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.
I can't help but think this might have been blown out of proportion. I am, personally, inclined to believe that the Steward didn't, deliberately, punch a women in the face.
It was all too predictable that the club would remove controversial banners. KM has behaved like a spoiled child right from the start, she was never going to make it easy for the fans to belittle her in her own stadium.
Not that I have any reason to stick up for the club but I suspect that had the banner been taken down and given over to the club's representatives at the first time of asking most of what I read on here wouldn't have happened.
I don't think we can wind up the fans into an angry frenzy and encourage them to do things that will antagonise the club and then expect no 'retaliation' from KM or her appointed 'enforcers'.
I would be very interested to see the CCTV footage as, currently, I have no idea what happened in the heat of the moment when emotions were highly charged.
Despite KM's previous I'm inclined to believe that the CCTV footage doesn't look as one sided as many fans assume it is.
I would have thought that seeing the footage should be the first thing that the couple that were evicted should do. They will, probably, give them a better idea as to what their next course of action should be. I would, however, ask to have a copy of my own, opposed to watching it with someone that has a vested interest is encouraging me to withdraw my complaint.
Stewards are not allowed to physically contact and or search a member of the public unless they have an SIA license at bare minimum. A standard "Safety Steward" cannot lay hands on someone, let alone man handle them and or punch someone in the face. Sounds like a power tripping tosser bouncer you'd find at a scummy nightclub.
It also sounds way too far fetched for me to naturally believe it's true. If a steward actually acted like this and on a youngster then its disgusting. If he then found himself in a struggle and, whether intentionally or not, punched a woman in the face....then you just couldn't make it up.
The club could be vicariously liable for the actions of their staff. I hope that all of the cctv evidence remains intact and that suitable action is taken.
Sorry all, but I have an issue with this thread. Apologies in advance if I've missed some confirmed information that contradicts this post, but I haven't read every single post on the thread. I have read quite a few though!
Anyway, here goes: Firstly, when this incident was first reported, lots of people started referring to the man with the banner as a 'lad', implying that he was a youngster. (The context was definitely 'young person' as opposed to 'cheeky chappie'). This despite the fact that at least one witness had already said they estimated his age to be, and I paraphrase, late twenties. Gwen later confirmed that her son is 25. Secondly, I'm now seeing people referring to the steward "punching a woman in the face". Sorry, but that's never been the claim has it? Didn't Gwen say she was hit in the face while they were trying to get to her son? That doesn't mean she was punched, it could mean a stray elbow or any kind of accidental contact. Yes, there may be cause for complaint and if any of the stewards were heavy handed or overly aggressive they need to be dealt with appropriately, but for people to now be reporting a "punch in the face" like it's a fact doesn't sit well with me. If he did actually punch Gwen in the face, that's a different matter, but I haven't seen anything other than chinese whispers to back this up.
One of our strengths in this battle is the fact that the club, and KM in particular have consistently been dishonest or economical with the truth during the current regime's tenure. We need to hold the moral high ground here, so spinning the reporting of incidents in this way makes our case weaker.
I dont foe one min think that the lady was punched, I reckon caught in the face or hit by a flailing arm is far more likely,
The person who hung the banner clearly did so to be antagonist, he was asked to remove it probably got cheeky and the following altercation then ensued,
But so what, unless he was physically aggressive to the steward unless the steward felt in genuine fear of own well being and that of those around him that he had up restrain the fella then the steward has and had no right to touch anyone,
That meeting will be heavily weighted in the way of cafc, it will be the same old bullshit meeting where they want you to admit you were wrong that you won't do it again, that you could face a yr or 2 ban, that it could be not just a cafc ban but a total football banning order, that you are highlighting yourself towards the law enforcement as a potential trouble maker, and that they will hep you convince the police that it was a one off incident, if you suck their bullshit up and apologise whilst accepting cafc acted in a fair Manor, then you will get you St back
Tell them to f##k off, tell them their steward acted way over the top and assaulted you, tell them the ob said you done nothing wrong, tell them your taking it further, and to stick the St up Rd, km, RM s arse
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.
This. Whilst I want the regime out, people are getting carried away and overreacting to everything. Maybe this is deliberate to drive the regime out?
I dont foe one min think that the lady was punched, I reckon caught in the face or hit by a flailing arm is far more likely,
The person who hung the banner clearly did so to be antagonist, he was asked to remove it probably got cheeky and the following altercation then ensued,
But so what, unless he was physically aggressive to the steward unless the steward felt in genuine fear of own well being and that of those around him that he had up restrain the fella then the steward has and had no right to touch anyone,
That meeting will be heavily weighted in the way of cafc, it will be the same old bullshit meeting where they want you to admit you were wrong that you won't do it again, that you could face a yr or 2 ban, that it could be not just a cafc ban but a total football banning order, that you are highlighting yourself towards the law enforcement as a potential trouble maker, and that they will hep you convince the police that it was a one off incident, if you suck their bullshit up and apologise whilst accepting cafc acted in a fair Manor, then you will get you St back
Tell them to f##k off, tell them their steward acted way over the top and assaulted you, tell them the ob said you done nothing wrong, tell them your taking it further, and to stick the St up Rd, km, RM s arse
Walk out of the meeting with your own dignity
I called him a lad as he is half my age. The first steward went down to the "lad" with the banner, there was a few words between them, (I would think, along the lines of you can't hang that banner out). The "lad" then gathered the banner up, he held in his right hand. The "lad" was seating in the second seat in from the gangway, his mum was in the first, there was no one seating behind her, the steward was talking across the back of her. There was another exchange of words between the steward and the "lad" (I would think, along the lines of give me the banner, to which the lad said something to the steward). This caused the steward to try to grabbed him by the scruff of the neck. The lad brushed/ throw the steward arm away instantly. At this point people around began to react to the actions of the steward, he then withdraw from the situation. This followed with a group of stewards (4/5) going down to take the lad out, his mother went with them. I did not see his mum get hit in anyway.
Good for the fella, bit it certainly got the grab squad hard with the chance of picking on someone who the by then realised was in a family unit and wouldnt kick off with them, they love that, those big group of 4 or 5 brokeback mountain cowboy stewards. Feeling all hard and boisterous not knowing If the feelings they have for eachother are more than just male mates doing a job they like or deeper more emotional, that they go into matcho over drive and start getting a bit too into the masculinity over drive, bless them
Good for the fella, bit it certainly got the grab squad hard with the chance of picking on someone who the by then realised was in a family unit and wouldnt kick off with them, they love that, those big group of 4 or 5 brokeback mountain cowboy stewards. Feeling all hard and boisterous not knowing If the feelings they have for eachother are more than just male mates doing a job they like or deeper more emotional, that they go into matcho over drive and start getting a bit too into the masculinity over drive, bless them
I really hope they don't make this sequel, Brokeback Valley.
Reading the above post by guinnessaddick I've got just one question (sorry if it's been asked before): Is it allowed for the security people to take away a banner from a fan? It's a banner not a knife or any other kind of sharp object right? Does the steward have the right to confiscate fans' belongings?
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.
This. Whilst I want the regime out, people are getting carried away and overreacting to everything. Maybe this is deliberate to drive the regime out?
Yes, @McBobbin you've kind of reiterated my point. also apologies @The Organiser I didn't see your post which also makes a similar point to mine.
I can't help but think this might have been blown out of proportion. I am, personally, inclined to believe that the Steward didn't, deliberately, punch a women in the face.
It was all too predictable that the club would remove controversial banners. KM has behaved like a spoiled child right from the start, she was never going to make it easy for the fans to belittle her in her own stadium.
Not that I have any reason to stick up for the club but I suspect that had the banner been taken down and given over to the club's representatives at the first time of asking most of what I read on here wouldn't have happened.
I don't think we can wind up the fans into an angry frenzy and encourage them to do things that will antagonise the club and then expect no 'retaliation' from KM or her appointed 'enforcers'.
I would be very interested to see the CCTV footage as, currently, I have no idea what happened in the heat of the moment when emotions were highly charged.
Despite KM's previous I'm inclined to believe that the CCTV footage doesn't look as one sided as many fans assume it is.
I would have thought that seeing the footage should be the first thing that the couple that were evicted should do. They will, probably, give them a better idea as to what their next course of action should be. I would, however, ask to have a copy of my own, opposed to watching it with someone that has a vested interest is encouraging me to withdraw my complaint.
I think you're right re the punching. Gwen's actual words were "consequently one of the stewards hit me in the face". That sounds like she was caught in the face when they were manhandling her son.
Whilst she probably wasn't deliberately clocked by the steward it still shows that they aren't using due care when carrying on like they're real coppers (which I bet they bloody love) and is beyond belief how behaving like that can be condoned by the club. It sounds like Gwen's face is collateral damage in the clubs desire to stop any sign of protest in the stadium, it's all starting to sound very Blackpool-like.
In my view the first steward is a 'bog standard' steward and should not touch anyone (if I'm wrong here then reading the rest of this paragraph is now pointless). If he thinks someone needs ejecting from the stand (maybe not giving him his banner?) then he should call on the heavy mob who can use 'reasonable force' if necessary (ie grey area). Sadly the bog standard steward seems to have grabbed the lad by the scruff of his neck and hit the woman in the process (I can't image on purpose but because he's not well trained in how to eject someone (because he's not meant to).
The above may be my wrong understanding BUT what I find particularly worrying is that the police had to intervene to allow Gwen back into the stand to return to the vulnerable person she was responsible for.
In my view the first steward is a 'bog standard' steward and should not touch anyone (if I'm wrong here then reading the rest of this paragraph is now pointless). If he thinks someone needs ejecting from the stand (maybe not giving him his banner?) then he should call on the heavy mob who can use 'reasonable force' if necessary (ie grey area). Sadly the bog standard steward seems to have grabbed the lad by the scruff of his neck and hit the woman in the process (I can't image on purpose but because he's not well trained in how to eject someone (because he's not meant to).
The above may be my wrong understanding BUT what I find particularly worrying is that the police had to intervene to allow Gwen back into the stand to return to the vulnerable person she was responsible for.
But we're crossing into the grey area of what is "reasonable". If someone breaks into your house it's definitely reasonable to use physical force to "remove" them.
But is it reasonable to use physical force, which certainly appears to extend to grabbing someone by the neck, to remove them from a football stadium ? Reminder this guy was posing absolutely no physical danger to anyone (in fact, people only started getting hurt when the stewards decided to use force) and his only "crime" was unfurling a very inoffensive banner and, probably, being cheeky/mouthy ?
Reasonableness also requires proportion and the stewards reaction appears, even being as kind to them as possible, to have been completely disproportionate and for that reason it's ridiculous for the club to claim that upon reviewing the evidence they think that no wrong was done.
The banner would have been seen from the control room and a steward would have been tasked with asking for its removal with a warning that if it is displayed again it will be removed. CCTV would then be used to monitor the situation if the banner was then re-hung the control room would make the decision to remove the banner and if there was and resistance a decision would have been made prior to the removal of person/persons involved all followed and monitored on CCTV until the persons were outside the ground. Individuals will then be invited in to discuss the incident and a decision will be made after all assessed
There is no reasonable force that can be used to remove someone from a football ground unless you are assisting or a police officer,
No person gas the right to place any hands upon you to do so, this isn't a bar or night club these people are not bouncers (there is grey area)
Now I believe the Line used by places such as football grounds is reasonable methods that they are trained with upto date documents to prove, I doubt very much before they try to place a hand on you they get out for example form b1234 of the I am a cowboy up the proverbial mountain wanna be,
dated yesterday and describe in detail the techniques going to be used,
Now if someone's reasonable method resulted in am injury occurring the club would wash their hands ofthat person and hang them out to dry If any steward grab squad or student feels threatened by the situation and realises that any escalating show of force will make matters worse, ( what they call a dynamic risk assessment) something they are meant to do before every action they make then they call ob and back up and are there to support the police and be lead by them in their decision making and what's needed
This occasion the bully mug ( i so hope your reading this) deemed the threat level to be Insignificant enough that he will try to get cheap thrills by exercising his power and strength over the fella with the banner
Yet cafc will spin it totally different, but that's the truth of the matter,
Richard Murray has ensured these mugs have been on the payroll for years and no doubt has many copies of the cafc episodes of brokeback Charlton for his own viewing, complaints are just token gestures and a chance for the club to replenish the kleenex
Sounds like a load of bullshit and overreaction then.
Aye, standard practice to be grabbed and removed from your teams stadium because you're draping a flag that is well within the Club's restrictions. Before you mention advertising, they removed the flag within a few seconds of the stewards approaching, so they were now breaking no rules what so ever. Also standard practice for a lady who is caring for a lad to be removed from the stadium and ONLY on Police orders be allowed back in to care for him.
Sounds like a load of bullshit and overreaction then.
Aye, standard practice to be grabbed and removed from your teams stadium because you're draping a flag that is well within the Club's restrictions. Before you mention advertising, they removed the flag within a few seconds of the stewards approaching, so they were now breaking no rules what so ever. Also standard practice for a lady who is caring for a lad to be removed from the stadium and ONLY on Police orders be allowed back in to care for him.
The flag looked bigger than 150 x 150. It was over a paid for advert. It didn't have a fire certificate. It was anti the 'regime'. Nobody got punched in the face. The stewards, like many match day services, are outsourced.
An upsetting incident for all concerned but not the warfare people seek.
The problem I have with regard to flags etc is that nowhere on the club website, either in the terms and conditions of season ticket or in the ground rules does it actually state anything about flags or banners, nor in the ground or outside. Just on some website which I never knew existed and wouldn't even have looked at before all this happened. We often take home made flags, or other flags without being stopped. If they want to enforce this then they should have it clearly stated somewhere. Even Andrews Air Conditioning were not bothered about having their advertising signs covered up
The problem I have with regard to flags etc is that nowhere on the club website, either in the terms and conditions of season ticket or in the ground rules does it actually state anything about flags or banners, nor in the ground or outside. Just on some website which I never knew existed and wouldn't even have looked at before all this happened. We often take home made flags, or other flags without being stopped. If they want to enforce this then they should have it clearly stated somewhere. Even Andrews Air Conditioning were not bothered about having their advertising signs covered up
If your flag didn't have a fire cert then they will get you under section 7 of there ground regulations by saying that you could compromise public safety (see below)
7 The following articles must not be brought within the Ground - knives, fireworks, smoke canisters, air-horns, flares, weapons, dangerous or hazardous items, laser devices, bottles, glass vessels, cans, poles and any article that might be used as a weapon and/or compromise public safety. Any person in possession of such items will be refused entry to the Ground.
IMHO it is harsh but quite a few grounds ask for this and have done for a several years.
But to be fair, I've no doubt Mick and John will handle it fairly - they're very decent people.
john little ? Not in my experience
Agree. I have had dealings with Mr Little and he doesn't do fair unless it makes his life easier. He certainly won't make any personally courageous decisions.
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.
john little ? Not in my experience
Agree. I have had dealings with Mr Little and he doesn't do fair unless it makes his life easier. He certainly won't make any personally courageous decisions.
The problem I have with regard to flags etc is that nowhere on the club website, either in the terms and conditions of season ticket or in the ground rules does it actually state anything about flags or banners, nor in the ground or outside. Just on some website which I never knew existed and wouldn't even have looked at before all this happened. We often take home made flags, or other flags without being stopped. If they want to enforce this then they should have it clearly stated somewhere. Even Andrews Air Conditioning were not bothered about having their advertising signs covered up
If your flag didn't have a fire cert then they will get you under section 7 of there ground regulations by saying that you could compromise public safety (see below)
7 The following articles must not be brought within the Ground - knives, fireworks, smoke canisters, air-horns, flares, weapons, dangerous or hazardous items, laser devices, bottles, glass vessels, cans, poles and any article that might be used as a weapon and/or compromise public safety. Any person in possession of such items will be refused entry to the Ground.
IMHO it is harsh but quite a few grounds ask for this and have done for a several years.
As official flag buyer I know that this is all true and easily checked out. It covers all stadia, many of which are indoors, so non flammable materials are an obvious requirement.
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.
john little ? Not in my experience
Agree. I have had dealings with Mr Little and he doesn't do fair unless it makes his life easier. He certainly won't make any personally courageous decisions.
who we talking about the rapper or Robin Hoods mate?
Comments
It was all too predictable that the club would remove controversial banners. KM has behaved like a spoiled child right from the start, she was never going to make it easy for the fans to belittle her in her own stadium.
Not that I have any reason to stick up for the club but I suspect that had the banner been taken down and given over to the club's representatives at the first time of asking most of what I read on here wouldn't have happened.
I don't think we can wind up the fans into an angry frenzy and encourage them to do things that will antagonise the club and then expect no 'retaliation' from KM or her appointed 'enforcers'.
I would be very interested to see the CCTV footage as, currently, I have no idea what happened in the heat of the moment when emotions were highly charged.
Despite KM's previous I'm inclined to believe that the CCTV footage doesn't look as one sided as many fans assume it is.
I would have thought that seeing the footage should be the first thing that the couple that were evicted should do. They will, probably, give them a better idea as to what their next course of action should be. I would, however, ask to have a copy of my own, opposed to watching it with someone that has a vested interest is encouraging me to withdraw my complaint.
It also sounds way too far fetched for me to naturally believe it's true. If a steward actually acted like this and on a youngster then its disgusting. If he then found himself in a struggle and, whether intentionally or not, punched a woman in the face....then you just couldn't make it up.
http://www.mills-reeve.com/vicarious-liability-for-assault-by-employees-06-09-2014/
Apologies in advance if I've missed some confirmed information that contradicts this post, but I haven't read every single post on the thread. I have read quite a few though!
Anyway, here goes:
Firstly, when this incident was first reported, lots of people started referring to the man with the banner as a 'lad', implying that he was a youngster. (The context was definitely 'young person' as opposed to 'cheeky chappie'). This despite the fact that at least one witness had already said they estimated his age to be, and I paraphrase, late twenties. Gwen later confirmed that her son is 25.
Secondly, I'm now seeing people referring to the steward "punching a woman in the face". Sorry, but that's never been the claim has it? Didn't Gwen say she was hit in the face while they were trying to get to her son? That doesn't mean she was punched, it could mean a stray elbow or any kind of accidental contact. Yes, there may be cause for complaint and if any of the stewards were heavy handed or overly aggressive they need to be dealt with appropriately, but for people to now be reporting a "punch in the face" like it's a fact doesn't sit well with me. If he did actually punch Gwen in the face, that's a different matter, but I haven't seen anything other than chinese whispers to back this up.
One of our strengths in this battle is the fact that the club, and KM in particular have consistently been dishonest or economical with the truth during the current regime's tenure. We need to hold the moral high ground here, so spinning the reporting of incidents in this way makes our case weaker.
In my humble opinion.
The person who hung the banner clearly did so to be antagonist, he was asked to remove it probably got cheeky and the following altercation then ensued,
But so what, unless he was physically aggressive to the steward unless the steward felt in genuine fear of own well being and that of those around him that he had up restrain the fella then the steward has and had no right to touch anyone,
That meeting will be heavily weighted in the way of cafc, it will be the same old bullshit meeting where they want you to admit you were wrong that you won't do it again, that you could face a yr or 2 ban, that it could be not just a cafc ban but a total football banning order, that you are highlighting yourself towards the law enforcement as a potential trouble maker, and that they will hep you convince the police that it was a one off incident, if you suck their bullshit up and apologise whilst accepting cafc acted in a fair Manor, then you will get you St back
Tell them to f##k off, tell them their steward acted way over the top and assaulted you, tell them the ob said you done nothing wrong, tell them your taking it further, and to stick the St up Rd, km, RM s arse
Walk out of the meeting with your own dignity
The first steward went down to the "lad" with the banner, there was a few words between them, (I would think, along the lines of you can't hang that banner out). The "lad" then gathered the banner up, he held in his right hand. The "lad" was seating in the second seat in from the gangway, his mum was in the first, there was no one seating behind her, the steward was talking across the back of her. There was another exchange of words between the steward and the "lad" (I would think, along the lines of give me the banner, to which the lad said something to the steward). This caused the steward to try to grabbed him by the scruff of the neck. The lad brushed/ throw the steward arm away instantly. At this point people around began to react to the actions of the steward, he then withdraw from the situation. This followed with a group of stewards (4/5) going down to take the lad out, his mother went with them. I did not see his mum get hit in anyway.
I will be a witness should this go further.
Whilst she probably wasn't deliberately clocked by the steward it still shows that they aren't using due care when carrying on like they're real coppers (which I bet they bloody love) and is beyond belief how behaving like that can be condoned by the club. It sounds like Gwen's face is collateral damage in the clubs desire to stop any sign of protest in the stadium, it's all starting to sound very Blackpool-like.
The above may be my wrong understanding BUT what I find particularly worrying is that the police had to intervene to allow Gwen back into the stand to return to the vulnerable person she was responsible for.
But is it reasonable to use physical force, which certainly appears to extend to grabbing someone by the neck, to remove them from a football stadium ? Reminder this guy was posing absolutely no physical danger to anyone (in fact, people only started getting hurt when the stewards decided to use force) and his only "crime" was unfurling a very inoffensive banner and, probably, being cheeky/mouthy ?
Reasonableness also requires proportion and the stewards reaction appears, even being as kind to them as possible, to have been completely disproportionate and for that reason it's ridiculous for the club to claim that upon reviewing the evidence they think that no wrong was done.
No person gas the right to place any hands upon you to do so, this isn't a bar or night club these people are not bouncers (there is grey area)
Now I believe the Line used by places such as football grounds is reasonable methods that they are trained with upto date documents to prove, I doubt very much before they try to place a hand on you they get out for example form b1234 of the I am a cowboy up the proverbial mountain wanna be,
dated yesterday and describe in detail the techniques going to be used,
Now if someone's reasonable method resulted in am injury occurring the club would wash their hands ofthat person and hang them out to dry
If any steward grab squad or student feels threatened by the situation and realises that any escalating show of force will make matters worse, ( what they call a dynamic risk assessment) something they are meant to do before every action they make then they call ob and back up and are there to support the police and be lead by them in their decision making and what's needed
This occasion the bully mug ( i so hope your reading this) deemed the threat level to be Insignificant enough that he will try to get cheap thrills by exercising his power and strength over the fella with the banner
Yet cafc will spin it totally different, but that's the truth of the matter,
Richard Murray has ensured these mugs have been on the payroll for years and no doubt has many copies of the cafc episodes of brokeback Charlton for his own viewing, complaints are just token gestures and a chance for the club to replenish the kleenex
An upsetting incident for all concerned but not the warfare people seek.
7 The following articles must not be brought within the Ground - knives, fireworks, smoke canisters, air-horns, flares, weapons, dangerous or hazardous items, laser devices, bottles, glass vessels, cans, poles and any article that might be used as a weapon and/or compromise public safety. Any person in possession of such items will be refused entry to the Ground.
IMHO it is harsh but quite a few grounds ask for this and have done for a several years.