Watching Football Is Not A Crime - Bolton Fan Section 27ed

[blurred]

A good article from Amanda Jacks on the worrying treatment of football fans:

Being a dedicated follower of a football team involves a lot of emotional and financial sacrifice. Today, it can also mean sacrificing your civil liberties, something that many football fans have come not only to expect, but also to accept.

There is no escaping the fact that, once upon a time, being a football fan was a risky business; it was entirely likely that if you were a regular match goer between the late 1970s and mid-1980s, you would witness some form of violence. Since then, many factors, including a whole raft of kneejerk legislation, have contributed to the decline in football hooliganism, and it is safe to say that today, with an arrest rate of approximately one fan every two games, the so-called ‘match day experience’ has changed beyond recognition.

Football is now widely recognised as a family game and a huge amount of effort by the Home Office, police and the Crime Prosecution Service (CPS) is put into ensuring it stays that way. Yet given how dramatically the demographic of football fans has changed over the years, it is arguable that the game is such a family affair in spite of the increasingly heavy policing, not because of it.

If you type ‘knife crime’ into the CPS’s own search engine, you get 42 matches. By contrast, the search word ‘football’ brings up 78 articles. In 2005, it was announced that arrest-rates for football-related crime had fallen by 11 per cent and, at the same time, the UK Football Policing Unit (UKFPU) was formed, jointly overseen by the Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO). Last season, arrest rates fell further still - and the UKFPU moved into plush new offices in south London.

Many fans find themselves policed as though they’re permanently on the brink of riot. Welcoming parties of cops in riot gear, with dogs and horses, are a common sight for ordinary fans arriving at train stations near football grounds. And in the arenas themselves a dazzling array of police are inevitably to be found on duty. The general tendency among fans is simply to shrug and accept this state of affairs.

That is until last November, when Greater Manchester Police (GMP) served Section 27 notices on approximately 80 Stoke City supporters who were doing nothing more than quietly enjoying a pre-match pint at the Railway Inn, a pub in Irlam outside Manchester. Stoke City were due to play Manchester United that afternoon at Old Trafford, its home ground, which is located just a few miles away from the Railway Inn.

The Stoke City fans fell foul of a new police tool – the Section 27 Order from the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006. Section 27 gives the police powers to move on any individual from any place at any time and to ban them from returning there for up to 48 hours. You don’t actually have to have committed any offence for the act to be enforced and arguing your case could see you arrested. Section 27 was most probably not designed specifically to deal with football supporters, but the GMP was able to deploy it to serve a notice on virtually all supporters who had the misfortune of being at the Railway Inn after the police had allegedly been tipped off by an off-duty officer about an unusually large number of males entering the pub.

Not only did the police, under threats of arrest, force supporters quite unnecessarily to sign the Section 27 paperwork - they also forced them on to coaches that they had pre-ordered. Once all fans had been processed, they were escorted all the way back to Stoke City’s home town of Stoke-on-Trent.

For once, football fans have fought back. When the news of this broke, several solicitors contacted the Football Supporters Federation (FSF), of which I am a national council member, offering their services pro bono. The civil liberties and human rights group Liberty also agreed to take on the case and are representing one of the Stoke City fans. Papers were served by Liberty on the GMP shortly before Christmas requesting a judicial review of the use of Section 27 and an outline of which articles of the Human Rights Act were potentially breached. One retired police officer, writing in the FSF magazine, said he was confident that Article 5, ‘the right to liberty’, was breached and that Article 11, which addresses freedom of assembly, ‘has been ridden rough shod over’.

As to the experiences of the football fan represented by Liberty, it included a journey back to Stoke with urine swilling around his feet due to the police making those on board the coach use cups or other receptacles rather than allowing them off to use toilets. The fan is also formally complaining to GMP and the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). He told us that ‘there were not even football songs being sung in the pub, no evidence of any disorder whatsoever’. The pub landlord backs his claims, and when we visited him, he stressed that he would welcome back the Stoke fans and even lay on food for them! He was as bemused by the police action as the Stoke supporters were.

The response from GMP to media enquiries about the incident was predictably bullish, with Assistant Chief Constable Justin Curran saying: ‘Officers policing the game between Manchester United and Stoke City had received intelligence about planned violence between hooligan groups. Use of all policing powers must be balanced and in proportion with the risks that we face. In order to prevent disorder and keep communities safe, Section 27 orders were issued on groups that we had identified as a risk. Our priority is to keep Greater Manchester communities safe from harm. I am happy that all action taken on Saturday was necessary to achieve this.’

Putting to one side that this stance calls into question how individual complaints will be dealt with by GMP, like many I wonder what exactly was this intelligence that led 80 people - men and women, young and old - to be issued with these Section 27 orders. How were the police so sure that all these individuals were about to cause or contribute to alcohol-related disorder? Curran’s idea of what is a ‘balanced and proportionate’ response is at odds with how the majority of right- minded people would define it.

The FSF continues to work with the police at the most senior level and hopes that the action taken by Liberty against GMP, as well as one pending against another police officer who similarly abused the powers of Section 27, will herald a change in match-day tactics. We have found that most people are sympathetic to our argument that it is completely unnecessary to treat football supporters as would-be criminals. Until that message reaches every single police officer in the UK, our work to ensure that we’re not deprived of our liberties merely because we’re football supporters will continue.

Amanda Jacks is a national council member of the Football Supporters Federation.

Link to article

FSF: Watching football is not a crime

[blurred]

See the main trotters forum about Bolton fans being served with Section 27 at Sunderland.

[seanworth]

Speaking of crime, how's Stevie?

[blurred]

Speaking of crime, how's Stevie?

Busy polishing his latest player of the month award, I'd imagine.

He's got his first appearance in court in a couple of weeks.

[Worthy4England]

Good to see out Liverpool friends trying to show us how to rally behind a cause

Have to say I don't know anything about any Bolton fans falling foul of this one, but I couldn't see any specific references in any of the links either?

On the Stoke issue, I would point out a couple of things that may have been contributory factors. First game of the season at our gaff, was a little like going back to the good old days of the 1970's when hooliganism was the vogue - I'm sure I saw people with scarves tied round their wrists. Not sure of the number of arrests and it wasn't hugely scary or anything but it was "just different" than most crowds you see milling outside Premiership stadia these days - difficult to put your finger on anything particular - just different. Maybe as the article suggests Prem football watchers have been "conditioned"...

I guess possibly another contributory factor is, that I reckon that a Mancunian travelling from Stoke to OT, probably wouldn't have taken a route in via Irlam and the A57 much less stopped in Irlam for beer This isn't a crime either - a look at a roadmap should be enough to understand that someone from Stoke, not familiar with Manchester might see this as a possible route in, avoiding most of ManUres Southern fans heading up the M6/M56. If I was a copper and had been told 80 Stoke fans had turned up in an Irlam pub on the day of a game v United - I'd wonder why too.

The problem area is around the "intelligence" the police had. If they had " good intelligence" then I personally have no issues with these people being moved on (even though the indignant Ms Jacks "understands" they were enjoying a "quiet" pint, and that the 80 concerned were men women young and old - does sort of conjour a familiy day out on a chara to Southport, which isn't the demographics I normally encounter at football matches).

Anyhow at least the inimitable Ms Jacks has a cause to rally behind maybe she should team up with that other woman from Liberty - they can both try and create jobs for each other, together....oh I see she already has. Good-oh.

[superjohnmcginlay]

I dont think "moving on" of fans is much of a problem. Putting em on a bus and sending em back is.

[Worthy4England]

I dont think "moving on" of fans is much of a problem. Putting em on a bus and sending em back is.

I could be led to believe that shipping anyone to Stoke in a compulsory manner could be viewed as a crime against humanity - yes.

[blurred]

Good to see out Liverpool friends trying to show us how to rally behind a cause

Have to say I don't know anything about any Bolton fans falling foul of this one, but I couldn't see any specific references in any of the links either?

As for the first bit, it's part of my job, now, so I'm doing this on a 'professional' basis.

As for the second bit, the 2nd post in this thread referenced the post I've put up on the Trotters forum - there were a small group of Bolton fans threatened with S27 at the Sunderland game, who were ushered to/from the stadium in some sort of police escort, and were isolated from the main group of away fans by the police whilst in the stadium. I was looking for some more info, again, in a professional type capacity.

I guess possibly another contributory factor is, that I reckon that a Mancunian travelling from Stoke to OT, probably wouldn't have taken a route in via Irlam and the A57 much less stopped in Irlam for beer This isn't a crime either - a look at a roadmap should be enough to understand that someone from Stoke, not familiar with Manchester might see this as a possible route in, avoiding most of ManUres Southern fans heading up the M6/M56. If I was a copper and had been told 80 Stoke fans had turned up in an Irlam pub on the day of a game v United - I'd wonder why too.

The problem area is around the "intelligence" the police had. If they had " good intelligence" then I personally have no issues with these people being moved on (even though the indignant Ms Jacks "understands" they were enjoying a "quiet" pint, and that the 80 concerned were men women young and old - does sort of conjour a familiy day out on a chara to Southport, which isn't the demographics I normally encounter at football matches).

Anyhow at least the inimitable Ms Jacks has a cause to rally behind maybe she should team up with that other woman from Liberty - they can both try and create jobs for each other, together....oh I see she already has. Good-oh.

The landlord of the pub has stated that the fans were causing no trouble, and he's even offered to host them again and lay on food for them. He's quoted as saying they were no bother whatsoever, and couldn't understand the police tactics in this particular case. There have also been S27s served against Plymouth fans and now Bolton fans in recent weeks, along with supporters of a couple of other clubs. It's a worrying trend if you ask me.

[Hoboh]

We got put back on our coach (the imfamous Walls of Wigan) in Brighton many moons ago after arriving about 8.00am on the Saturday and forced out to Hove under Police escort!!!! The driver was told attempt to come back into town before 2.15 and he would be arrested.
Hove is full of cute little tea shops and dead folk!!!
Mind you someone should have spotted the error when a coach load of thirsty lads was dropped off just round the corner from a boozer called "the Seagulls" That b*gger had the bigest pair of Rotwiellers I've ever seen sat in the middle of the 2 groups of fans!

[Worthy4England]

For the first bit - congratulations on the new job I can think of no better person than someone from Liverpool to find causes of injustice to fight against within every part of the establishment.

Sorry for the second bit, I meant I hadn't seen a link re: the Bolton stuff anywhere (other than the one you posted to your own post)

I don't disagree that it's worrying for people to be moved on for no apparent reason, albeit, I thought the police could move people/disperse groups prior to S27 anyhow (although probably under their own steam and not by police escort across multiple juridictional boundaries). The article takes a particular view that none of the people who were involved would have been unlikely to commit any sort of crime afterwards - and this may well have been the case although we'll never know now, but at what point do you believe the Police in there assertion that they have "intelligence" on this particular matter? Don't get me wrong, I've been on both sides of the equation with the police, where they've collectively added "facts" into a particular scenario to make a "watertight" case and yes they were believed when it came to court.

Let's be honest here, if they had received particular intelligence and it was regarding the group of people concerned in Irlam, then the fact that at the time they were shifted on, they were happily enjoying a pint causing no trouble to anyone, to me is irrelevent. If for example the intelligence clearly identified some of the group in Irlam that had organised a ruck (online? I dunno) with some of the ICJ or whatever they call themsleves these days, then I don't have an issue with it and would be quite ok with the fact that their "civil liberties" had been "disturbed".

[blurred]

For the first bit - congratulations on the new job I can think of no better person than someone from Liverpool to find causes of injustice to fight against within every part of the establishment.

Apart from the fact that I'm not from Liverpool and that that's not what my role is within the FSF, cheers.

I don't disagree that it's worrying for people to be moved on for no apparent reason, albeit, I thought the police could move people/disperse groups prior to S27 anyhow (although probably under their own steam and not by police escort across multiple juridictional boundaries). The article takes a particular view that none of the people who were involved would have been unlikely to commit any sort of crime afterwards - and this may well have been the case although we'll never know now, but at what point do you believe the Police in there assertion that they have "intelligence" on this particular matter? Don't get me wrong, I've been on both sides of the equation with the police, where they've collectively added "facts" into a particular scenario to make a "watertight" case and yes they were believed when it came to court.

Let's be honest here, if they had received particular intelligence and it was regarding the group of people concerned in Irlam, then the fact that at the time they were shifted on, they were happily enjoying a pint causing no trouble to anyone, to me is irrelevent. If for example the intelligence clearly identified some of the group in Irlam that had organised a ruck (online? I dunno) with some of the ICJ or whatever they call themsleves these days, then I don't have an issue with it and would be quite ok with the fact that their "civil liberties" had been "disturbed".

'Intelligence' on football supporters tends to be from mugshots/videos of those who've caused trouble, records on those who have banning orders or football related convictions (or even non-football related convictions but in/around football grounds) and suchlike. I wouldn't want to assert that absolutely none of these people in the Stoke instance have a criminal conviction, but I don't think that they (and the FSF and Liberty by extension) would kick up such a fuss if there was even one known football criminal amongst them. It just strikes me as a dangerous precedent to set, notwithstanding the fact that in this instance the likelihood of 'alcohol related crime or disorder' (as it is this that S27 is designed to prevent, and not 'any sort of crime' as you have stated) was not in the offing at all, as the landlord of the pub has testified. This legislation is being used and targeted at football fans, when it is my understanding that it was designed to be used to move people on from town centres at kicking out time, or to stop alcohol-fuelled anti-social behaviour in general.

I know that Stoke have a bit of a reputation for having a 'firm' - the same one that got lost in Newcastle, ended up in Gateshead and got a load of people arrested - but from what I've read around this matter and heard in the office none of these have anything to do with that, nor did their behaviour, or even the profiles of most of them (age, sex, etc) indicate anything of the sort. If the police had intelligence on an individual or some individuals, is it a proportional response to round up an entire pub and bus them back to Stoke, even those fans who weren't part of any group, don't know the vast majority of people present and may have been there on their own or in ones or twos? Surely football intelligence is 'targeted', and known individuals can be dealt with accordingly, within the law, without closing up a pub and bussing scores of people back to wherever they came from?

Besides, if the intelligence was that a football related crime (or even a violent crime like assualt or affray or ABH/GBH) was likely to happen, they should not be allowed to use S27 to remove people from localities, and it is this mis-use of S27 powers that the judicial review is concerned with. If the intelligence was that strong, they could use the normal powers of arrest under PACE, or any of the pile of legislation specifically designed for football fans.

[potter1989bwfc]

no its not but its bloody awful half of the time watching bolton

[William the White]

no its not but its bloody awful half of the time watching bolton

True. So it might be a humanitarian gesture to force us elsewhere? Like Stoke?

Wait until Barton joins us. We could see a rapid upward shift in the frequency of 'football related crimes'.

[superjohnmcginlay]

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... rom_police

Good work blurred's lot and that freak prufrock likes

[blurred]

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... rom_police

Good work blurred's lot and that freak prufrock likes

Aye, tis a good win for the fella. We're hopeful there'll be a fair few more awards like Lyndon's in the weeks and months to come. Serves the GMP right.

[TANGODANCER]

There's another side to every coin. I watched a documentary about a recent Leeds v Millwall game; it was right back to the worst of the eighties. Leeds Cardiff just as bad.

[Hoboh]

There's another side to every coin. I watched a documentary about a recent Leeds v Millwall game; it was right back to the worst of the eighties. Leeds Cardiff just as bad.

Aye but the main problem seems to be the Police making assumptions about the possibilities that something may happen and infringing the rights of innocent folk (yeah I know thats not something a few would normally associate with my line of thinking but hey we all have our days )

[TANGODANCER]

There's another side to every coin. I watched a documentary about a recent Leeds v Millwall game; it was right back to the worst of the eighties. Leeds Cardiff just as bad.

Aye but the main problem seems to be the Police making assumptions about the possibilities that something may happen and infringing the rights of innocent folk (yeah I know thats not something a few would normally associate with my line of thinking but hey we all have our days )

Oh aye, it was the police who wrecked a fleet of free buses and "captured" a motorway bridge from where the Leeds fans bombarded their own police force with bricks etc. Not defending the police for some of their actions but, like I said, there's two sides to every coin.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

There's also tarring with the same brush, TD. And I doubt many football fans regard their local constabulary as "their own", especially those who spent decades being herded like cattle into death-pens for pigs.

[Hoboh]

There's also tarring with the same brush, TD. And I doubt many football fans regard their local constabulary as "their own", especially those who spent decades being herded like cattle into death-pens for pigs.

Or had a good kicking in the back of a van when merely questioned as to why you could not go in a particlar ale house?

Still I saw the said same van parked up later with no one in attendance and let all the bloody tyres down
Gutted I could not find any nails!! (Did find the nails once in Ibiza and did 2 arrogant Guardia Civil boys tyres but thats another story lol)