After much police insistence. Which in some ways is the worst part, that the stewards / match day security controller felt it was appropriate to leave a vulnerable person in the ground to fend for themself.
Surprised the stewards didn't come back and turf him out as well.
Please do not take the club's statementopinion as gospel and do not go in and view the incident with them.
"we believe that staff working for charlton athletic have acted appropriately at all times"
That is their opinion.
Report the assaults and allow the police to decide whether the individual committed unlawful violence on either you or your son.
"Working with the police" is a smokescreen, don't fall for it.
Katrien I know you'll have this reported back to you......
You are allegedly an intelligent person with legal training, please have a read of this explanation of common assault and then re-watch the footage
Under Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act the offence will be committed when a person either assaults another person or commits a battery.
A battery is classified as the application of unlawful force. This could be anything from a push or slap.
An assault is when the one person makes the other fear that immediate force will be used against them. This could be anything from shaking a fist or running a finger across a throat. No force needs to be applied in order for it to be an assault.
It might be wise to dis-associate the club from the individual's actions if they have acted inappropriately in light of this little first year law re-cap
'The CCTV of these incidents has been reviewed and we believe that staff working for Charlton Athletic have acted appropriately at all times.'
Absolutely outrageous. They really are playing a dangerous game here.
It's an unwise, untimely statement at best.
Going to avoid jumping to conclusions, I guess they're confident in the CCTV. I hope therefore they're right, and if so that they handle it well with the people affected (who don't have their own channel for public reply).
What an awful response, delivered with the now usual self satisfied smugness we all link to our CEO.
I fee that this is another provocative reaction intended to make the fans violent in our response. I think their tactic is to generate such venom that our protests turn from organised and planned to ad hoc and aggressive. They will then use this against us.
It is clear from the response at the time to the banner being taken and subsequent accounts that there is a clear case to answer.
Could some of the funds be used if necessary to support this family in whatever action they deem appropriate?
I doubt that is their tactic to be honest - I mean, if they do turn that way, ad hoc and aggressive protests will be aimed at the same people and I doubt they'd desire that outcome.
Further to what @mrbligh said, it's worth remembering that the club aren't lying when they say they've liaised with the police - but they are most likely being economical with the truth.
They no doubt have liaised with them regarding the protests, that's not to say they've discussed the accusations levelled at them.
Anything the club are saying at the moment will no doubt have been carefully worded so as to have a specific effect.
Even if they have liaised with the club regarding the assault though, if that's the case then they wont mind you reporting it.
Katrien I know you'll have this reported back to you......
You are allegedly an intelligent person with legal training, please have a read of this explanation of common assault and then re-watch the footage
Under Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act the offence will be committed when a person either assaults another person or commits a battery.
A battery is classified as the application of unlawful force. This could be anything from a push or slap.
An assault is when the one person makes the other fear that immediate force will be used against them. This could be anything from shaking a fist or running a finger across a throat. No force needs to be applied in order for it to be an assault.
It might be wise to dis-associate the club from the individual's actions if they have acted inappropriately in light of this little first year law re-cap
I have had eleven years experience of stadium management including responsibility for both internal and externally contracted stewards. I am happy to add this experience to the mix to ensure that the appropriate action is taken against the individual concerned and, if necessary, the football club.
The CCTV of these incidents has been reviewed and we believe that staff working for Charlton Athletic have acted appropriately at all times. The supporters involved in all of these incidents have been contacted and invited in to see club officials to review the footage and discuss actions taken on the day. We will communicate further after this process is complete.
I am not sure anyone really expected anything different so not sure why the sudden outrage. The club won't admit anything for fear of more legal action against them and/or the company providing the stewards. So close ranks and act as all corporates do, relying on people not having the time or resources to take on a bigger organisation. They also worry that if they actually hung a steward out to dry then it would make the jobs of all the others so much harder.
That doesn't mean they actually think they are in the clear. They could still settle quietly, conditional on an agreement by both parties not to discuss further.
Clever PR person also lumped together the banner incident, where the club is on thin ice, with objects being thrown. Expect Meire to break cover soon with an interview where she again talks about her fear from fans who are now throwing things and endangering children, old ladies and passing seagulls.
Please do not take the club's statementopinion as gospel and do not go in and view the incident with them.
"we believe that staff working for charlton athletic have acted appropriately at all times"
That is their opinion.
Report the assaults and allow the police to decide whether the individual committed unlawful violence on either you or your son.
"Working with the police" is a smokescreen, don't fall for it.
Katrien I know you'll have this reported back to you......
You are allegedly an intelligent person with legal training, please have a read of this explanation of common assault and then re-watch the footage
Under Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act the offence will be committed when a person either assaults another person or commits a battery.
A battery is classified as the application of unlawful force. This could be anything from a push or slap.
An assault is when the one person makes the other fear that immediate force will be used against them. This could be anything from shaking a fist or running a finger across a throat. No force needs to be applied in order for it to be an assault.
It might be wise to dis-associate the club from the individual's actions if they have acted inappropriately in light of this little first year law re-cap
@mrbligh, if the CCTV images were comprehensive and showed the fullness of the incident, why would it be against Gwen's interests to go view them and discuss them with the club? It doesn't prejudice her right to pursue a latter action at all. Genuine question.
I'm struggling to see who legal action benefits to be honest. Even assuming there is sufficient evidence to support what happened to Gwen, I can't imagine anything more coming of this than common assault for the steward himself. Pretty insignificant outcome, and taking action aimed at the club might ultimately result in them declining Gwen's future business - the impact could be greater for her, particularly as she has personal reasons for being attached to her seat.
It would be a lesson for the steward perhaps, but the real issue is that the club saw fit to eject a fan just for displaying a banner. Reading the ground regulations they're worded in a way that gives the club justification for ejecting a fan for just about any reason they see fit, particularly if he failed to comply with the steward's instructions by putting it back up again.
It's all very unreasonable and unfair I know, but personally I think the fans should just go along, hear what they have to say and watch the CCTV. If they feel they've been unfairly treated then perhaps CASTrust and/or the FSF can take things to a more political level - I'm sure Matt Pennycook would have an interest in how the club are behaving given KM's comments to him.
But to be fair, I've no doubt Mick and John will handle it fairly - they're very decent people.
Please do not take the club's statementopinion as gospel and do not go in and view the incident with them.
"we believe that staff working for charlton athletic have acted appropriately at all times"
That is their opinion.
Report the assaults and allow the police to decide whether the individual committed unlawful violence on either you or your son.
"Working with the police" is a smokescreen, don't fall for it.
Katrien I know you'll have this reported back to you......
You are allegedly an intelligent person with legal training, please have a read of this explanation of common assault and then re-watch the footage
Under Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act the offence will be committed when a person either assaults another person or commits a battery.
A battery is classified as the application of unlawful force. This could be anything from a push or slap.
An assault is when the one person makes the other fear that immediate force will be used against them. This could be anything from shaking a fist or running a finger across a throat. No force needs to be applied in order for it to be an assault.
It might be wise to dis-associate the club from the individual's actions if they have acted inappropriately in light of this little first year law re-cap
@mrbligh, if the CCTV images were comprehensive and showed the fullness of the incident, why would it be against Gwen's interests to go view them and discuss them with the club? It doesn't prejudice her right to pursue a latter action at all. Genuine question.
I'm struggling to see who legal action benefits to be honest. Even assuming there is sufficient evidence to support what happened to Gwen, I can't imagine anything more coming of this than common assault for the steward himself. Pretty insignificant outcome, and taking action aimed at the club might ultimately result in them declining Gwen's future business - the impact could be greater for her, particularly as she has personal reasons for being attached to her seat.
It would be a lesson for the steward perhaps, but the real issue is that the club saw fit to eject a fan just for displaying a banner. Reading the ground regulations they're worded in a way that gives the club justification for ejecting a fan for just about any reason they see fit, particularly if he failed to comply with the steward's instructions by putting it back up again.
It's all very unreasonable and unfair I know, but personally I think the fans should just go along, hear what they have to say and watch the CCTV. If they feel they've been unfairly treated then perhaps CASTrust and/or the FSF can take things to a more political level - I'm sure Matt Pennycook would have an interest in how the club are behaving given KM's comments to him.
But to be fair, I've no doubt Mick and John will handle it fairly - they're very decent people.
Please do not take the club's statementopinion as gospel and do not go in and view the incident with them.
"we believe that staff working for charlton athletic have acted appropriately at all times"
That is their opinion.
Report the assaults and allow the police to decide whether the individual committed unlawful violence on either you or your son.
"Working with the police" is a smokescreen, don't fall for it.
Katrien I know you'll have this reported back to you......
You are allegedly an intelligent person with legal training, please have a read of this explanation of common assault and then re-watch the footage
Under Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act the offence will be committed when a person either assaults another person or commits a battery.
A battery is classified as the application of unlawful force. This could be anything from a push or slap.
An assault is when the one person makes the other fear that immediate force will be used against them. This could be anything from shaking a fist or running a finger across a throat. No force needs to be applied in order for it to be an assault.
It might be wise to dis-associate the club from the individual's actions if they have acted inappropriately in light of this little first year law re-cap
@mrbligh, if the CCTV images were comprehensive and showed the fullness of the incident, why would it be against Gwen's interests to go view them and discuss them with the club? It doesn't prejudice her right to pursue a latter action at all. Genuine question.
I'm struggling to see who legal action benefits to be honest. Even assuming there is sufficient evidence to support what happened to Gwen, I can't imagine anything more coming of this than common assault for the steward himself. Pretty insignificant outcome, and taking action aimed at the club might ultimately result in them declining Gwen's future business - the impact could be greater for her, particularly as she has personal reasons for being attached to her seat.
It would be a lesson for the steward perhaps, but the real issue is that the club saw fit to eject a fan just for displaying a banner. Reading the ground regulations they're worded in a way that gives the club justification for ejecting a fan for just about any reason they see fit, particularly if he failed to comply with the steward's instructions by putting it back up again.
It's all very unreasonable and unfair I know, but personally I think the fans should just go along, hear what they have to say and watch the CCTV. If they feel they've been unfairly treated then perhaps CASTrust and/or the FSF can take things to a more political level - I'm sure Matt Pennycook would have an interest in how the club are behaving given KM's comments to him.
But to be fair, I've no doubt Mick and John will handle it fairly - they're very decent people.
I'd hazard a guess that, even if the criminal offence is committed by a third party, the current CAFC regime would be liable for damages in any subsequent civil claim.
In this case, because you would have a reasonable expectation of not being assaulted in a facility provided by the club, they provide a venue to the public, and take your money to attend, and so have a duty of care (a bit like the signs in car parks not being work the paper they are printed on). Also, despite the stewarding being provided by an agency, I would suggest that the regime is responsible for the behaviour of those employed on their behalf.
To attempt to decline Gwen's future business would be extremely foolish, and would look like discrimination to me (and, dare I say it, the media).
My cousin works for centre circle and often does the charlton matches, albeit the security side, however he did work previously on the stewarding side so therefore they are agency staff not techninally cafc employees
As I thought - so Gwen needs to sue Centre Circle I guess. CAFC may have to supervise day-to-day operations but I imagine there will be plenty of opt out around individual actions etc.
Who would get sued if a kitchen problem gave someone food poisoning ? CAFC, Delaware or the individual who purposefully (or accidently) dropped salmonella in the pie ?
Just because the actual provision is by an agent, it does not absolve the regime.
In each case, I would suggest that, while criminal liability may lie with the person(s) actually involved, there would certainly be legal repercussions for the regime and the companies acting on its behalf.
I am not sure anyone really expected anything different so not sure why the sudden outrage. The club won't admit anything for fear of more legal action against them and/or the company providing the stewards. So close ranks and act as all corporates do, relying on people not having the time or resources to take on a bigger organisation. They also worry that if they actually hung a steward out to dry then it would make the jobs of all the others so much harder.
That doesn't mean they actually think they are in the clear. They could still settle quietly, conditional on an agreement by both parties not to discuss further.
Clever PR person also lumped together the banner incident, where the club is on thin ice, with objects being thrown. Expect Meire to break cover soon with an interview where she again talks about her fear from fans who are now throwing things and endangering children, old ladies and passing seagulls.
The spin's the thing. "Objects" for leaflets is borderline dishonest, though.
So did the steward punch Gwen as has been suggested several times on here, or did he manage to hit her in the face whilst attempting to drag the son out? Genuine question. I would have expected (though not accept) the latter but some people are saying she was 'punched'? Seems unlikely.
As those who read my earlier post will know, I have no time for these kind of stewards but just trying to understand what happened and why the club are so confident.
Please do not take the club's statementopinion as gospel and do not go in and view the incident with them.
"we believe that staff working for charlton athletic have acted appropriately at all times"
That is their opinion.
Report the assaults and allow the police to decide whether the individual committed unlawful violence on either you or your son.
"Working with the police" is a smokescreen, don't fall for it.
Katrien I know you'll have this reported back to you......
You are allegedly an intelligent person with legal training, please have a read of this explanation of common assault and then re-watch the footage
Under Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act the offence will be committed when a person either assaults another person or commits a battery.
A battery is classified as the application of unlawful force. This could be anything from a push or slap.
An assault is when the one person makes the other fear that immediate force will be used against them. This could be anything from shaking a fist or running a finger across a throat. No force needs to be applied in order for it to be an assault.
It might be wise to dis-associate the club from the individual's actions if they have acted inappropriately in light of this little first year law re-cap
@mrbligh, if the CCTV images were comprehensive and showed the fullness of the incident, why would it be against Gwen's interests to go view them and discuss them with the club? It doesn't prejudice her right to pursue a latter action at all. Genuine question.
It prejudices her case for sure. If I were to assault you and you reported me to the police and I was arrested and didn't say anything in my interview the police would put me on bail whilst they finished their investigation. One of my conditions would be not to contact you (for fear of influencing the investigation.) By going and listening to the club there is a potential for the impartiality of both sides to be compromised.
I'm struggling to see who legal action benefits to be honest. Even assuming there is sufficient evidence to support what happened to Gwen, I can't imagine anything more coming of this than common assault for the steward himself. Pretty insignificant outcome, and taking action aimed at the club might ultimately result in them declining Gwen's future business - the impact could be greater for her, particularly as she has personal reasons for being attached to her seat.
It would be a lesson for the steward perhaps, but the real issue is that the club saw fit to eject a fan just for displaying a banner. Reading the ground regulations they're worded in a way that gives the club justification for ejecting a fan for just about any reason they see fit, particularly if he failed to comply with the steward's instructions by putting it back up again.
If the steward's job (prison officer) relies on him having a clear criminal record then a caution/conviction for common assault/battery would be the end of his career. Now I'm not saying I want someone to lose their job but it may make the rest of the heavy handed mob think twice before going in and assaulting people. They are assisting at a football match not a prison riot. Yes they may eject people but do they have to lay hands on people (from behind as muted) and strike a women in the face at the same time? Physicality should be a last resort, not used at the first sign of dissent. It would be a serious lesson for them all
It's all very unreasonable and unfair I know, but personally I think the fans should just go along, hear what they have to say and watch the CCTV. If they feel they've been unfairly treated then perhaps CASTrust and/or the FSF can take things to a more political level - I'm sure Matt Pennycook would have an interest in how the club are behaving given KM's comments to him.
But to be fair, I've no doubt Mick and John will handle it fairly - they're very decent people.
Gwen and her boy can do whatever they want. The majority of people can't be bothered with legal action once their anger and the dust settles a bit. I also agreed with you earlier that I hope the club are right and no offences have taken place as this would be a pretty bad PR own goal.
Now if the club refused someone's entry because a steward was prosecuted for assaulting one of their 'customers' then that would take the PR own goal to a whole new level. I don't think any owner could be that stupid (you never know though!!)
I'm out of this debate for now and going back to drinking copious amounts and giving our players inappropriate nicknames that some norman will put to them in a fans forum meeting. Good luck with whatever you choose Gwen, information is power and hopefully I've helped and explained your options to you a bit.
My cousin works for centre circle and often does the charlton matches, albeit the security side, however he did work previously on the stewarding side so therefore they are agency staff not techninally cafc employees
As I thought - so Gwen needs to sue Centre Circle I guess. CAFC may have to supervise day-to-day operations but I imagine there will be plenty of opt out around individual actions etc.
Who would get sued if a kitchen problem gave someone food poisoning ? CAFC, Delaware or the individual who purposefully (or accidently) dropped salmonella in the pie ?
well i dont who would get sued but the person who gets salmonella deserves it. scab. it would certainly stop people buying food from the club... hmm, I wonder if CARD could arrange this?
edit: it's a joke btw. I'm not endorsing poisoning.
Please do not take the club's statementopinion as gospel and do not go in and view the incident with them.
"we believe that staff working for charlton athletic have acted appropriately at all times"
That is their opinion.
Report the assaults and allow the police to decide whether the individual committed unlawful violence on either you or your son.
"Working with the police" is a smokescreen, don't fall for it.
Katrien I know you'll have this reported back to you......
You are allegedly an intelligent person with legal training, please have a read of this explanation of common assault and then re-watch the footage
Under Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act the offence will be committed when a person either assaults another person or commits a battery.
A battery is classified as the application of unlawful force. This could be anything from a push or slap.
An assault is when the one person makes the other fear that immediate force will be used against them. This could be anything from shaking a fist or running a finger across a throat. No force needs to be applied in order for it to be an assault.
It might be wise to dis-associate the club from the individual's actions if they have acted inappropriately in light of this little first year law re-cap
@mrbligh, if the CCTV images were comprehensive and showed the fullness of the incident, why would it be against Gwen's interests to go view them and discuss them with the club? It doesn't prejudice her right to pursue a latter action at all. Genuine question.
I'm struggling to see who legal action benefits to be honest. Even assuming there is sufficient evidence to support what happened to Gwen, I can't imagine anything more coming of this than common assault for the steward himself. Pretty insignificant outcome, and taking action aimed at the club might ultimately result in them declining Gwen's future business - the impact could be greater for her, particularly as she has personal reasons for being attached to her seat.
It would be a lesson for the steward perhaps, but the real issue is that the club saw fit to eject a fan just for displaying a banner. Reading the ground regulations they're worded in a way that gives the club justification for ejecting a fan for just about any reason they see fit, particularly if he failed to comply with the steward's instructions by putting it back up again.
It's all very unreasonable and unfair I know, but personally I think the fans should just go along, hear what they have to say and watch the CCTV. If they feel they've been unfairly treated then perhaps CASTrust and/or the FSF can take things to a more political level - I'm sure Matt Pennycook would have an interest in how the club are behaving given KM's comments to him.
But to be fair, I've no doubt Mick and John will handle it fairly - they're very decent people.
Well, a benefit of legal action, both civil and criminal, if the allegations can be corroborated, would be that the steward would be sacked; his employer (Centre Circle?) Would suffer reputational damage and the club would be liable for a financial penalty presumably. So the benefit, as is the case in all such matters, is that the legal process is a deterrent. Other stewards will be warned as to their future conduct and will not want to get themselves into a similar situation. Also the club will want to avoid further financial penalty. Finally the plod will have to think twice before providing backup to the lynch mob.
Please do not take the club's statementopinion as gospel and do not go in and view the incident with them.
"we believe that staff working for charlton athletic have acted appropriately at all times"
That is their opinion.
Report the assaults and allow the police to decide whether the individual committed unlawful violence on either you or your son.
"Working with the police" is a smokescreen, don't fall for it.
Katrien I know you'll have this reported back to you......
You are allegedly an intelligent person with legal training, please have a read of this explanation of common assault and then re-watch the footage
Under Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act the offence will be committed when a person either assaults another person or commits a battery.
A battery is classified as the application of unlawful force. This could be anything from a push or slap.
An assault is when the one person makes the other fear that immediate force will be used against them. This could be anything from shaking a fist or running a finger across a throat. No force needs to be applied in order for it to be an assault.
It might be wise to dis-associate the club from the individual's actions if they have acted inappropriately in light of this little first year law re-cap
@mrbligh, if the CCTV images were comprehensive and showed the fullness of the incident, why would it be against Gwen's interests to go view them and discuss them with the club? It doesn't prejudice her right to pursue a latter action at all. Genuine question.
I'm struggling to see who legal action benefits to be honest. Even assuming there is sufficient evidence to support what happened to Gwen, I can't imagine anything more coming of this than common assault for the steward himself. Pretty insignificant outcome, and taking action aimed at the club might ultimately result in them declining Gwen's future business - the impact could be greater for her, particularly as she has personal reasons for being attached to her seat.
It would be a lesson for the steward perhaps, but the real issue is that the club saw fit to eject a fan just for displaying a banner. Reading the ground regulations they're worded in a way that gives the club justification for ejecting a fan for just about any reason they see fit, particularly if he failed to comply with the steward's instructions by putting it back up again.
It's all very unreasonable and unfair I know, but personally I think the fans should just go along, hear what they have to say and watch the CCTV. If they feel they've been unfairly treated then perhaps CASTrust and/or the FSF can take things to a more political level - I'm sure Matt Pennycook would have an interest in how the club are behaving given KM's comments to him.
But to be fair, I've no doubt Mick and John will handle it fairly - they're very decent people.
Finally the plod will have to think twice before providing backup to the lynch mob.
To be fair to the "plod" in this case, it seems they:- 1) Told the stewards / security officer that having seen the footage, they were satisfied that no offence had been carried out and suggested that Gwen and Gwen Jnr. be allowed back to their seats. The club ultimately rejected this advice.
2) in light of 1), plod strongly recommended that Gwen be allowed back in to fulfil her duties as carer, which the club originally did not want to allow. The club begrudgingly complied.
One of the many shocking things about this situation is/was we were at home. They were our stewards. It feels like an away issue that we r complaining about. That , I guess , is the problem.
Here was a chance for the club to act sensitively with this incident, but no, another example of the buffoonery coming out of the club on a now regular basis. I can't believe this is how our club is now...
Here was a chance for the club to act sensitively with this incident, but no, another example of the buffoonery coming out of the club on a now regular basis. I can't believe this is how our club is now...
Please do not take the club's statementopinion as gospel and do not go in and view the incident with them.
"we believe that staff working for charlton athletic have acted appropriately at all times"
That is their opinion.
Report the assaults and allow the police to decide whether the individual committed unlawful violence on either you or your son.
"Working with the police" is a smokescreen, don't fall for it.
Katrien I know you'll have this reported back to you......
You are allegedly an intelligent person with legal training, please have a read of this explanation of common assault and then re-watch the footage
Under Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act the offence will be committed when a person either assaults another person or commits a battery.
A battery is classified as the application of unlawful force. This could be anything from a push or slap.
An assault is when the one person makes the other fear that immediate force will be used against them. This could be anything from shaking a fist or running a finger across a throat. No force needs to be applied in order for it to be an assault.
It might be wise to dis-associate the club from the individual's actions if they have acted inappropriately in light of this little first year law re-cap
@mrbligh, if the CCTV images were comprehensive and showed the fullness of the incident, why would it be against Gwen's interests to go view them and discuss them with the club? It doesn't prejudice her right to pursue a latter action at all. Genuine question.
I'm struggling to see who legal action benefits to be honest. Even assuming there is sufficient evidence to support what happened to Gwen, I can't imagine anything more coming of this than common assault for the steward himself. Pretty insignificant outcome, and taking action aimed at the club might ultimately result in them declining Gwen's future business - the impact could be greater for her, particularly as she has personal reasons for being attached to her seat.
It would be a lesson for the steward perhaps, but the real issue is that the club saw fit to eject a fan just for displaying a banner. Reading the ground regulations they're worded in a way that gives the club justification for ejecting a fan for just about any reason they see fit, particularly if he failed to comply with the steward's instructions by putting it back up again.
It's all very unreasonable and unfair I know, but personally I think the fans should just go along, hear what they have to say and watch the CCTV. If they feel they've been unfairly treated then perhaps CASTrust and/or the FSF can take things to a more political level - I'm sure Matt Pennycook would have an interest in how the club are behaving given KM's comments to him.
But to be fair, I've no doubt Mick and John will handle it fairly - they're very decent people.
Please do not take the club's statementopinion as gospel and do not go in and view the incident with them.
"we believe that staff working for charlton athletic have acted appropriately at all times"
That is their opinion.
Report the assaults and allow the police to decide whether the individual committed unlawful violence on either you or your son.
"Working with the police" is a smokescreen, don't fall for it.
Katrien I know you'll have this reported back to you......
You are allegedly an intelligent person with legal training, please have a read of this explanation of common assault and then re-watch the footage
Under Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act the offence will be committed when a person either assaults another person or commits a battery.
A battery is classified as the application of unlawful force. This could be anything from a push or slap.
An assault is when the one person makes the other fear that immediate force will be used against them. This could be anything from shaking a fist or running a finger across a throat. No force needs to be applied in order for it to be an assault.
It might be wise to dis-associate the club from the individual's actions if they have acted inappropriately in light of this little first year law re-cap
@mrbligh, if the CCTV images were comprehensive and showed the fullness of the incident, why would it be against Gwen's interests to go view them and discuss them with the club? It doesn't prejudice her right to pursue a latter action at all. Genuine question.
It prejudices her case for sure. If I were to assault you and you reported me to the police and I was arrested and didn't say anything in my interview the police would put me on bail whilst they finished their investigation. One of my conditions would be not to contact you (for fear of influencing the investigation.) By going and listening to the club there is a potential for the impartiality of both sides to be compromised.
I'm struggling to see who legal action benefits to be honest. Even assuming there is sufficient evidence to support what happened to Gwen, I can't imagine anything more coming of this than common assault for the steward himself. Pretty insignificant outcome, and taking action aimed at the club might ultimately result in them declining Gwen's future business - the impact could be greater for her, particularly as she has personal reasons for being attached to her seat.
It would be a lesson for the steward perhaps, but the real issue is that the club saw fit to eject a fan just for displaying a banner. Reading the ground regulations they're worded in a way that gives the club justification for ejecting a fan for just about any reason they see fit, particularly if he failed to comply with the steward's instructions by putting it back up again.
If the steward's job (prison officer) relies on him having a clear criminal record then a caution/conviction for common assault/battery would be the end of his career. Now I'm not saying I want someone to lose their job but it may make the rest of the heavy handed mob think twice before going in and assaulting people. They are assisting at a football match not a prison riot. Yes they may eject people but do they have to lay hands on people (from behind as muted) and strike a women in the face at the same time? Physicality should be a last resort, not used at the first sign of dissent. It would be a serious lesson for them all
It's all very unreasonable and unfair I know, but personally I think the fans should just go along, hear what they have to say and watch the CCTV. If they feel they've been unfairly treated then perhaps CASTrust and/or the FSF can take things to a more political level - I'm sure Matt Pennycook would have an interest in how the club are behaving given KM's comments to him.
But to be fair, I've no doubt Mick and John will handle it fairly - they're very decent people.
Gwen and her boy can do whatever they want. The majority of people can't be bothered with legal action once their anger and the dust settles a bit. I also agreed with you earlier that I hope the club are right and no offences have taken place as this would be a pretty bad PR own goal.
Now if the club refused someone's entry because a steward was prosecuted for assaulting one of their 'customers' then that would take the PR own goal to a whole new level. I don't think any owner could be that stupid (you never know though!!)
I'm out of this debate for now and going back to drinking copious amounts and giving our players inappropriate nicknames that some norman will put to them in a fans forum meeting. Good luck with whatever you choose Gwen, information is power and hopefully I've helped and explained your options to you a bit.
No disrespect intended but assume Gwen & son (& maybe others who have been invited to the screening) aren't in the legal profession. If they go to this meeting & get the old friendly arm round the shoulder, the patronising "we're all fans at the end of the day" before a couple of loaded suggestions are made & they give the wrongly worded reply, it could screw up any action (if any) that she wanted to take. Take MrBlighs advice Gwen, if you want to take matters further don't go to the club, go to the police.
No steward can physically lay hands upon you to eject without you having the right to physically lay your hands on them to refuse, it's all about proportion, for instance I can not punch the steward on the chin for trying to remove me, I could however remove his hands using force to do so,
They are not police they are no good bully pricks, don't be afraid of them stand up to them and make them contact the police to assist them to remove you,
Could you not just act like a hedgehog and curl into a ball. Noncompliance could make it difficult to eject and any contact could not be considered proportionate. Insist on a police officer. The club and police will soon get fed up with this tactic and the press would love it.
Comments
Please do not take the club's
statementopinion as gospel and do not go in and view the incident with them."we believe that staff working for charlton athletic have acted appropriately at all times"
That is their opinion.
Report the assaults and allow the police to decide whether the individual committed unlawful violence on either you or your son.
"Working with the police" is a smokescreen, don't fall for it.
Katrien I know you'll have this reported back to you......
You are allegedly an intelligent person with legal training, please have a read of this explanation of common assault and then re-watch the footage
Under Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act the offence will be committed when a person either assaults another person or commits a battery.
A battery is classified as the application of unlawful force. This could be anything from a push or slap.
An assault is when the one person makes the other fear that immediate force will be used against them. This could be anything from shaking a fist or running a finger across a throat. No force needs to be applied in order for it to be an assault.
It might be wise to dis-associate the club from the individual's actions if they have acted inappropriately in light of this little first year law re-cap
Going to avoid jumping to conclusions, I guess they're confident in the CCTV. I hope therefore they're right, and if so that they handle it well with the people affected (who don't have their own channel for public reply).
They no doubt have liaised with them regarding the protests, that's not to say they've discussed the accusations levelled at them.
Anything the club are saying at the moment will no doubt have been carefully worded so as to have a specific effect.
Even if they have liaised with the club regarding the assault though, if that's the case then they wont mind you reporting it.
That doesn't mean they actually think they are in the clear. They could still settle quietly, conditional on an agreement by both parties not to discuss further.
Clever PR person also lumped together the banner incident, where the club is on thin ice, with objects being thrown. Expect Meire to break cover soon with an interview where she again talks about her fear from fans who are now throwing things and endangering children, old ladies and passing seagulls.
I'm struggling to see who legal action benefits to be honest. Even assuming there is sufficient evidence to support what happened to Gwen, I can't imagine anything more coming of this than common assault for the steward himself. Pretty insignificant outcome, and taking action aimed at the club might ultimately result in them declining Gwen's future business - the impact could be greater for her, particularly as she has personal reasons for being attached to her seat.
It would be a lesson for the steward perhaps, but the real issue is that the club saw fit to eject a fan just for displaying a banner. Reading the ground regulations they're worded in a way that gives the club justification for ejecting a fan for just about any reason they see fit, particularly if he failed to comply with the steward's instructions by putting it back up again.
It's all very unreasonable and unfair I know, but personally I think the fans should just go along, hear what they have to say and watch the CCTV. If they feel they've been unfairly treated then perhaps CASTrust and/or the FSF can take things to a more political level - I'm sure Matt Pennycook would have an interest in how the club are behaving given KM's comments to him.
But to be fair, I've no doubt Mick and John will handle it fairly - they're very decent people.
In this case, because you would have a reasonable expectation of not being assaulted in a facility provided by the club, they provide a venue to the public, and take your money to attend, and so have a duty of care (a bit like the signs in car parks not being work the paper they are printed on). Also, despite the stewarding being provided by an agency, I would suggest that the regime is responsible for the behaviour of those employed on their behalf.
To attempt to decline Gwen's future business would be extremely foolish, and would look like discrimination to me (and, dare I say it, the media).
In each case, I would suggest that, while criminal liability may lie with the person(s) actually involved, there would certainly be legal repercussions for the regime and the companies acting on its behalf.
As those who read my earlier post will know, I have no time for these kind of stewards but just trying to understand what happened and why the club are so confident.
it would certainly stop people buying food from the club... hmm, I wonder if CARD could arrange this?
edit: it's a joke btw. I'm not endorsing poisoning.
So the benefit, as is the case in all such matters, is that the legal process is a deterrent. Other stewards will be warned as to their future conduct and will not want to get themselves into a similar situation. Also the club will want to avoid further financial penalty.
Finally the plod will have to think twice before providing backup to the lynch mob.
1) Told the stewards / security officer that having seen the footage, they were satisfied that no offence had been carried out and suggested that Gwen and Gwen Jnr. be allowed back to their seats. The club ultimately rejected this advice.
2) in light of 1), plod strongly recommended that Gwen be allowed back in to fulfil her duties as carer, which the club originally did not want to allow. The club begrudgingly complied.
But to be honest he's a bar steward, so probably won't help.
Take MrBlighs advice Gwen, if you want to take matters further don't go to the club, go to the police.