sweat stained shirts too..........after that they can deal with their male fans
"Also when he did receive a fuller reply, the complainant was told that some ejected supporters had viewed the video evidence and had since apologised for their behaviour. Charlton officials confirmed that this was not in fact the case.............."
I struggle to understand how Mick could have made this error considering how far the complainants were prepared to go.
"........but in the face of conflicting accounts it is not possible for the IFO to determine precisely what took place.
17. In the light of inconclusive evidence, despite a thorough investigation, it follows that the IFO is unable to uphold the complaints."
So, Professor Derek Fraser, the Ombudsman, is incapable of making a definitive decision based on the evidence provided - which is exactly what he is paid to do.
All in all, a complete waste of time and money for all those involved,.
[cite]Posted By: Addickted[/cite]Just a couple of points about the IFO's report.
"Also when he did receive a fuller reply, the complainant was told that some ejected supporters had viewed the video evidence and had since apologised for their behaviour. Charlton officials confirmed that this was not in fact the case.............."
I struggle to understand how Mick could have made this error considering how far the complainants were prepared to go.
This bit was in reference to the crap response from the Football League.
[cite]Posted By: Addickted[/cite] "........but in the face of conflicting accounts it is not possible for the IFO to determine precisely what took place.
17. In the light of inconclusive evidence, despite a thorough investigation, it follows that the IFO is unable to uphold the complaints."
So, Professor Derek Fraser, the Ombudsman, is incapable of making a definitive decision based on the evidence provided - which is exactly what he is paid to do.
All in all, a complete waste of time and money for all those involved,.
It reads as though he was ejected for what he said to the steward. There was no audio on the CCTV, so nothing could be proved/dis-proved.
Leaving aside the ins and outs of this case, am I the only one who thinks some of our stewards, along with loads of examples from elsewhere, are a bit power crazed when they get the flourescents on? I suppose briefings and training emphasise dealing with problems so the mindset can be that there are potential threats everywhere. Most folk want to participate in the event they're going to, and for things to be safe, smooth, and without hold ups. They also want common sense information to be relayed. A polite and friendly atmosphere from officials would also help. Being kept waiting and not knowing why, being searched, and spoken to curtly are not going to create a pleasant feel at football, and in my experience any show of disgruntlement is too often seen as a threat and a challenge by folk in uniforms. That said, there are examples of fans who behave badly, but taking a step back, and realising the badly behaved are very much a minority would hep everybody.
[cite]Posted By: Addickted[/cite]Just a couple of points about the IFO's report.
"Also when he did receive a fuller reply, the complainant was told that some ejected supporters had viewed the video evidence and had since apologised for their behaviour. Charlton officials confirmed that this was not in fact the case.............."
I struggle to understand how Mick could have made this error considering how far the complainants were prepared to go.
This bit was in reference to the crap response from the Football League.
No, it was referring to a response to the complainant by the Club that was quite clearly untrue.
The IFO was also unhappy about the original response to the complainant by both the Club and the FA.
The complainant wrote to the club on 29 January listing his complaints and, having had no reply, wrote a second time on 12 February. He received a substantive reply on 24 February from the Operations Director who claimed he had replied on 17 February. On 1 March the complainant contacted the IFO by telephone and email. He was advised that he needed to submit his complaint to the Football League before the IFO could investigate. The complainant wrote to the Customer Service Manager at the Football League on 15 March. He did not receive a substantive reply until 30 April. He responded further to the League on 11 May and formally requested the IFO to investigate and adjudicate his complaint on the same date.
Only repeating what the IFO said G/H.
Personally I think Mick's response within 3 weeks is perfectly reasonable - particularly as it needed to be investigated thoroughly. The 6 weeks the FA took to respond however is not reasonable.
Just to add, the Club's own Charter reads as follows....
"Any expression of dissatisfaction, whether justified or otherwise, will be deemed as a complaint and is therefore subject to the club's complaint handling policy. Receipt of the complaint will be acknowledged, in the first instance, within 48 hours. A response will then be provided within 14 days. If the complaint cannot be satisfactorily resolved within this period, it will be escalated via the office of the chief executive and may ultimately be subject to the club's league governing body".
Which is why when letters came into office via me I'd reply immediately to say that someone will reply shortly. There were a few fans that did this so a lot of time was spent on the phone, writing letters and emails by me, JL and Mick. The complaint above was that a substansive reply took 3 weeks, which is completely true as the 'holding' letter I would have sent wouldn't have been substansive at all.
[cite]Posted By: Goonerhater[/cite]and Susie said she responded sooooooooooooooooooooooo u believe some jumped up knob of a Nigel or our Suziiiiiiiii ?
Difficult choice. Do I believe Suzi or a Palace fan. Let me think about that for a micro-second and say........
"........but in the face of conflicting accounts it is not possible for the IFO to determine precisely what took place.
17. In the light of inconclusive evidence, despite a thorough investigation, it follows that the IFO is unable to uphold the complaints."
So, Professor Derek Fraser, the Ombudsman, is incapable of making a definitive decision based on the evidence provided - which is exactly what he is paid to do.
All in all, a complete waste of time and money for all those involved,.
The point being that as the complainant couldn't prove his complaint and what evidence there was (IE the CCTV and the evidence of the staff) pointed against him, plus the principle of innocent until proved guilty it was thrown out.
[cite]Posted By: suzisausage[/cite]Which is why when letters came into office via me I'd reply immediately to say that someone will reply shortly. There were a few fans that did this so a lot of time was spent on the phone, writing letters and emails by me, JL and Mick. The complaint above was that a substansive reply took 3 weeks, which is completely true as the 'holding' letter I would have sent wouldn't have been substansive at all.
.
Thanks for clearing that up Suzi - I'm pretty sure that would have been the case.
So the IFO has incorrectly reported on the Club failing to respond on time and he has also failed to give a clear difinitive decision - rather a 'benefit of doubt' result. Most unsatisfactory.
I like the idea of chasing up the complainant for our costs in the matter - as it was clearly nothing more than a false claim attempting to slur a rival club. Perhaps the next time we play them, at any hint of trouble, we should put in mass complaints and see how they like it.
Comments
PISA claimed he said he was banned from Charlton, that he thought the stewarding was way over the top etc and that he would support any complaint. So either he or the palace fans were lying. My money is on the Palace fans.
this would be the same guy i take it who said there were stabbings before the match at Selhurst last season, when no such incidents took place.
Someone got slashed by a ski glove (I kid you not).
Fair enough Suzi......if that was the case then he is an attention seeking knob....lol
Probably the same with the FA then as well
How does somebody get slashed by a ski glove?
Was it Eddie "the Eagle" Edwards ?? lol
He then decided to hide behind the police cordon.
He was later, after the game, identified by a charlton who had a frank debate with him
No, but I wore a nice pair back in '77.
"Also when he did receive a fuller reply, the complainant was told that some ejected supporters had viewed the video evidence and had since apologised for their behaviour. Charlton officials confirmed that this was not in fact the case.............."
I struggle to understand how Mick could have made this error considering how far the complainants were prepared to go.
"........but in the face of conflicting accounts it is not possible for the IFO to determine precisely what took place.
17. In the light of inconclusive evidence, despite a thorough investigation, it follows that the IFO is unable to uphold the complaints."
So, Professor Derek Fraser, the Ombudsman, is incapable of making a definitive decision based on the evidence provided - which is exactly what he is paid to do.
All in all, a complete waste of time and money for all those involved,.
It reads as though he was ejected for what he said to the steward. There was no audio on the CCTV, so nothing could be proved/dis-proved.
I suppose briefings and training emphasise dealing with problems so the mindset can be that there are potential threats everywhere. Most folk want to participate in the event they're going to, and for things to be safe, smooth, and without hold ups. They also want common sense information to be relayed. A polite and friendly atmosphere from officials would also help.
Being kept waiting and not knowing why, being searched, and spoken to curtly are not going to create a pleasant feel at football, and in my experience any show of disgruntlement is too often seen as a threat and a challenge by folk in uniforms. That said, there are examples of fans who behave badly, but taking a step back, and realising the badly behaved are very much a minority would hep everybody.
No, it was referring to a response to the complainant by the Club that was quite clearly untrue.
The IFO was also unhappy about the original response to the complainant by both the Club and the FA.
Only repeating what the IFO said G/H.
Personally I think Mick's response within 3 weeks is perfectly reasonable - particularly as it needed to be investigated thoroughly. The 6 weeks the FA took to respond however is not reasonable.
"Any expression of dissatisfaction, whether justified or otherwise, will be deemed as a complaint and is therefore subject to the club's complaint handling policy. Receipt of the complaint will be acknowledged, in the first instance, within 48 hours. A response will then be provided within 14 days. If the complaint cannot be satisfactorily resolved within this period, it will be escalated via the office of the chief executive and may ultimately be subject to the club's league governing body".
Difficult choice. Do I believe Suzi or a Palace fan. Let me think about that for a micro-second and say........
Suzi.
The point being that as the complainant couldn't prove his complaint and what evidence there was (IE the CCTV and the evidence of the staff) pointed against him, plus the principle of innocent until proved guilty it was thrown out.
Waste of time yes. Poor loser palace fans, yes
Well thank you for that well considered response from a fan who clearly does not see us as a rival.
How did you guess? : - )
Thanks for clearing that up Suzi - I'm pretty sure that would have been the case.
So the IFO has incorrectly reported on the Club failing to respond on time and he has also failed to give a clear difinitive decision - rather a 'benefit of doubt' result. Most unsatisfactory.
I like the idea of chasing up the complainant for our costs in the matter - as it was clearly nothing more than a false claim attempting to slur a rival club. Perhaps the next time we play them, at any hint of trouble, we should put in mass complaints and see how they like it.
All in all, well done Suzi, Mick and John.