Hang on, just caught up on this one, is it actually true that the police arrested this man and took him to a police station? What on earth did he do? I could see that he was very wound up, I can see that restraining action had to be taken in case he attempted a physical assault, but I can't for the life of me see what he did that warranted being arrested. Did he take a swing at the police or something? Is it possible that we could be told the whole story please?
[cite]Posted By: LenGlover[/cite]If the distinction is simply one of police involvement then why does it appear that the police view verbal abuse more seriously than physical assault?
McLeod's was a calculated not accidental action. The "geriatric," as he has been dubbed in this thread, acted in the heat of the moment to a shameful second half performance by the team he has lived and breathed for years of his life.
The distinction is really in the purpose of any statements made by the club. In order to manage a crowd of thousands you have to have clear policies about what is and isn't acceptable. The main purpose of formal statements about spectator behaviour is to make clear to anyone else who is tempted to follow suit in the future that their actions will have consequences. They are also made for the benefit of the authorities - licensing, football and the police - to show that the club fulfils its responsibilities under the law and address any suggestion that the club has been or is likely to be negligent, because the club can be punished otherwise.
In the case of something that happens on the pitch, the immediate audience for any statement is the players, rather than the spectators or the authorities, and they can be addressed privately. It would then be for the manager - and uiltimately the chairman - to decide if a particular event needs to be addressed publicly. It wouldn't be a matter for the non-football staff, including members of the communications team, as it was in this case. The exception would be if the police got involved, in which case it would have a public dimension and would probably require a public position. But police will always be reluctant to get involved in what happens on the field unless a complaint is made by one of the parties involved.
[cite]Posted By: LenGlover[/cite]If the distinction is simply one of police involvement then why does it appear that the police view verbal abuse more seriously than physical assault?
McLeod's was a calculated not accidental action. The "geriatric," as he has been dubbed in this thread, acted in the heat of the moment to a shameful second half performance by the team he has lived and breathed for years of his life.
The distinction is really in the purpose of any statements made by the club. In order to manage a crowd of thousands you have to have clear policies about what is and isn't acceptable. The main purpose of formal statements about spectator behaviour is to make clear to anyone else who is tempted to follow suit in the future that their actions will have consequences. They are also made for the benefit of the authorities - licensing, football and the police - to show that the club fulfils its responsibilities under the law and address any suggestion that the club has been or is likely to be negligent, because the club can be punished otherwise.
In the case of something that happens on the pitch, the immediate audience for any statement is the players, rather than the spectators or the authorities, and they can be addressed privately. It would then be for the manager - and uiltimately the chairman - to decide if a particular event needs to be addressed publicly. It wouldn't be a matter for the non-football staff, including members of the communications team, as it was in this case. The exception would be if the police got involved, in which case it would have a public dimension and would probably require a public position. But police will always be reluctant to get involved in what happens on the field unless a complaint is made by one of the parties involved.
Fair point Airman but it still begs the question why the Manager/Chairman did not issue a statement, within say 24 hours, condemning McLeod's action. It made us look bad losers and a Club that condones whatever it takes to win a game of football.
Since 1992, this appears to be the 4th occasion this has happened at the Valley, and in only 2 of them instances in my opinion, a ban/arrest was just deserved.
December 1992, First game back when Vince Niedzwiecki (sp?) gave Killer a hug. Common sense prevailed and if I remember correctly nothing was done about this
November 1993, a young plumb lad came out of the Covered End and gave Notts County’s Charlie Palmer a shove in the back. Can’t remember if any action was taken, but in my opinion a ban was deserved (If that happened)
Then we get that young idiot against Hartlepool dressed as Borat, and he got in my view what he deserved.
However in my eyes Saturday some common sense should have been used. As someone as already posted on this thread, I’m surprised no one else has done this in the last few years before saturday. The old boy must have been at the end of his tether watching that, and totally lost it.
Not for one minute I agree of what he did, but if Police action was taken, and the club ban him as a result, then I for one will be disappointed.
This aint some young herbert or a middle age one for that matter---its not a pisshead--its a mature gent and a season ticket holder. he probably knew he would be in the shit,but did he go down there thinking "ill give parky some grief when re are 4 nil down by invading the playing area ?" no FFS it was out of total frustration and anger at another pile of pooooooooo served up. If he gets fined THE PLAYERS should pay it.
[cite]Posted By: Goonerhater[/cite]This aint some young herbert or a middle age one for that matter---its not a pisshead--its a mature gent and a season ticket holder. he probably knew he would be in the shit,but did he go down there thinking "ill give parky some grief when re are 4 nil down by invading the playing area ?" no FFS it was out of total frustration and anger at another pile of pooooooooo served up. If he gets fined THE PLAYERS should pay it.
Age has nothing to do with it. You can still be a 60 year old & pisshead, in the same way that if a 20 year old bloke jumped the barrier to do exactly the same thing he'd probably get berated for it.
We are purely speculating, does anybody actually know the full story?
[cite]Posted By: LenGlover[/cite]If the distinction is simply one of police involvement then why does it appear that the police view verbal abuse more seriously than physical assault?
McLeod's was a calculated not accidental action. The "geriatric," as he has been dubbed in this thread, acted in the heat of the moment to a shameful second half performance by the team he has lived and breathed for years of his life.
The distinction is really in the purpose of any statements made by the club. In order to manage a crowd of thousands you have to have clear policies about what is and isn't acceptable. quote]
A few more games like Saturdays and you wont have a problem
[cite]Posted By: CafcAndy[/cite]Don't get me wrong, 20 games in and doing shite, i would promote this action. 10 games in just shows some fickleness. Would love to know what that man expected of his beloved team at the start of the season.
Regardless of whether it was 3 games in or 30, we were still getting beat 4-0 at home by Brighton in one of the most pathetic displays a Charlton team has produced in recent times.
[quote][cite]Posted By: CafcAndy[/cite]Don't get me wrong, 20 games in and doing shite, i would promote this action. 10 games in just shows some fickleness. Would love to know what that man expected of his beloved team at the start of the season.[/quote]
Andy is always on a windup. This is a kid who convinced another poster on here to stick his over-heating PS3 in the fridge, and take a photograph to prove it.
Before every half of football (!) at the Valley the crowd is urged to 'make some noise', in other words a degree of passion is....errrrm....requested. If the club (rightly) wants impassioned support, then the by product is the occasional incident like Saturday.
Incidentally if the club urge us to make some noise, then the booing, which is condemned by some supporters, is noise too. There is a demand for the 'right' kind of vocal response, but the definition of what is just about right, appropriate and proportional is elusive.
I am pleased to see that the response of the club is going to be 'proportional', which of course should mean an invite to a pre-match meal with the directors, a speech in the changing room before a match, a seat in the dug out, and a free season ticket for next season...or am I getting it wrong here? :-)
[cite]Posted By: CafcAndy[/cite]There are plenty of reasons why people should not enter the field of play. Look at the Boro incident a few years back, the bloke comes and trows his season ticket at McClaren
And
[cite]Posted By: CafcAndy[/cite]We have to stop our emotions going too far or everyone will be out there seats and on there way to the dugout.
But then totally undermine your own argument by saying :
[cite]Posted By: CafcAndy[/cite]Don't get me wrong, 20 games in and doing shite, i would promote this action.
So is it wrong, or right. Or did the old fella just do it a couple of games too early for your liking ?
Tennis 60 posted on here about the inconsiderate behaviour of fans at the Dagenham and Redbridge JPT match. The behaviour was so bad that he and his family felt that they had to leave at half time. On that occasion he was defending loutish, inconsiderate behaviour towards a family and was generally derogatory and critical of those fans who choose to sit in their seats and watch the match they have paid good money to see.
For the record, as I argued the toss with him then but have defended the "geriatric" (and thus cafc Andy could also call me a wind up merchant) I do not condone the "geriatric's" actions but given that he did not encroach on the pitch or harm anybody feel a warning as to future conduct constitutes sufficient punishment.
there was some heated debate at the back of the northstand by the stairs between charlton fans at the end of the match on saturday, well a lot of shouting ....... everyones getting right stressed out ..... sad times
Won't be long before it's charlton having a row with each other and throwing punches, already happened before a couple of times in recent years, noticeably Ipswich sticks in my mind but we're sliding down that slope again with a couple more performances like that
Nice to see the club are so quick to do something about this old bloke but after a good 12-18 months still can't do anything about the chavs smoking in the north upper toilets at half time.
I was as furious with our fans as I was with the team on Sat - proabbly even more so. The team c*cked up, but the fans turning so vitriolic when only 2-0 down was disgusting. People were even having a real go at Reid when he over-hit his crosses in the first half - when it was still 0-0! Yes it's frustrating, but turning on each other and on the players and on the manager at the slightest opportuntiy is just going to make the situation worse and worse. I travel 500 miles and spend well over £100 to come to home games - at the moment I have no inclination to do so again for a very long time. Not because of Parky, not because of the players, but because of the poisonous atmosphere we seem to delight in creating. I'll be at Carlisle, though...
For the record, I have little sympathy for the "geriatric" either. My Dad never behaved like that, and he saw us in every bit as bad a way over many years.
Andy - i really hope you're on a wind up. In fact i'm convinced you are, as having looked at a couple of other threads started by you, one is "things you'd like to see made illegal" and the other is about wanting people to "stop doing the bouncy bouncy because it is a health and safety hazard". Now either you're a wind up merchant or you're a right sad tosser.
kevin nolan has reported it in the greenwich times as........
....one silly old duffer even made an embarrassing attempt to confront Phil Parkinson ......
also ends his report
..sadly but hopefully briefly, the valley's jealously guarded reputation for fairness and restraint, both casualties of a major lapse in taste by a minority of empty vessels who speak for nobody but themselves.
sadly but hopefully briefly, the valley's jealously guarded reputation for fairness and restraint, both casualties of a major lapse in taste by a minority of empty vessels who speak for nobody but themselves.
seems like Kevin Nolan is as deluded as Parky is then. A minority ? It was a sizeable number of those left in the ground but the thousands who left also speak volumes, they didn't leave because they were happy you know. As for speaking for themselves, that is all anyone can ever do. I think Kevin is going senile in his old age.
Comments
The distinction is really in the purpose of any statements made by the club. In order to manage a crowd of thousands you have to have clear policies about what is and isn't acceptable. The main purpose of formal statements about spectator behaviour is to make clear to anyone else who is tempted to follow suit in the future that their actions will have consequences. They are also made for the benefit of the authorities - licensing, football and the police - to show that the club fulfils its responsibilities under the law and address any suggestion that the club has been or is likely to be negligent, because the club can be punished otherwise.
In the case of something that happens on the pitch, the immediate audience for any statement is the players, rather than the spectators or the authorities, and they can be addressed privately. It would then be for the manager - and uiltimately the chairman - to decide if a particular event needs to be addressed publicly. It wouldn't be a matter for the non-football staff, including members of the communications team, as it was in this case. The exception would be if the police got involved, in which case it would have a public dimension and would probably require a public position. But police will always be reluctant to get involved in what happens on the field unless a complaint is made by one of the parties involved.
Fair point Airman but it still begs the question why the Manager/Chairman did not issue a statement, within say 24 hours, condemning McLeod's action. It made us look bad losers and a Club that condones whatever it takes to win a game of football.
December 1992, First game back when Vince Niedzwiecki (sp?) gave Killer a hug. Common sense prevailed and if I remember correctly nothing was done about this
November 1993, a young plumb lad came out of the Covered End and gave Notts County’s Charlie Palmer a shove in the back. Can’t remember if any action was taken, but in my opinion a ban was deserved (If that happened)
Then we get that young idiot against Hartlepool dressed as Borat, and he got in my view what he deserved.
However in my eyes Saturday some common sense should have been used. As someone as already posted on this thread, I’m surprised no one else has done this in the last few years before saturday. The old boy must have been at the end of his tether watching that, and totally lost it.
Not for one minute I agree of what he did, but if Police action was taken, and the club ban him as a result, then I for one will be disappointed.
Age has nothing to do with it. You can still be a 60 year old & pisshead, in the same way that if a 20 year old bloke jumped the barrier to do exactly the same thing he'd probably get berated for it.
We are purely speculating, does anybody actually know the full story?
It's about bloody time supporters stopped meekly taking this crap and show some fight.
Fair play to the bloke, I'd rather a half empty ground of his type than a full ground of bussed in, foam hand waving fly by nights.
Regardless of whether it was 3 games in or 30, we were still getting beat 4-0 at home by Brighton in one of the most pathetic displays a Charlton team has produced in recent times.
Behave yourself.
Incidentally if the club urge us to make some noise, then the booing, which is condemned by some supporters, is noise too. There is a demand for the 'right' kind of vocal response, but the definition of what is just about right, appropriate and proportional is elusive.
I am pleased to see that the response of the club is going to be 'proportional', which of course should mean an invite to a pre-match meal with the directors, a speech in the changing room before a match, a seat in the dug out, and a free season ticket for next season...or am I getting it wrong here? :-)
You say :
And
But then totally undermine your own argument by saying :
So is it wrong, or right. Or did the old fella just do it a couple of games too early for your liking ?
Tennis 60 posted on here about the inconsiderate behaviour of fans at the Dagenham and Redbridge JPT match. The behaviour was so bad that he and his family felt that they had to leave at half time. On that occasion he was defending loutish, inconsiderate behaviour towards a family and was generally derogatory and critical of those fans who choose to sit in their seats and watch the match they have paid good money to see.
For the record, as I argued the toss with him then but have defended the "geriatric" (and thus cafc Andy could also call me a wind up merchant) I do not condone the "geriatric's" actions but given that he did not encroach on the pitch or harm anybody feel a warning as to future conduct constitutes sufficient punishment.
Spot on.
For the record, I have little sympathy for the "geriatric" either. My Dad never behaved like that, and he saw us in every bit as bad a way over many years.
....one silly old duffer even made an embarrassing attempt to confront Phil Parkinson ......
also ends his report
..sadly but hopefully briefly, the valley's jealously guarded reputation for fairness and restraint, both casualties of a major lapse in taste by a minority of empty vessels who speak for nobody but themselves.
Who or what does he mean by this one?