Does it seem strange that these people have not been named?
Probably because they were U16
If that's the case, and it was the young kids, then I know they had a pop at the stewards when they were let out on Welling High Street. I was having a pretty good - if slightly pissed - chat with the older Steward at the match, and he said they were just let out of the gates but according to the larger steward they yelled back at him calling him a "fat c*nt".
I would've thought the club would've let that slide and banned the older chap(/s) who tried to intimidate and get physical with the stewards, before being nicked and dealt with by the police? Kids may be kids, but that guy was just an embarrassment.
Most on here were raging that there were a number of Charlton fans behaving badly at the Welling game. Then when they are actually banned our comments are along the lines of fuck the regime? I know we all hate them and for a good reason but come on, don't blame everything on them, wouldn't be surprised if the next thing we'll see is a post entitled "How the regime ruined my marriage".
I think you've missed the point.
I think he makes a good one to be fair. The kid was largely slagged off on Facebook for being a numpty. Same on here - but now he's actually held accountable for this behaviour it's an outrage
I can only speak for myself, so I'll clarify my viewpoints. 1. No-one should run on the pitch or chuck flares. If you do that, you're an idiot and deserve to get punished. 2. I don't believe the club'should statement for three reasons: I don't believe they can prevent someone from attending games unless they name them; I don't believe the club when they describe it as a "banning order", this dresses it up as something it isn't; and I don't believe they can or will do anything to prevent these people from attending away games (which is where, in the case of the Welling pair, it happened).
It's perfectly fair to criticise the idiots that behaved in this way *and* the club for the dull-headed way in which they've dealt with it.
Most on here were raging that there were a number of Charlton fans behaving badly at the Welling game. Then when they are actually banned our comments are along the lines of fuck the regime? I know we all hate them and for a good reason but come on, don't blame everything on them, wouldn't be surprised if the next thing we'll see is a post entitled "How the regime ruined my marriage".
I think you've missed the point.
I think he makes a good one to be fair. The kid was largely slagged off on Facebook for being a numpty. Same on here - but now he's actually held accountable for this behaviour it's an outrage
I can only speak for myself, so I'll clarify my viewpoints. 1. No-one should run on the pitch or chuck flares. If you do that, you're an idiot and deserve to get punished. 2. I don't believe the club'should statement for three reasons: I don't believe they can prevent someone from attending games unless they name them; I don't believe the club when they describe it as a "banning order", this dresses it up as something it isn't; and I don't believe they can or will do anything to prevent these people from attending away games (which is where, in the case of the Welling pair, it happened).
It's perfectly fair to criticise the idiots that behaved in this way *and* the club for the dull-headed way in which they've dealt with it.
Agree entirely.
I thought the kids at Welling were embarrassing, but largely being kids.. until it went too far and the police had to get involved before they were escorted out. Specifically the guy who wasn't a child but kicked off like one needs to reassess his life a bit.
That said, the way The Club have made this statement is quite deceptive - arguably dishonest - and seems to be another peculiar communication that is either pointless or veiling a subtle threat. Not to mention... 3 years for something non-violent and is essentially tantamount to mugging a Steward off? (This doesn't appear to be pyro related as per the statement, and as per the lack of proper police involvement?)
Most on here were raging that there were a number of Charlton fans behaving badly at the Welling game. Then when they are actually banned our comments are along the lines of fuck the regime? I know we all hate them and for a good reason but come on, don't blame everything on them, wouldn't be surprised if the next thing we'll see is a post entitled "How the regime ruined my marriage".
I think you've missed the point.
I think he makes a good one to be fair. The kid was largely slagged off on Facebook for being a numpty. Same on here - but now he's actually held accountable for this behaviour it's an outrage
But thats not what is being said, yes they were a pain, and the more sensitive ones on here did have a wobble, at the time I thought they were out of order and yes they deserve some form of punishment, BUT 3 years? No way........
Most on here were raging that there were a number of Charlton fans behaving badly at the Welling game. Then when they are actually banned our comments are along the lines of fuck the regime? I know we all hate them and for a good reason but come on, don't blame everything on them, wouldn't be surprised if the next thing we'll see is a post entitled "How the regime ruined my marriage".
I think you've missed the point.
I think he makes a good one to be fair. The kid was largely slagged off on Facebook for being a numpty. Same on here - but now he's actually held accountable for this behaviour it's an outrage
I can only speak for myself, so I'll clarify my viewpoints. 1. No-one should run on the pitch or chuck flares. If you do that, you're an idiot and deserve to get punished. 2. I don't believe the club'should statement for three reasons: I don't believe they can prevent someone from attending games unless they name them; I don't believe the club when they describe it as a "banning order", this dresses it up as something it isn't; and I don't believe they can or will do anything to prevent these people from attending away games (which is where, in the case of the Welling pair, it happened).
It's perfectly fair to criticise the idiots that behaved in this way *and* the club for the dull-headed way in which they've dealt with it.
Agree entirely.
I thought the kids at Welling were embarrassing, but largely being kids.. until it went too far and the police had to get involved before they were escorted out. Specifically the guy who wasn't a child but kicked off like one needs to reassess his life a bit.
That said, the way The Club have made this statement is quite deceptive - arguably dishonest - and seems to be another peculiar communication that is either pointless or veiling a subtle threat. Not to mention... 3 years for something non-violent and is essentially tantamount to mugging a Steward off? (This doesn't appear to be pyro related as per the statement, and as per the lack of proper police involvement?)
Fair enough thinking 3 years is too much, I agree actually, but again its the clubs choice.
What is it that you find deceptive and dishonest? Some fans caused trouble, they have been banned, simple as.
Most on here were raging that there were a number of Charlton fans behaving badly at the Welling game. Then when they are actually banned our comments are along the lines of fuck the regime? I know we all hate them and for a good reason but come on, don't blame everything on them, wouldn't be surprised if the next thing we'll see is a post entitled "How the regime ruined my marriage".
I think you've missed the point.
I think he makes a good one to be fair. The kid was largely slagged off on Facebook for being a numpty. Same on here - but now he's actually held accountable for this behaviour it's an outrage
I can only speak for myself, so I'll clarify my viewpoints. 1. No-one should run on the pitch or chuck flares. If you do that, you're an idiot and deserve to get punished. 2. I don't believe the club'should statement for three reasons: I don't believe they can prevent someone from attending games unless they name them; I don't believe the club when they describe it as a "banning order", this dresses it up as something it isn't; and I don't believe they can or will do anything to prevent these people from attending away games (which is where, in the case of the Welling pair, it happened).
It's perfectly fair to criticise the idiots that behaved in this way *and* the club for the dull-headed way in which they've dealt with it.
Agree entirely.
I thought the kids at Welling were embarrassing, but largely being kids.. until it went too far and the police had to get involved before they were escorted out. Specifically the guy who wasn't a child but kicked off like one needs to reassess his life a bit.
That said, the way The Club have made this statement is quite deceptive - arguably dishonest - and seems to be another peculiar communication that is either pointless or veiling a subtle threat. Not to mention... 3 years for something non-violent and is essentially tantamount to mugging a Steward off? (This doesn't appear to be pyro related as per the statement, and as per the lack of proper police involvement?)
Fair enough thinking 3 years is too much, I agree actually, but again its the clubs choice.
However what is it that you find deceptive and dishonest? Some fans caused trouble, they have been banned, simple as.
Referring to the fans being banned from Charlton Athletic matches as a "Banning Order", when that invokes the thought of something more severe. A "Football Banning Order" is a very specific thing which does more than ban you from one teams matches - i.e you can't attended any regulated matches and you can't use public transport on match days - and is generally used for violent offenders. Not to mention you need a conviction of a "relevant offence".
"Two individuals have received a three-year banning order..." - No, by the sounds of it two individuals have been banned from The Valley and the club will be exercising it's right not to sell tickets to them for away matches. A little less dramatic.
"The club has also imposed banning orders on the two individuals" - Same nonsense. If The Club has imposed it - and not a court - then it's simply the club revoking the right of an individual to come on their property. It's a bit like someone sneaking around my garden at night, me telling them to sod off, and then proclaiming that I've imposed on to them a "Banning Order".
The club are choosing to depict an elevated level of severity with regards to the punishment, simply by word play. It no longer sounds like "We told them that if they come back they'll.. erhh.. be trespassing and escorted off the property." and more like "They've been taken to court and dealt with, and they'll be breaking the law if they attend any further matches."... a bit different.
Edit to add, just to add to the point @Airman Brown has made below - the club specifically states that the ban applies to Away matches too. To go back to my garden analogy, that's like me going around to your house and seeing your mate in your garden - and me telling him to "sod off out of the garden". I have no legal right to do so, and if you're OK with the chap being in your garden then I'm going to look a bit stupid aren't I?
Most on here were raging that there were a number of Charlton fans behaving badly at the Welling game. Then when they are actually banned our comments are along the lines of fuck the regime? I know we all hate them and for a good reason but come on, don't blame everything on them, wouldn't be surprised if the next thing we'll see is a post entitled "How the regime ruined my marriage".
I think you've missed the point.
I think he makes a good one to be fair. The kid was largely slagged off on Facebook for being a numpty. Same on here - but now he's actually held accountable for this behaviour it's an outrage
I can only speak for myself, so I'll clarify my viewpoints. 1. No-one should run on the pitch or chuck flares. If you do that, you're an idiot and deserve to get punished. 2. I don't believe the club'should statement for three reasons: I don't believe they can prevent someone from attending games unless they name them; I don't believe the club when they describe it as a "banning order", this dresses it up as something it isn't; and I don't believe they can or will do anything to prevent these people from attending away games (which is where, in the case of the Welling pair, it happened).
It's perfectly fair to criticise the idiots that behaved in this way *and* the club for the dull-headed way in which they've dealt with it.
Agree entirely.
I thought the kids at Welling were embarrassing, but largely being kids.. until it went too far and the police had to get involved before they were escorted out. Specifically the guy who wasn't a child but kicked off like one needs to reassess his life a bit.
That said, the way The Club have made this statement is quite deceptive - arguably dishonest - and seems to be another peculiar communication that is either pointless or veiling a subtle threat. Not to mention... 3 years for something non-violent and is essentially tantamount to mugging a Steward off? (This doesn't appear to be pyro related as per the statement, and as per the lack of proper police involvement?)
Fair enough thinking 3 years is too much, I agree actually, but again its the clubs choice.
What is it that you find deceptive and dishonest? Some fans caused trouble, they have been banned, simple as.
If it's a club ban it's basically unenforceable away and problematic and time consuming at The Valley. So to that extent it's potentially empty rhetoric.
What's the difference between these guys that run on the pitch and take a 3 year ban, and the guys that followed after the final whistle? In terms of the law (and ground safety laws), both are against them. 3 years is ridiculously OTT and is an obvious; don't protest against us - nip this in the bud now or we will ban you all and threaten you with huge fines.
I think it's time Tony cahone got a visit and an advisory banning order, then poor old Katrien meire hopkins gets a little visit and an advisory banning order,
Does it seem strange that these people have not been named?
It is a civil order rather than a lawful one. If it was lawful in which meant the the incident led to arrests or criminal proceedings then yes names could be published. Personally i think its a load of old tosh, should they have done it? No. Did they deserve a ban for three years? No. A letter and warning would have been enough.
I cant see how the club can enforce a banning order on the two for away games, yes they can say you are not allowed to enter our stadium, but they cannot enforce this on other clubs and have not been found guilty of such in a court in which has sentenced them to a banning order.
With our police liaison officers advice to away clubs local plod they can, they can say your undesirable or that your presence may cause a breach of the peace etc, bit like a shoplifter being banned from boots and the rest of the stores in the same shopping centre doing the same
I doubt this amounts to more than refusal to sell tickets to the named individuals. Their mates could buy their tickets and because of auto ticketing, they could get in. Interesting to read T&Cs to see if they could be legally ejected if discovered inside, given that no court has seems to have been involved in the process.
Does it seem strange that these people have not been named?
It is a civil order rather than a lawful one. If it was lawful in which meant the the incident led to arrests or criminal proceedings then yes names could be published. Personally i think its a load of old tosh, should they have done it? No. Did they deserve a ban for three years? No. A letter and warning would have been enough.
I cant see how the club can enforce a banning order on the two for away games, yes they can say you are not allowed to enter our stadium, but they cannot enforce this on other clubs and have not been found guilty of such in a court in which has sentenced them to a banning order.
With our police liaison officers advice to away clubs local plod they can, they can say your undesirable or that your presence may cause a breach of the peace etc, bit like a shoplifter being banned from boots and the rest of the stores in the same shopping centre doing the same
But they haven't been convicted of anything - indeed, it would be interesting if the Club tried to convict them.
The Police liaison Officer isn't silly enough to prevent one of them going to an away match, even if he was able to identify them amongst a group of other Charlton fans. Indeed, knowing ours, he'd probably tell the lad to behave and assist him in getting in!
Does it seem strange that these people have not been named?
It is a civil order rather than a lawful one. If it was lawful in which meant the the incident led to arrests or criminal proceedings then yes names could be published. Personally i think its a load of old tosh, should they have done it? No. Did they deserve a ban for three years? No. A letter and warning would have been enough.
I cant see how the club can enforce a banning order on the two for away games, yes they can say you are not allowed to enter our stadium, but they cannot enforce this on other clubs and have not been found guilty of such in a court in which has sentenced them to a banning order.
With our police liaison officers advice to away clubs local plod they can, they can say your undesirable or that your presence may cause a breach of the peace etc, bit like a shoplifter being banned from boots and the rest of the stores in the same shopping centre doing the same
But they haven't been convicted of anything - indeed, it would be interesting if the Club tried to convict them.
The Police liaison Officer isn't silly enough to prevent one of them going to an away match, even if he was able to identify them amongst a group of other Charlton fans. Indeed, knowing ours, he'd probably tell the lad to behave and assist him in getting in!
I know liaison officers who have given others squeezes at away games, and told them to keep their heads down etc, . Likelyhood is that will happen this time, but if the OB at an away game don't let them in based on advice from CAFC and our liaison officers, they can enforce it without a conviction, Happened to me and plenty I know in the past, the policing of football fans is a completely different set of rules.
Any away clubs ground is private property, as is the valley, as and when they have their pre match discussions about security etc, and IF, CAFC or the OB identify those that are banned from the valley, that club would more than likely back CAFC and the OB and refuse them entry, nothing legally those people can do about it.
I doubt this amounts to more than refusal to sell tickets to the named individuals. Their mates could buy their tickets and because of auto ticketing, they could get in. Interesting to read T&Cs to see if they could be legally ejected if discovered inside, given that no court has seems to have been involved in the process.
*unnamed
I know I keep banging on about this, but unless and until the club names the individuals concerned, it is just hyperbole.
It brings up all sorts of questions.
Has the club really done it? If so, have they actually told them? Have they "got" the right people?
If they have subjected the "right" people to this punishment (and without them being named, how would we know?) that's fine. But it's a horrible, nasty, threatening way to treat the rest of the fans. Although, I guess we should be used to that by now.
I'd imagine the club knows their names even if as minors they can't publish them. If John Doe phones up for a ticket they will say no, you are under a banning order. If a mate buys him a ticket with no name associated, what can they do?
wellwickman The clowns invading the pitch at Welling were juvenile idiots. It wasn't a demo merely a lark. Unfortunately it's backfired for the muppets concerned being out of character with the occasion. There will always be the odd idiot.
Most on here were raging that there were a number of Charlton fans behaving badly at the Welling game. Then when they are actually banned our comments are along the lines of fuck the regime? I know we all hate them and for a good reason but come on, don't blame everything on them, wouldn't be surprised if the next thing we'll see is a post entitled "How the regime ruined my marriage".
I think you've missed the point.
I think he makes a good one to be fair. The kid was largely slagged off on Facebook for being a numpty. Same on here - but now he's actually held accountable for this behaviour it's an outrage
Is it possible they acted like numpties and the reaction from the club is ridiculous?
I doubt this amounts to more than refusal to sell tickets to the named individuals. Their mates could buy their tickets and because of auto ticketing, they could get in. Interesting to read T&Cs to see if they could be legally ejected if discovered inside, given that no court has seems to have been involved in the process.
*unnamed
I know I keep banging on about this, but unless and until the club names the individuals concerned, it is just hyperbole.
It brings up all sorts of questions.
Has the club really done it? If so, have they actually told them? Have they "got" the right people?
If they have subjected the "right" people to this punishment (and without them being named, how would we know?) that's fine. But it's a horrible, nasty, threatening way to treat the rest of the fans. Although, I guess we should be used to that by now.
Unnamed in the statement but I'm pretty sure the club know their names.
Silly boys but (based solely on running on the pitch at a PSF and being a bit mouthy to a steward) three years seems a bit harsh.
Of course it is a blatant warning/threat about fan behaviour during the season ahead.
Well, they can go fuck themselves. August may be a little quiet while the situation is assessed but unless the club pull their fingers out pronto, back Slade, strengthen the squad and start (finally) to act in a professional manner there is going to be one hell of a shitstorm coming there way September onwards - threats or no threats.
And I'm not just talking about CARD stuff here. The great thing about the Burnley game was how different fans took the initiative to make their point in their own way. It was the perfect storm - and there'll be more of where that came from if they continue to shit all over our club and us, the fans.
Comments
I would've thought the club would've let that slide and banned the older chap(/s) who tried to intimidate and get physical with the stewards, before being nicked and dealt with by the police? Kids may be kids, but that guy was just an embarrassment.
It's perfectly fair to criticise the idiots that behaved in this way *and* the club for the dull-headed way in which they've dealt with it.
I thought the kids at Welling were embarrassing, but largely being kids.. until it went too far and the police had to get involved before they were escorted out. Specifically the guy who wasn't a child but kicked off like one needs to reassess his life a bit.
That said, the way The Club have made this statement is quite deceptive - arguably dishonest - and seems to be another peculiar communication that is either pointless or veiling a subtle threat. Not to mention... 3 years for something non-violent and is essentially tantamount to mugging a Steward off? (This doesn't appear to be pyro related as per the statement, and as per the lack of proper police involvement?)
What is it that you find deceptive and dishonest? Some fans caused trouble, they have been banned, simple as.
"Two individuals have received a three-year banning order..." - No, by the sounds of it two individuals have been banned from The Valley and the club will be exercising it's right not to sell tickets to them for away matches. A little less dramatic.
"The club has also imposed banning orders on the two individuals" - Same nonsense. If The Club has imposed it - and not a court - then it's simply the club revoking the right of an individual to come on their property. It's a bit like someone sneaking around my garden at night, me telling them to sod off, and then proclaiming that I've imposed on to them a "Banning Order".
The club are choosing to depict an elevated level of severity with regards to the punishment, simply by word play. It no longer sounds like "We told them that if they come back they'll.. erhh.. be trespassing and escorted off the property." and more like "They've been taken to court and dealt with, and they'll be breaking the law if they attend any further matches."... a bit different.
Edit to add, just to add to the point @Airman Brown has made below - the club specifically states that the ban applies to Away matches too. To go back to my garden analogy, that's like me going around to your house and seeing your mate in your garden - and me telling him to "sod off out of the garden". I have no legal right to do so, and if you're OK with the chap being in your garden then I'm going to look a bit stupid aren't I?
Goldberg is potless after he lost all his dough to his beloved club in the 90's
Then roly sleep tight treacle
The Police liaison Officer isn't silly enough to prevent one of them going to an away match, even if he was able to identify them amongst a group of other Charlton fans. Indeed, knowing ours, he'd probably tell the lad to behave and assist him in getting in!
Any away clubs ground is private property, as is the valley, as and when they have their pre match discussions about security etc, and IF, CAFC or the OB identify those that are banned from the valley, that club would more than likely back CAFC and the OB and refuse them entry, nothing legally those people can do about it.
I know I keep banging on about this, but unless and until the club names the individuals concerned, it is just hyperbole.
It brings up all sorts of questions.
Has the club really done it?
If so, have they actually told them?
Have they "got" the right people?
If they have subjected the "right" people to this punishment (and without them being named, how would we know?) that's fine. But it's a horrible, nasty, threatening way to treat the rest of the fans. Although, I guess we should be used to that by now.
The clowns invading the pitch at Welling were juvenile idiots. It wasn't a demo merely a lark. Unfortunately it's backfired for the muppets concerned being out of character with the occasion. There will always be the odd idiot.
Silly boys but (based solely on running on the pitch at a PSF and being a bit mouthy to a steward) three years seems a bit harsh.