Don Street, again !

[KerrAvon]

Thanks Kerr. So, if SYP felt their was a reasonable and objective chance of bovver, they could hold away fans back? Human rights isn't the thing stopping them??

Yes, that is my understanding of the position, save that it is a reasonable and objective belief that is required (there's always a chance).

The plain fact that they are dealing with football supporters is incapable of creating the required objective and reasonable belief. There would need to be some particular feature that could be relied upon.

[BramleyMiller58]

Thanks Kerr. So, if SYP felt their was a reasonable and objective chance of bovver, they could hold away fans back? Human rights isn't the thing stopping them??

Yes they could

Also just realised that RUFC already hold fans back

If you're in the car park you are prevented from leaving for 10-15 minutes after the game (albeit sat in your vehicle)

It's part of the T&C's when you buy the permit so as mentioned earlier make it part of the T&C's on the away fans tickets that "RUFC & SYP reserve the right to keep you within the ground/rear car park for up to 10 minutes after the game has finished"

If they buy a ticket with those T&C's they are accepting them therefore cannot object

[KerrAvon]

If it's in the T and Cs then that would assist, but the police are a public body and can be Judicially Reviewed if they behave irrationally or unreasonably, which I think would be the position if they introduced an arbitrary rather than a considered hold back policy. Human Rights considerations would be engaged on that point.

There is also the practical point of whether the club and police would have the resources to control a large group of people who were angry at being held back.

[PeteWaller]

If the police or club wanted to detain away supporters after a game, they would need to be able to justify such a policy by reference to the law. In practice, that means that they could only detain them if they reasonably and objectively assessed that it was necessary to prevent a breach of the peace. Any blanket detention would clearly fall foul of the need for such a reasonable and objectively held belief and would be unlawful. The fact is that supporters can generally mingle without trouble - I went to Villa last night and upon leaving the ground turned right into the face of many of the home supporters who were leaving the ground. Neither they nor I seemed to want a punch up.

I interpret that as being able to hold all away fans back. Surely they don't have to assess each of the individuals within a 2500 away end?

Also Kerr, "upon leaving the ground turned right into the face of many of the home supporters who were leaving the ground. Neither they nor I seemed to want a punch up". Of course there is no problem there. The problem arises if you don't want a punch up but another fan does, surely? The need for common sense suggests to me that SYP hold back the away fans for a period of 5-10 minutes. I'm almost sure if the matter went to adjudication, common sense would prevail. No?

[KerrAvon]

No, there isn't, of course, a requirement to assess each individual supporter. It's about assessing the risk as a whole. For example, if there was specific and reliable intelligence that a group of supporters intended to kick off or if there had been incidents of disorder in the ground, then that could be taken into account. In addition, the police use the past behaviour to 'score' supporters of individual teams to determine the level of risk they pose.

What the police can't do is approach matters upon the basis that people are football supporters and so can be routinely kept back. The logical outcome of that approach would be to totally ban away support.

If a Villa supporter wanted a fight with me I would have legged it if I could or defended myself if I couldn't. It's impossible to completely guard against people who are set on violence. There is some assumption of risk in every walk of life. As an example, my work tells me that it is fairly easy to get thumped for 'looking at someone in the wrong way' in a pub. Sadly, that's life.

[jocksgloves]

It may have been trickier walking through the Villa fans if they hadn't won.

[rolymiller]

Good point Jock think the Derby fans wouldn't have chucked the seat if they had won. Its funny how bad losers can turn nasty int it?

[KerrAvon]

It may have been trickier walking through the Villa fans if they hadn't won.

Rotherham lost, but I didn't feel any urge to kick off and didn't notice anyone else doing so.

Villa supporters don't have any particular reputation for violence of which I am aware.

[the_idiotb_stardson]

That raises an interesting point though Kerr. Stoke fans have a terrible reputation and I would say that the probability of trouble is higher than normal. I am not alone in this opinion. Most fans in football are aware of Stoke's reputation.

Now surely the club are responsible if they put fans at risk knowing that the risk of trouble is much much higher than normal?

[BramleyMiller58]

Need to do a quick look (c/w pictures) tomorrow, or when I can but …………..

There is access from the South stand to a walkway that goes through to Brinsworth Road / Armer street

No need for away fans to be held back
They have an option

Wait for 10 minutes until New York Way is opened to them or ……….
Walk down the ,now tarmacked, footpath down to Brinsworth Lane. where, if they were previously instructed, they can get into their vehicle