A lifetime BAN!?

[Freshfish]

...erm..i didn't turn into a major criminal I just grew up...the majority of 'sheep' do. And at 14 I would have been banned for life as would plenty more fans. Sorry I have to disagree...knee jerk reactions that 'make examples' of a small number of 'daft' individuals never, ever works.

[Brad_owl]

Astonishing ban!! Totally over the top!!

[punkskaphil]

...erm..i didn't turn into a major criminal I just grew up...the majority of 'sheep' do. And at 14 I would have been banned for life as would plenty more fans. Sorry I have to disagree...knee jerk reactions that 'make examples' of a small number of 'daft' individuals never, ever works.

You've completely mis-read what I was saying. It's not about stopping the individuals becoming major criminals - it's about preventing similar events happening again. A deterrent. If these stupid kids involved in the looting were given light punishments, then there are thousands of other kids out there who would be prepared to do the same thing in order to get themselves some nice new trainers or an X-Box. Then we'd be having rioting/looting going on all the time.

So, knee-jerk reactions never, ever work? So, in that case we should be expecting more imminent rioting/looting. Similarly, we should expect somebody to run on the pitch on Saturday.

[Freshfish]

..i fully understood what you said....and it won't stop similar things happening again if the circumstances are repeated. And to ask if rioting/looting will be repeated imminently is a silly question.

Events like the riots happen because of a combination of events and circumstances...and to be honest it's a totally unreasonable comparison to be made with the fool who ran on the pitch.

However i stand by the idea of 'making an example' of an individual who acted in a foolish way for maybe the only incident being pointless. They should be dealt with with common sense and commensurate to the 'actions'

And someone will run on the pitch again...the next home game?...who knows but sooner or later.

Edited August 18, 2011 by Freshfish

[Guest sotonowl]

One person going on the pitch encourages others if they are seen to get away with it.In the past fences were erected to keep people on the terraces and seating introduced to try and add a modicum of better behaviour.A lifetime ban does seem harsh but I can see they point.

[punkskaphil]

..i fully understood what you said...

Then why did you say "...erm..i didn't turn into a major criminal I just grew up...the majority of 'sheep' do.?" I didn't say anything about anyone turning into major criminals.

....and it won't stop similar things happening again if the circumstances are repeated.

I completely disagree. There were thousands of people involved in the rioting/looting because they thought they could get away with it, and it created a huge culture of fear across several cities. Now that they're having the book thrown at them the chances of any similar events happening in anything but the distant future are extremely unlikely. There may be a few pockets of disturbance, but nothing like what we've recently seen. They got involved because they didn't expect harsh punishment. Now everyone considering getting involved in any future events will be aware that the punishments will be very harsh, so it becomes a deterrent.

Events like the riots happen because of a combination of events and circumstances...and to be honest it's a totally unreasonable comparison to be made with the fool who ran on the pitch.

The argument is about punishments being harsher than the crime, so it's not an unreasonable comparison at all. We're not comparing the crimes themselves here, we're discussing the need to hand out harsh punishments.

However i stand by the idea of 'making an example' of an individual who acted in a foolish way for maybe the only incident being pointless. They should be dealt with with common sense and commensurate to the 'actions'

Which would then let everybody know that they can run on the pitch and expect a light punishment, so they're far more likely to do it than if they face a lifetime ban.

And someone will run on the pitch again...the next home game?...who knows but sooner or later.

True, and they will now know that they face a lifetime ban. There will be far fewer incidents of people running onto the pitch because most fans don't want to face a lifetime ban. Therefore, it's a deterrent that works.

[Guest andyofsheffield]

Im sorry but it serves him right. I agree with an earlier comment, the bloke could have approached a player and smacked him. 0% Tolerance.

[Eaton_Swfc]

A "lifetime ban" ... how exactly do you even enforce that ?

Whats stopping him coming on Saturday , ?

[Freshfish]

Then why did you say "...erm..i didn't turn into a major criminal I just grew up...the majority of 'sheep' do.?" I didn't say anything about anyone turning into major criminals.

I completely disagree. There were thousands of people involved in the rioting/looting because they thought they could get away with it, and it created a huge culture of fear across several cities. Now that they're having the book thrown at them the chances of any similar events happening in anything but the distant future are extremely unlikely. There may be a few pockets of disturbance, but nothing like what we've recently seen. They got involved because they didn't expect harsh punishment. Now everyone considering getting involved in any future events will be aware that the punishments will be very harsh, so it becomes a deterrent.

The argument is about punishments being harsher than the crime, so it's not an unreasonable comparison at all. We're not comparing the crimes themselves here, we're discussing the need to hand out harsh punishments.

Which would then let everybody know that they can run on the pitch and expect a light punishment, so they're far more likely to do it than if they face a lifetime ban.

True, and they will now know that they face a lifetime ban. There will be far fewer incidents of people running onto the pitch because most fans don't want to face a lifetime ban. Therefore, it's a deterrent that works.

...I don't think it does. I think it provides short term results that never stick and fails to nail the more persistent and often more violent perpetrators. But we then criminalise a small number of people who could have been better served with a lesser punishment.

And having lived in London for almost 10 years and during the riots of the early 80's the places where the trouble was comes as no surprise. Same places, same problems and same circumstances all over again....and 'making examples of people' while failing to deal with the underlying problems didn't work then either.

As for someone running on the pitch...it will happen..more than once during the season and probably in greater numbers at some point and depending on circumstances.

[punkskaphil]

A "lifetime ban" ... how exactly do you even enforce that ?

Whats stopping him coming on Saturday , ?

Just an assumption here, but it probably is difficult to physically enforce - but it would be making it a criminal offence for him to set foot on the grounds. He'd be made aware that if he is caught, he'd face further punishment. I'd also assume that there are relatively few people with lifetime bans, and so the police/stewards/officials wouldn't have too many faces to remember if they are trying to physically prevent the guy returning.

[Mr. Chow]

its purely false advertising... it just says dont step on the pitch not dont step on the pitch and we will ban you for life.

why dont they put please dont step on pitch or you will be prosecuted or fined ect....

[Guest highamowl]

I think part of the issue here might be that the club has been warned by the FA about the conduct of the fans on previous occasions, for example the Palace game. It does state in the article that actions taken by the club will affect the outcome of any enquiries, so they are acting now to try and prevent further problems down the line. Last thing we need is being hit by a fine or having other sanctions against us.

[punkskaphil]

I think it provides short term results that never stick and fails to nail the more persistent and often more violent perpetrators.

But it wasn't the more persistent and more violent perpetrators that were causing the majority of the problems with these events. People were in fear and businesses were destroyed because of the ordinary kids who wouldn't have normally become involved if they'd realised that the punishments would be severe. They thought they had nothing to lose, now they know different.

And having lived in London for almost 10 years and during the riots of the early 80's the places where the trouble was comes as no surprise. Same places, same problems and same circumstances all over again....and 'making examples of people' while failing to deal with the underlying problems didn't work then either.

The difference though, is that those riots were around 30 years ago. Most of the people involved this time around weren't even born then. Making examples of people back then stopped similar events taking place for a long time. If the punishments were light back then, these events would've been much more commonplace in the years between. The deterrent doesn't always last forever, but it'll last a long time. A deterrent that can last for 30 years is much better than not having a deterrent at all.

[Owlsfan]

Apparently it was only 5 years initially, but he successfully appealed to get it extended.

[punkskaphil]

its purely false advertising... it just says dont step on the pitch not dont step on the pitch and we will ban you for life.

why dont they put please dont step on pitch or you will be prosecuted or fined ect....

I don't have a ticket to hand right now, but doesn't it say something on the back of the ticket about not entering the field of play because it's a criminal offence? I've been to plenty of grounds where they do warn that entering the field of play is a criminal offence - often over the speakers, but sometimes there are signs dotted around too - maybe Hillsborough itself is lacking in this respect.

[Freshfish]

But it wasn't the more persistent and more violent perpetrators that were causing the majority of the problems with these events. People were in fear and businesses were destroyed because of the ordinary kids who wouldn't have normally become involved if they'd realised that the punishments would be severe. They thought they had nothing to lose, now they know different.

The difference though, is that those riots were around 30 years ago. Most of the people involved this time around weren't even born then. Making examples of people back then stopped similar events taking place for a long time. If the punishments were light back then, these events would've been much more commonplace in the years between. The deterrent doesn't always last forever, but it'll last a long time. A deterrent that can last for 30 years is much better than not having a deterrent at all.

No...the circumstances were similar. The 'making an example' didn't stop those who were involved in serious gang violence. Likewise, the circumstances that caused and fuelled the recent riots wasn't just 'ordinary kids'. They joined in when they realised how ineffectual the policing was and because they could get away with it.

Those involved in serious gang violence, looting, violence and intimidation remained after the 80's riots and will be around after these. Making examples of 'ordinary kids' will only increase problems if it criminalises them and pushes them towards the idea of the 'family' within gang culture.

The easiest and cheapest methods of 'showing we are in control' will be used and slapped all over the papers and other media and in 6 months will be forgotten.

Interestingly Prince Charles appears to be the one talking sense...and that takes something and speaks volumes about this government...whatever happened to 'Hug A Hoodie'? Did it change to 'Hang A Hoodie' because it suited?

[sonofbert2]

Apparently it was only 5 years initially, but he successfully appealed to get it extended.

[Weshallovercome]

Lucky illegitimate.

[since59owe]

surely if he wants tn go on satday he will just buy a wig and a false beard

And an overstuffed bra'.

[punkskaphil]

The 'making an example' didn't stop those who were involved in serious gang violence.

It's not designed to. It's designed to stop the ordinary kids getting involved and causing the situation to escalate, which is what happened.

Likewise, the circumstances that caused and fuelled the recent riots wasn't just 'ordinary kids'.

True. The ordinary kids didn't cause it in the first place, but they were the ones that spread it across the cities and created widespread fear. If they hadn't joined in and taken advantage if what was initially a much smaller event, the problem would've been far smaller, far more localised, and far easier for the authorities to deal with.

They joined in when they realised how ineffectual the policing was and because they could get away with it.

Exactly. They thought they could get away with it. Now they know they'll punished heavily, so it's far less likely to happen on the same scale again. If identical circumstances occur again in a year's time, the overall impact will surely be far, far less in terms of widespread violence/criminality. And why? Because the kids that would've considered becoming involved will be deterred by the severe punishments they now know they could face. It won't stop things happening entirely, but it will downsize it significantly and it'll affect far fewer innocent people.

Making examples of 'ordinary kids' will only increase problems if it criminalises them and pushes them towards the idea of the 'family' within gang culture.

Everybody who got involved knew they were committing a crime. Making examples of them doesn't criminalise them.

If ordinary kids are allowed to get away with theft and violence, then they will continue to do it anyway. That will lead to more regular looting and rioting, and further fear.

I'm sure there have been many similar incidents of police heavy-handedness in the years between the early '80s and now, but they haven't all resulted in looting/rioting in locations elsewhere. When the chap was mistakenly shot by police in Stockwell Station in 2005 it didn't lead to kids stealing trainers in Nottingham or family businesses being burnt to the ground in Croydon. This is the first generation of youths who don't remember the events of early '80s. Now the current and following generation will remember the events of 2011, and they'll know that the people involved were punished heavily, which will deter them from becoming involved. A new precedent has been set.

I was in a pub quiz near Clapham Junction last Monday evening when the looting and rioting began. I have never seen so many people frightened for their own safety as I did that night. Nobody knew if they were going to get home, or if their homes were even still standing - and all this because an alleged drug dealer was shot by police on the opposite side of the city. Many innocent people had their lives ruined because of these events. It was widespread fear on a huge scale. If it had just been down to the serious criminals who started it all off in Tottenham on the Saturday night, it wouldn't have become such a huge event that affected so many innocent people across the country for several days. We need this kind of thing to end at all costs, and the only effective way of doing that is by punishing severely. Light punishments just send out the wrong message - the kids who want to nick a games console or a bike will feel the risk is far less, and so they're much more likely to do it.