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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
I very nearly tweeted him in response asking whether he was at all embarrassed about being used as a pawn at the Fans Forum meeting by chairing it on behalf of Katrien. Which pretty much sums his involvement on the whole at the moment.
On the other hand, he's doing his job during difficult times I guess. Still - in his position he should rise above petty tweets; he's not exactly Mr. Popular at the moment.
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.
Comments
Classy.
That's were this all started (or didn't)
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.
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.
They asked Josh to remove it. He did, then put it back up again. His decision to ignore advice given by the Stewards.
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.
Booooooooommmmmm the meetings never change
Let's see if things improve with the new Comms Manager.
I very nearly tweeted him in response asking whether he was at all embarrassed about being used as a pawn at the Fans Forum meeting by chairing it on behalf of Katrien. Which pretty much sums his involvement on the whole at the moment.
On the other hand, he's doing his job during difficult times I guess. Still - in his position he should rise above petty tweets; he's not exactly Mr. Popular at the moment.
'Advice' / orders.
The RIP Lee Rigby flag sat across empty seats in the East last season for a game and no issues
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.