Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Options

Outrageous behaviour from our stewards today.

11315171819

Comments

  • Options
    edited February 2016
    Addickted said:

    it's as if someone has got to them. (mob style)

    Or more likely, the CCTV didn't back up the way the story was originally represented both on here and on FB.

    I don't know. these conspiracies could be true. look at Reza getting a 7 year contract, I got a feeling his family own oil reserves on their land in Iran where Reza is prince to his people. Roland gets free petrol and keeps Reza's people happy.
  • Options
    So they completely exaggerated/made up bits of what happened, and in fact it was the son being rude to the steward that was the worst part of the whole thing.

    Classy.
  • Options
    Absolutely hilarious
  • Options
    edited February 2016

    Punch them in the face if they do it again.

    Who, Gwen and her kids ?

    That's were this all started (or didn't)
  • Options
    Is it still "Banner Day" on saturday?
  • Options
    That's pretty much exactly what I saw happen.
  • Options
    Let's not go the other way now. No-one's the devil here. Away from the heat of the situation things are clearer than they were, important to say as things were getting out of hand. End of story.
  • Options
    Did Josh get his season ticket returned to him?
  • Options
    Yes.
  • Sponsored links:


  • Options
    Completely opposite to what we were orginally lead to believe. Its made us all look a little stupid fpr our reactions.
  • Options
    aliwibble said:

    So they completely exaggerated/made up bits of what happened, and in fact it was the son being rude to the steward that was the worst part of the whole thing.

    Classy.

    Oh come on, don't be daft. Do a bit of reading between the lines here.
    Why? A complete U turn on what we were lead to believe.

    The steward didn't aggressively throw anyone out.
    The steward didn't punch a lady in the head.
    The bloke in question, Josh, abused the steward.

    If the stewards are in the wrong I would be the first to encourage going after them for whatever they have done. But to simply make stuff up to make them sound bad is pretty low.

    Anyway, it's happened, everyone's apologised. Moving on.
  • Options
    aliwibble said:

    So they completely exaggerated/made up bits of what happened, and in fact it was the son being rude to the steward that was the worst part of the whole thing.

    Classy.

    Oh come on, don't be daft. Do a bit of reading between the lines here.
    Yes I agree. All sorted.....
  • Options
    Gwen said:

    Hi, I am the mum in question and Josh my son is 25. I also take a young lad who is in residential care to the games who was sitting right next to my son. The first steward grabbed the banner - did not ask for it, and when my son reacted that he was a jobsworth he went off and then came the reinforcements. at the time it seemed like there were loads, they grabbed my son by the neck and tried to haul him out over me and consequently one of the stewards hit me in the face. They were trying to get my son done on an assault charge as one of the stewards claimed that he had assaulted him but the resulting cctv showed that my son had done no wrong, no lifting of hands to ward them off etc and the police said that as he had clearly done nothing wrong why couldnt he be let back in - stewards said no! they said it was because it had been covering advertising but if you look at the photos it barely covers the A of Andrews. but that was not the real reason it was because a certain person had told the club security that if any banners were shown that the owners had to be ejected. I wasnt ejected due to the fact that I had to go back to the young lad I was looking after - the police intervened in that. I will definitely be taking this further no doubt about that - they dont know me once I am riled, as i will not leave it be. At no time until we were in the foyer did they say it was about covering advertising

    Is actually what Gwen said......... and got a 'Promote' for.

  • Options

    The fact remains though that the club ordered a perfectly non-offensive flag to be removed.

    Banners are not allowed to cover advertising hoardings. It was.

    They asked Josh to remove it. He did, then put it back up again. His decision to ignore advice given by the Stewards.

  • Options
    edited February 2016
    Addickted said:

    The fact remains though that the club ordered a perfectly non-offensive flag to be removed.

    Banners are not allowed to cover advertising hoardings. It was.

    They asked Josh to remove it. He did, then put it back up again. His decision to ignore advice given by the Stewards.

    from what I saw it was bigger than 150 x 150 (4 and half foot square)
  • Sponsored links:


  • Options

    aliwibble said:

    aliwibble said:

    So they completely exaggerated/made up bits of what happened, and in fact it was the son being rude to the steward that was the worst part of the whole thing.

    Classy.

    Oh come on, don't be daft. Do a bit of reading between the lines here.
    Why? A complete U turn on what we were lead to believe.

    The steward didn't aggressively throw anyone out.
    The steward didn't punch a lady in the head.
    The bloke in question, Josh, abused the steward.

    If the stewards are in the wrong I would be the first to encourage going after them for whatever they have done. But to simply make stuff up to make them sound bad is pretty low.

    Anyway, it's happened, everyone's apologised. Moving on.
    If you compare the statement to Gwen's original comment here (http://forum.charltonlife.com/discussion/comment/2383145/#Comment_2383145), it's not remotely a complete U-turn.

    1) Gwen's initial description gave the impression he was taken out mob-handed, which appears not to have been the case from the statement. However, if the whole process was as calm and controlled as they seem to be making out, how did the steward manage to whackknock her in the face? And at least one person here says they saw the steward grab Josh, not just place an arm on his shoulder.

    2) Gwen never said she was punched in the face, she said she was hit in the face. The statement casts it as being knocked in the face, but that isn't inconsistent with what she said, just sounds less dramatic.

    3) Gwen said Josh called the steward a jobsworth, which might be considered being verbally abusive, so again, not inconsistent with the statement but hardly the worst thing in the world.

    This has all the hallmarks of "sign this interpretation of events that stops the club looking bad, and you can have your season ticket back". Hence the no further comment from Gwen and Josh.

    Definite cover up. Football clubs love pulling up all the ground regulations and twisting things to make you look 100% in the wrong. After 10 minutes you think you're the devil and owe them an apology and grovel for your ST as they start dropping hints about banning you for the rest of the season.
    So you've seen the CCTV of the incident as well?

  • Options

    aliwibble said:

    aliwibble said:

    So they completely exaggerated/made up bits of what happened, and in fact it was the son being rude to the steward that was the worst part of the whole thing.

    Classy.

    Oh come on, don't be daft. Do a bit of reading between the lines here.
    Why? A complete U turn on what we were lead to believe.

    The steward didn't aggressively throw anyone out.
    The steward didn't punch a lady in the head.
    The bloke in question, Josh, abused the steward.

    If the stewards are in the wrong I would be the first to encourage going after them for whatever they have done. But to simply make stuff up to make them sound bad is pretty low.

    Anyway, it's happened, everyone's apologised. Moving on.
    If you compare the statement to Gwen's original comment here (http://forum.charltonlife.com/discussion/comment/2383145/#Comment_2383145), it's not remotely a complete U-turn.

    1) Gwen's initial description gave the impression he was taken out mob-handed, which appears not to have been the case from the statement. However, if the whole process was as calm and controlled as they seem to be making out, how did the steward manage to whackknock her in the face? And at least one person here says they saw the steward grab Josh, not just place an arm on his shoulder.

    2) Gwen never said she was punched in the face, she said she was hit in the face. The statement casts it as being knocked in the face, but that isn't inconsistent with what she said, just sounds less dramatic.

    3) Gwen said Josh called the steward a jobsworth, which might be considered being verbally abusive, so again, not inconsistent with the statement but hardly the worst thing in the world.

    This has all the hallmarks of "sign this interpretation of events that stops the club looking bad, and you can have your season ticket back". Hence the no further comment from Gwen and Josh.

    Definite cover up. Football clubs love pulling up all the ground regulations and twisting things to make you look 100% in the wrong. After 10 minutes you think you're the devil and owe them an apology and grovel for your ST as they start dropping hints about banning you for the rest of the season.
    was you there?
  • Options
    cafckev said:

    Completely opposite to what we were orginally lead to believe. Its made us all look a little stupid fpr our reactions.

    It only makes you look stupid if you comment on an incident based on rumour

  • Options
    PeterGage said:

    cafckev said:

    Completely opposite to what we were orginally lead to believe. Its made us all look a little stupid fpr our reactions.

    It only makes you look stupid if you comment on an incident based on rumour

    Problem is the communication from the Club is so bad, all we seem to be getting is 'rumours'.

    Let's see if things improve with the new Comms Manager.

  • Options
    edited February 2016
    Addickted said:

    The fact remains though that the club ordered a perfectly non-offensive flag to be removed.

    Banners are not allowed to cover advertising hoardings. It was.

    They asked Josh to remove it. He did, then put it back up again. His decision to ignore advice given by the Stewards.

    So if he'd just held it up or put it over some seats it would have been allowed to stay?

    'Advice' / orders.
  • Options
    Addickted said:

    The fact remains though that the club ordered a perfectly non-offensive flag to be removed.

    Banners are not allowed to cover advertising hoardings. It was.

    They asked Josh to remove it. He did, then put it back up again. His decision to ignore advice given by the Stewards.

    what about if a banner was spread across empty seats?
  • Options

    Addickted said:

    The fact remains though that the club ordered a perfectly non-offensive flag to be removed.

    Banners are not allowed to cover advertising hoardings. It was.

    They asked Josh to remove it. He did, then put it back up again. His decision to ignore advice given by the Stewards.

    what about if a banner was spread across empty seats?
    Depends on its size (certificates etc) and its nature / 'message'

    The RIP Lee Rigby flag sat across empty seats in the East last season for a game and no issues
  • Options
    PL54 said:

    Addickted said:

    The fact remains though that the club ordered a perfectly non-offensive flag to be removed.

    Banners are not allowed to cover advertising hoardings. It was.

    They asked Josh to remove it. He did, then put it back up again. His decision to ignore advice given by the Stewards.

    what about if a banner was spread across empty seats?
    Depends on its size (certificates etc) and its nature / 'message'

    The RIP Lee Rigby flag sat across empty seats in the East last season for a game and no issues
    Let's be fair, the nature of the banners in question is never going to be allowed in the ground either - be they 1.49m x 1.49m or 14.9m x 14.9m! This is pretty understandable from the point of view of those who currently own the club, and they've even spelled it out pretty clearly in the ground regulations.

    Yes, it's frustrating. Yes, it also seems unfair considering this is how a large number of fans actually feel about the current ownership.

    However they do own the club and it's within their interests to not give a platform to those who are demanding that they relinquish control.

    If people want a Banner Day I'd most likely join in because, as has been stated, there's only so many people you can throw out. That said - where possible they will remove banners.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!