Sunderland Supporters banned

[Dirk Gently]

Apologies for cross-posting but this may be of interest to the GF community.

A number of Sunderland supporters have been banned from Sunderland despite so far being not found guilty of any offence - and in all likelihood they will be not be found guilty and maybe not even get to court.

The FSF has launched a petition to be presented to Sunderland Chairman Niall Quinn - the same Niall Quinn who so often presents himself as being so very "fan friendly."

Please sign this - even if you think it's nothing to do with us here, this sends a message to clubs and to the football authorities about the importance of due process and the rights of supporters not to be banned when they've not been found guilty of any offence.

The link is : http://www.fsf.org.uk/petitions/sunderland-ban-quinn-petition.php

[ZacNaloen]

If the club reverses the banning order when they are found not guilty, or it doesn't get to court to be honest... I don't see the issue here.

A football ground is private property, it's no different to a night club kicking someone out for dubious reasons.

[Dirk Gently]

If the club reverses the banning order when they are found not guilty, or it doesn't get to court to be honest... I don't see the issue here.

A football ground is private property, it's no different to a night club kicking someone out for dubious reasons.

That's allowing a very, very dangerous precendant to be set and is contrary to the principles of justice. If they're found guilty then that's fine - ban them, no questions asked - but while they're innocent in the eyes of the law why should any action be taken against them?

What if it takes a couple of years for the case to come to court, as it often does? Or what if the charges are just quietly dropped - as happens far more frequently?

[TBM]

LOL @ trying to spot the banned people going through the gates - just turn up, the stewards wont have a clue

[ZacNaloen]

If the club reverses the banning order when they are found not guilty, or it doesn't get to court to be honest... I don't see the issue here.

A football ground is private property, it's no different to a night club kicking someone out for dubious reasons.

That's allowing a very, very dangerous precendant to be set and is contrary to the principles of justice. If they're found guilty then that's fine - ban them, no questions asked - but while they're innocent in the eyes of the law why should any action be taken against them?

What if it takes a couple of years for the case to come to court, as it often does? Or what if the charges are just quietly dropped - as happens far more frequently?

It's got nothing to do with precedent, the precedent already exists and has done forever at every other privately owned building across the country.

[Dirk Gently]

If the club reverses the banning order when they are found not guilty, or it doesn't get to court to be honest... I don't see the issue here.

A football ground is private property, it's no different to a night club kicking someone out for dubious reasons.

That's allowing a very, very dangerous precendant to be set and is contrary to the principles of justice. If they're found guilty then that's fine - ban them, no questions asked - but while they're innocent in the eyes of the law why should any action be taken against them?

What if it takes a couple of years for the case to come to court, as it often does? Or what if the charges are just quietly dropped - as happens far more frequently?

It's got nothing to do with precedent, the precedent already exists and has done forever at every other privately owned building across the country.

Indeed, but very few clubs exercise that right to ban people for non-football reasons, and I'd argue that a club is more than just a private premise under the legal definition of it - especially as just about all of them have received football foundation money as "community assets", so they're a bit more than private premises.

If you're happy with this, would you be happy with JM deciding to ban from the MadStad someone who's been critical about him on "The Team" board (if he could identify them, of course.) There's nothing essentially different....

It might be the way the law works but it's morally wrong - if clubs ban people on the basis of non-football issues or non-proven allegations it's a sad day for all of us.

[Hoop Blah]

I can't believe they've gone crying off like that.

Being found innocent in court doesn't mean they're not up to no good. The club has every right to ban them if they think they've over stepped the mark.

If the same thing happens at Reading you can go and plead your case, and plenty have gone and been given a reprieve, but the club is well within it's to ban anyone they like.

Life's a bitch!

[Barry the bird boggler]

What are they supposed to have done?

[Dirk Gently]

What are they supposed to have done?

On Saturday August 8th a group of approximately 40 Sunderland fans arrived at Newcastle’s Central Station following their team’s pre-season friendly with Heart of Midlothian. Four fans were hospitalised with serious injuries caused by police dogs and batons. We believe Northumbria Police over-reacted. Supporters have been injured when not posing a threat to themselves, others or the police.

The police have labelled many fans as thugs and hooligans intent on meeting for pre-arranged violence in Newcastle. This is despite the fact that a Tannoy announcement at Hearts told them the train was going direct to Sunderland!

The police's PR campaign distorted the facts via selectively edited CCTV footage released to the local media. Fans present have repeatedly requested that ALL footage be released. The police have refused to do so.

The eye-witness accounts we have received directly contradict the police’s story - it is not often we get so many fans all independently telling the same story - the police accusations just don’t add up.

See The Guardian's story on it here

They've been found guilty of nothing and have only been implicated by the Police in order to justify police attacks, and now they've been banned from the Staadium of Light. Even Sunderland's own Safety Officer has told them he deosn't think these cases will ever actually come to court.

Sunderland are denying these supporters the chance to clear their names, and are treating them as guilty despite not having seen any evidence to the contrary.

[Silver Fox]

TBF I'm sure they can do this under the terms and conditions of the ticket sales "Niall Quinn reserves the right to refuse admission" etc.

It sucks but there's not really anything to stop Sunderland doing it is there?

[Hoop Blah]

They've been found guilty of nothing and have only been implicated by the Police in order to justify police attacks, and now they've been banned from the Staadium of Light. Even Sunderland's own Safety Officer has told them he deosn't think these cases will ever actually come to court.

Sunderland are denying these supporters the chance to clear their names, and are treating them as guilty despite not having seen any evidence to the contrary.

That sounds like an over-reaction, how are Sunderland denying them a chance to clear their name? They're not locking them up, they're just not letting them in to watch their team.

Nothing to do with being proven guilty or not.

[Dirk Gently]

They've been found guilty of nothing and have only been implicated by the Police in order to justify police attacks, and now they've been banned from the Stadium of Light. Even Sunderland's own Safety Officer has told them he doesn't think these cases will ever actually come to court.

Sunderland are denying these supporters the chance to clear their names, and are treating them as guilty despite not having seen any evidence to the contrary.

That sounds like an over-reaction, how are Sunderland denying them a chance to clear their name? They're not locking them up, they're just not letting them in to watch their team.

Nothing to do with being proven guilty or not.

Maybe I could have worded it better - maybe not. Sunderland have banned them but they have no recourse to any appeal or similar with Sunderland. All they can do is wait until these cases come to court - if they do.

The key point is that Sunderland have banned them for something that Sunderland have no evidence on, that did not happen at a match, and under those circumstances those supporters are banned with no chance of clearing their names from Sunderland's point of view.

If they are tried and found guilty then no problem with bans - but everyone who knows this case is sure that they won't be - but as far as Sunderland are concerned they are guilty now, with no trial and no evidence presented against them for them to argue otherwise.

[floyd__streete]

The police's PR campaign distorted the facts via selectively edited CCTV footage released to the local media. Fans present have repeatedly requested that ALL footage be released. The police have refused to do so.

They've been found guilty of nothing and have only been implicated by the Police in order to justify police attacks, and now they've been banned from the Staadium of Light. Even Sunderland's own Safety Officer has told them he deosn't think these cases will ever actually come to court.

I wonder what sort of data protection has been breached in releasing CCTV footage to the media when a case has not been charged? Equally, in sharing CCTV footage with the football club when no 'offence' has been committed. Working in this area myself, I can tell you that Northumbria Police have got no hope of getting any sort of conviction if they don't supply all of the CCTV evidence available.

[Jerry St Clair]

Dirk, as I said on the other thread on this:

Why does the petition site email SAFC from my email address? I support this campaign, and want to sign the petition, but I don't want to be involved in a counter-productive spamming of multiple Sunderland email addresses.

[Tony Le Mesmer]

They've been found guilty of nothing and have only been implicated by the Police in order to justify police attacks, and now they've been banned from the Staadium of Light. Even Sunderland's own Safety Officer has told them he deosn't think these cases will ever actually come to court.

Sunderland are denying these supporters the chance to clear their names, and are treating them as guilty despite not having seen any evidence to the contrary.

That sounds like an over-reaction, how are Sunderland denying them a chance to clear their name? They're not locking them up, they're just not letting them in to watch their team.

Nothing to do with being proven guilty or not.

Exactly. Dont see Dirks point at all. You dont have to be a law breaker to be banned from a pub, or any other private property for that matter.

Sunderland own The Stadium, they can ban who they like.

[Big Foot]

It's more about the precedent that it sets...

[AF1]

lol, zac bit off more than he could chew there

[Tony Le Mesmer]

It's more about the precedent that it sets...

Landlords letting who they like and when on to their property? Thats a dangerous precedent alright.

[Dirk Gently]

No-one's arguing about what the legalities technicalities are - owners of private property have the right to ban whoever they like (exept for reasons of colour, sex, age, religion, etc). Although there's a subsidiary point about whether that should apply to facilities which have been partly built with public (i.e. football foundation) money on the idea that they're community resources, but let's not confuse the debate with that now.

This particular point is all about the weight of evidence morally required before a club *should* (not *can*) ban anyone. Sunderland are banning supporters not for something that they have done at Sunderland, or for something that Sunderland have any evidence of. They're being banned because of something that Sunderland have heard that they might have done, but because that's not gone to court (if it ever does) the supporters can do nothing - there's no way to clear their name or have any right of appeal. To use your pub analogy, it'd be like me telling a pub doorman "don't let that Tony in here, he's a trouble-maker" and him banning you as a result, and not giving you any appeal against his decision. It might be legal but it's not fair, and the legalities can be overcome by ensuring that club's put their processes (including right of appeal) into their customer charters.

The key principle that should be established at all clubs is that they can't ban supporters without supporters being given a chance to see the evidence against them and being given a chance to answer those charges - that's a fundamental part of natural justice.
Incidentally, Sunderland, who pride themselves on being "fan friendly" have the below in their own Terms and Conditions :

...." only card holders found guilty .... of acting in a manner the Club considers detrimental to the Club's interests ..... will have their season card confiscated and be banned from attending future games involving Sunderland AFC.

So Sunderland even state their policy and then break it.

[ZacNaloen]

Banning people from entering the ground whilst under investigation for crimes and then returning the season ticket and banning people despite their being no proven crime are completely different.

Whether this debate is stupid or not hinges entirely upon whether Sunderland choose not to return the season tickets.

Also, those t&c's are vague enough that they don't have to be found Guilty in a court of law, they need to be guilty in the eyes of the club and the evidence they have seen/been informed of and that is all. And that is what any of Sunderlands lawyers would argue.

Plenty of wiggle room in the T&C's.