Clive Betts responds in SAG / SCC. Write to your Councillor or MP

[sweetsheri]

On a separate note what has been the outcome of our complaint to the PL about Newcastle?

 

Have i missed it?

[farlego]

44 minutes ago, Plonk said:

Me neither. Emailed billings. Not even an acknowledgement of receipt. I’m afraid this is typical of the contempt our leaders hold us in. Just remember this poo when we next get the chance vote. Let’s get all these counts out. 

I thought I read someone posted that some or all of them are obliged to respond and could be brought to task if they didn't?

[S36 OWL]

47 minutes ago, sweetsheri said:

On a separate note what has been the outcome of our complaint to the PL about Newcastle?

 

Have i missed it?

 

Fessi has recieved an extra six game ban. 

[nevthelodgemoorowl]

3 hours ago, sw1867 said:

 

I’d be very interested to read them if anyone has.

Mine was in fact a response to a letter I sent about 1 week prior to the very prompt response from Clive Betts. As Parliament is now prorogued I don't expect a further response re Clives anticipated responses from addressees just yet.

[darra]

1 hour ago, Plonk said:

Me neither. Emailed billings. Not even an acknowledgement of receipt. I’m afraid this is typical of the contempt our leaders hold us in. Just remember this poo when we next get the chance vote. Let’s get all these counts out. 

Problem with emails is they can legitimately say they didn't see it because they get dozens a day, it ended up in the junk. spam folder etc etc

One way of getting around that is by sending the email multiple times flooding their inbox request a receipt that it was received. An actual letter addressed for the attention of and requesting a reply is much better because if they didn't reply you can take it further or higher if possible.

[darra]

I think that in the email settings you can ask for notification that an email has been received and read.

[HOOTIE AND THE SHIT TU]

3 hours ago, S36 OWL said:

 

Not even a responce saying they had recieved my email.i sent one to Motherarseole , Billings , Julie Door and the head honcho at SY Plod. No responce from any of them.

 

Cant say im shocked though, not when you are dealing with people with a proven track record of sheer incompitence. 

Perhaps they are concerned that anything they put in writing could be used against them, should this matter Reach the courts. 

[sten]

On 02/09/2019 at 18:02, bash said:

I've been following this with interest since the SAG/SYP began this scheme.

 

For the last two seasons I've been at both the derby games at the away end, and attended both games with my young son, and I've attended several derby games on the away end over the last 30 years.

 

It wasn't up until the bouncing day massacre (well as a Blade I've got call it that) that there was a change to the policing arrangements, both sets of fans we're let out at the same time, and it was a case of covering up colours, keeping my head down until I got away from the ground. 

 

Last season we held back In our seats for 10 minutes before leaving as the season before we held in a crush and almost caught up in a crush on the steps leading down from the Leppings Lane, so when we did leave we was let straight out of the ground in the concourse outside where was effectively kettled, and was caught up with having coins and other stuff thrown at us, and then having the crowd pushed back towards us which could have seen me and my lad pinned back against the turnstiles on the Leppings Lane. When we did eventually get allowed leave we walked back up to Foxhill where I parked the car, and when we walked past the New Bridge Inn at Wadsley Bridge I even had a group of teenagers ask me if we was Wednesday or United, I was by myself with a 9 year old child for fizz sake.

 

I know Hillsborough fairly well, and the biggest part of the problem is there is only really two ways to exit the ground, either on to Leppings Lane or Penistone Road, which will always create a flashpoint and ugly scenes at the Leppings Lane end, especially if there is a big travelling crowd or it is a local derby where passions run high. The difference between Bramall Lane and Hillsborough is that there are several ways to exit Bramall Lane and for big games the away crowd is funnelled out of Bramall Lane by steel barriers which seems to be a lot safer way of doing things. Prehaps part of the solution is to redesign the back of the South Stand at Hillsborough so the home fans can exit the stadium over the bridge on to Parkside Road and then you could funnel the North Stand down Leppings Lane towards Law Brothers and the away fans up to the Tram Stop? Prehaps the solution is to only have these measures in place for when it is a high risk fixture rather than doing it all the time when the risk is far, far less. 

 

The problem seems to have got a lot worse over the last few years as the rivalry seems to spill over to raw hatred a lot more. My girlfriend of a few years and her two children are all Wednesdayites and season ticket holders on the kop, I've got plenty of friends who are Wednesdayites, I love the banter that flies about, the gentle stick we give each other. However on the flip side a visit to Hillsborough seems to be more like running the gauntlet of Stone Island clad grown up children with cocaine inspired ADHD. As much as I love the banter I've absolutely began to despise the hatred that people are quick to show. The horrendous, and continued abuse our managers daughter has had to endure over the last two years, the unwarranted and uncalled for crass attempt to label Dean Henderson as a paedophile last season on social media and the subsequent abuse he received after. I can't ever remember football becoming this bad for a long long time. Its not just a Sheffield thing either, travelling home on Saturday night when the media should have been talking about a great game of football, the narrative changed when it transpired that some oxygen stealing twats had racially abused Kurt Zouma. 

 

Last season I vowed not to take my son to a derby match at Hillsborough until he is much older, so who wins? It certainly isn't me who now doesn't feel safe coming out of Leppings Lane with a child who loves his football team more than life itself. 

 

What I'm trying to say here might not be on the same song sheet as many on here, but it worthwhile to give the viewpoint of someone who occasionally visits Hillsborough as an away fan to give an different viewpoint on the problems you have at Hillsborough when it comes to crowd safety.

 

Some good points there Bash but the Owl bashing spoils the over all effect. I was in the Lower Leppings on the day of your 'Bouncing Day Massacre' and I was hit by a coin, during the game, thrown from above, thrown, I presume by one of your red and white angels.

[Hirstys Salopettes]

4 hours ago, farlego said:

Has anyone had a response to their letters?

 

22nd August 2019

 

Dear Mr Mothersole, 

It is concerning to read your apparent lack of understanding with regard to crowd management at Hillsborough following the home game with Luton Town on Tuesday 20th August 2019.  

The apparent lack of crowd management to which you refer is in fact social media comments in respect of the (neither substantiated or unsubstantiated) issues caused by the implementation of the measures required by the Prohibition Notice issued on the eve of the season, particularly the restriction of access and egress to the north and south stands via the Leppings Lane forecourt for all games until further notice. 

Of course the Prohibition Notice has stemmed from a report undertaken by Manchester Metropolitan University commissioned by South Yorkshire Police.  I expect you are familiar with the report prior to making public statements about current crowd management operations at the ground.  

If you are, then no doubt you will be familiar with the following extract from Page 18 of the report ... “These figures and chart have been included to use as a reliable reference when considering a crowd “hold” in this area; for example, if the away crowd is 3,000 in total then in Fig 17’s layout the crowd will be over capacity if held in this area alone, but at safe density in Fig 18’s layout”.  

The away crowd for the Luton Town game was 790 (with 744 being advanced ticket sales).  I would welcome your informed opinion as to whether this number of away fans could be safely and readily ‘held’ on the Leppings Lane forecourt without the need for restricting access and egress to the North Stand via the Leppings Lane forecourt.

Indeed further exploring this point, whilst I note actions are now incumbent upon SWFC set out in Schedule 3 of the Prohibition Notice, I would welcome your further informed comment as to what your colleagues in the SAG would consider to be the number of away fans held on the Leppings Lane forecourt that would render Clause 1, Schedule 2 of the Prohibition Notice wholly unnecessary.  Whilst I am sure you are no doubt completely familiar with this having made such a strongly worded public statement, for the record Clause 1 of Schedule 2 states ‘overcrowding of the Leppings Lane forecourt (safe holding capacity / crowd densities)’. 

Perhaps you may wish to consult MMU over the answer to this question, but even as a layman having read the MMU report one would consider this  figure to be at the very least 1,530, most likely at least 2,295 based on Page 16 of the aforementioned report.   

I look forward to your response.

 

=======================

 

The Chief Executive has passed your email onto me and asked me to respond.

We cannot comment on individual issues as the club has submitted an appeal against the Prohibition Notice which will be heard in the Courts in due course.

In general terms, however, we can say that it is clearly the club’s responsibility to put arrangements in place to ensure crowd safety both generally and in light of the Prohibition Notice. The Council has continued to support SWFC throughout this process.

Should you have any particular concerns about safety at the stadium, including on matchdays, then you will need to contact the club directly as this is their responsibility.

Regards

Licensing Service,
Business Strategy and Regulation,
Sheffield City Council,
Block C, Staniforth Road Depot,

 

[Castleford Owl]

18 minutes ago, Hirstys Salopettes said:

 

22nd August 2019

 

Dear Mr Mothersole, 

It is concerning to read your apparent lack of understanding with regard to crowd management at Hillsborough following the home game with Luton Town on Tuesday 20th August 2019.  

The apparent lack of crowd management to which you refer is in fact social media comments in respect of the (neither substantiated or unsubstantiated) issues caused by the implementation of the measures required by the Prohibition Notice issued on the eve of the season, particularly the restriction of access and egress to the north and south stands via the Leppings Lane forecourt for all games until further notice. 

Of course the Prohibition Notice has stemmed from a report undertaken by Manchester Metropolitan University commissioned by South Yorkshire Police.  I expect you are familiar with the report prior to making public statements about current crowd management operations at the ground.  

If you are, then no doubt you will be familiar with the following extract from Page 18 of the report ... “These figures and chart have been included to use as a reliable reference when considering a crowd “hold” in this area; for example, if the away crowd is 3,000 in total then in Fig 17’s layout the crowd will be over capacity if held in this area alone, but at safe density in Fig 18’s layout”.  

The away crowd for the Luton Town game was 790 (with 744 being advanced ticket sales).  I would welcome your informed opinion as to whether this number of away fans could be safely and readily ‘held’ on the Leppings Lane forecourt without the need for restricting access and egress to the North Stand via the Leppings Lane forecourt.

Indeed further exploring this point, whilst I note actions are now incumbent upon SWFC set out in Schedule 3 of the Prohibition Notice, I would welcome your further informed comment as to what your colleagues in the SAG would consider to be the number of away fans held on the Leppings Lane forecourt that would render Clause 1, Schedule 2 of the Prohibition Notice wholly unnecessary.  Whilst I am sure you are no doubt completely familiar with this having made such a strongly worded public statement, for the record Clause 1 of Schedule 2 states ‘overcrowding of the Leppings Lane forecourt (safe holding capacity / crowd densities)’. 

Perhaps you may wish to consult MMU over the answer to this question, but even as a layman having read the MMU report one would consider this  figure to be at the very least 1,530, most likely at least 2,295 based on Page 16 of the aforementioned report.   

I look forward to your response.

 

=======================

 

The Chief Executive has passed your email onto me and asked me to respond.

We cannot comment on individual issues as the club has submitted an appeal against the Prohibition Notice which will be heard in the Courts in due course.

In general terms, however, we can say that it is clearly the club’s responsibility to put arrangements in place to ensure crowd safety both generally and in light of the Prohibition Notice. The Council has continued to support SWFC throughout this process.

Should you have any particular concerns about safety at the stadium, including on matchdays, then you will need to contact the club directly as this is their responsibility.

Regards

Licensing Service,
Business Strategy and Regulation,
Sheffield City Council,
Block C, Staniforth Road Depot,

 

Unbelievable. So basically, any safety concerns are the club’s problem. They’re absolutely refusing to acknowledge that the prohibition notice is causing the problem.

[S36 OWL]

42 minutes ago, HOOTIE AND THE poo TU said:

Perhaps they are concerned that anything they put in writing could be used against them, should this matter Reach the courts. 

 

You are probably right mate .

[S36 OWL]

15 minutes ago, Castleford Owl said:

Unbelievable. So basically, any safety concerns are the club’s problem. They’re absolutely refusing to acknowledge that the prohibition notice is causing the problem.

 

Unless im totally off the mark , isnt crowd control and crowd safety outside the stadium on the public pavements and highways the respondibility of SYP ? 

[MAL]

2 hours ago, Hirstys Salopettes said:

 

22nd August 2019

 

Dear Mr Mothersole, 

It is concerning to read your apparent lack of understanding with regard to crowd management at Hillsborough following the home game with Luton Town on Tuesday 20th August 2019.  

The apparent lack of crowd management to which you refer is in fact social media comments in respect of the (neither substantiated or unsubstantiated) issues caused by the implementation of the measures required by the Prohibition Notice issued on the eve of the season, particularly the restriction of access and egress to the north and south stands via the Leppings Lane forecourt for all games until further notice. 

Of course the Prohibition Notice has stemmed from a report undertaken by Manchester Metropolitan University commissioned by South Yorkshire Police.  I expect you are familiar with the report prior to making public statements about current crowd management operations at the ground.  

If you are, then no doubt you will be familiar with the following extract from Page 18 of the report ... “These figures and chart have been included to use as a reliable reference when considering a crowd “hold” in this area; for example, if the away crowd is 3,000 in total then in Fig 17’s layout the crowd will be over capacity if held in this area alone, but at safe density in Fig 18’s layout”.  

The away crowd for the Luton Town game was 790 (with 744 being advanced ticket sales).  I would welcome your informed opinion as to whether this number of away fans could be safely and readily ‘held’ on the Leppings Lane forecourt without the need for restricting access and egress to the North Stand via the Leppings Lane forecourt.

Indeed further exploring this point, whilst I note actions are now incumbent upon SWFC set out in Schedule 3 of the Prohibition Notice, I would welcome your further informed comment as to what your colleagues in the SAG would consider to be the number of away fans held on the Leppings Lane forecourt that would render Clause 1, Schedule 2 of the Prohibition Notice wholly unnecessary.  Whilst I am sure you are no doubt completely familiar with this having made such a strongly worded public statement, for the record Clause 1 of Schedule 2 states ‘overcrowding of the Leppings Lane forecourt (safe holding capacity / crowd densities)’. 

Perhaps you may wish to consult MMU over the answer to this question, but even as a layman having read the MMU report one would consider this  figure to be at the very least 1,530, most likely at least 2,295 based on Page 16 of the aforementioned report.   

I look forward to your response.

 

=======================

 

The Chief Executive has passed your email onto me and asked me to respond.

We cannot comment on individual issues as the club has submitted an appeal against the Prohibition Notice which will be heard in the Courts in due course.

In general terms, however, we can say that it is clearly the club’s responsibility to put arrangements in place to ensure crowd safety both generally and in light of the Prohibition Notice. The Council has continued to support SWFC throughout this process.

Should you have any particular concerns about safety at the stadium, including on matchdays, then you will need to contact the club directly as this is their responsibility.

Regards

Licensing Service,
Business Strategy and Regulation,
Sheffield City Council,
Block C, Staniforth Road Depot,

 

 

So, we can just say to any team we play...

 

Your allocation is 200 because we don't think that it is safe to have any more.

 

If you have a problem with that, speak to South Yorkshire police farce, Sheffield corrupt (auto correct eh) council, and sag.

 

Have a nice day.

 

 

 

 

[handworth52]

6 hours ago, sw1867 said:

 

I’d be very interested to read them if anyone has.

Julie dore has more interest in making sure her Palestine flag is flying high what she commissioned than responding to the dangers of a 100 Fulham fans mixing with owls supporters on leppings lane tomorrow.