SaintSam1884 Posted March 29, 2006 Report Share Posted March 29, 2006 My dad received a letter this morning informing him that for the foreseeable future, he was banned from McDiarmid Park. They have banned him on the grounds that he was charged in Inverness - he was not charged, nobody was charged. A few other people, that I know of, were also sent letters this morning. I'm guessing this extends to everybody that was arrested in Inverness which means Saints have banned over 20 people for being charged, when they weren't charged. Saints have lost 20 fans, some fans who have been supporting the club longer than Geoff Brown has owned it for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Wallace Posted March 29, 2006 Report Share Posted March 29, 2006 If indeed the letter states that he has been banned for having been charged in Inverness then he should take legal advice. Different matter if it says it was because he was arrested. At the end of the day the club can ban anyone they want, but for saying he was charged when this was not the case could be deemed to be defamation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lethamsaintee Posted March 29, 2006 Report Share Posted March 29, 2006 things are getting worse, i am ****ing sick of the way our fans are treated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JEccles621 Posted March 29, 2006 Report Share Posted March 29, 2006 All I would say is that judging by the reports of the antics of certain 'fans' in Inverness, the club probably feels 100% justified in taking this type of action. And who can blame them? There is no place for these type of people following St Johnstone and giving the club a bad name. I am sure they wouldn't have banned anyone unless they felt they had sufficient evidence to justify it - otherwise SJFC would be taken to the cleaners. Of course, if your father was not involved, then I'm sure he can context this on the grounds of mistaken identity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintSam1884 Posted March 29, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 29, 2006 If indeed the letter states that he has been banned for having been charged in Inverness then he should take legal advice. Different matter if it says it was because he was arrested. At the end of the day the club can ban anyone they want, but for saying he was charged when this was not the case could be deemed to be defamation. The letter states that because he was charged with breach of the peace in Inverness, the club has banned him from McDiarmid Park for the foreseeable future. Ie - indefinately. However, I spoke to the sergeant of Inverness station who informed me that my dad and the rest of the people arrested with him that day were being released WITHOUT charge. Saints have based the ban on the grounds that they were charged. None of them were. It is yet another absolute stroke of genius from that moron Stewart Duff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dooj Posted March 29, 2006 Report Share Posted March 29, 2006 The letter states that because he was charged with breach of the peace in Inverness, the club has banned him from McDiarmid Park for the foreseeable future. Ie - indefinately. However, I spoke to the sergeant of Inverness station who informed me that my dad and the rest of the people arrested with him that day were being released WITHOUT charge. Saints have based the ban on the grounds that they were charged. None of them were. It is yet another absolute stroke of genius from that moron Stewart Duff. How would Saints know who was arrested/charged/released or involved in any way? Did the Police provide them with a list? Ultimately, isn't it the case that Saints can refuse entry to anyone they want without having to give a reason (just like in pubs)? I am not saying that I agree with them banning anyone, I just think that however unjust it may be perceived to be, they can basically do what they like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lethamsaintee Posted March 29, 2006 Report Share Posted March 29, 2006 we will have no fans at this rate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JEccles621 Posted March 29, 2006 Report Share Posted March 29, 2006 The letter states that because he was charged with breach of the peace in Inverness, the club has banned him from McDiarmid Park for the foreseeable future. Ie - indefinately. However, I spoke to the sergeant of Inverness station who informed me that my dad and the rest of the people arrested with him that day were being released WITHOUT charge. Saints have based the ban on the grounds that they were charged. None of them were. It is yet another absolute stroke of genius from that moron Stewart Duff. If your point relates to 'charged' vs 'arrested' then yes, SJFC should have been more accurate. But as Jimmy Wallace says, the club can ban who they want - and the fact they were all arrested in the first place is probably sufficient grounds. Surely you can't condone their behaviour? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintSam1884 Posted March 29, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 29, 2006 If your point relates to 'charged' vs 'arrested' then yes, SJFC should have been more accurate. But as Jimmy Wallace says, the club can ban who they want - and the fact they were all arrested in the first place is probably sufficient grounds. Surely you can't condone their behaviour? He's my father, he's been supporting Saints for longer than I have been alive, and longer than Geoff Brown/Stewart Duff have ever been associated with the club for. Of course I'm going to contest him being banned. These are 22 paying customers that Saints are flinging out on the basis of charges that don't exist. In any case, my dad will be seeking legal advice on the matter, if not for a quash to the ban but for a full apology on the defamatory statement contained within the letter. That day, he wasn't directly involved in any trouble and he certainly was not charged. They have based the ban on a charge that does not exist, therefore they cannot do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JEccles621 Posted March 29, 2006 Report Share Posted March 29, 2006 He's my father, he's been supporting Saints for longer than I have been alive, and longer than Geoff Brown/Stewart Duff have ever been associated with the club for. Of course I'm going to contest him being banned. These are 22 paying customers that Saints are flinging out on the basis of charges that don't exist. In any case, my dad will be seeking legal advice on the matter, if not for a quash to the ban but for a full apology on the defamatory statement contained within the letter. That day, he wasn't directly involved in any trouble and he certainly was not charged. They have based the ban on a charge that does not exist, therefore they cannot do that. Of course I can understand that you'd defend your father. If he wasn't directly involved in any trouble then he should contest it - and hopefully he'll be successful. But for those who were directly involved...it doesn't matter if they've supported Saints for 22 minutes or 22 years, they claimed to be representing SJFC as 'supporters', so Saints are quite right to decide on whether or not they should be allowed into McD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintSam1884 Posted March 29, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 29, 2006 The point is that there was no trouble that day - two sets of fans shouting at each other in the street, some bottles thrown AT Saints fans. There wasn't sufficient evidence for a charge of breach of the peace yet Saints have banned my dad on the basis that he committed a crime. Hopefully the rest of the people who received letters will also pick up on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Posted March 29, 2006 Report Share Posted March 29, 2006 The point is that there was no trouble that day - two sets of fans shouting at each other in the street, some bottles thrown AT Saints fans. There wasn't sufficient evidence for a charge of breach of the peace yet Saints have banned my dad on the basis that he committed a crime. Hopefully the rest of the people who received letters will also pick up on this. Re-read the letter Sam and make sure it does not say arrested for breach of the peace which, and I am sure Broggy Man will help out here, the police can decide will not go forward to the courts. Your dad will, however, have a record of this on file which means that if he is arrested for any other breach, may be used against him. It would be intersting to know if he was cautioned and told that it would be referred to the Fiscal for consideration as well. As I say, Broggy Man is probably your best source for complete legal advice on here as I am not a qualified solicitor, just feeding back what my legal team are telling me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintSam1884 Posted March 29, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 29, 2006 Re-read the letter Sam and make sure it does not say arrested for breach of the peace which, and I am sure Broggy Man will help out here, the police can decide will not go forward to the courts. Your dad will, however, have a record of this on file which means that if he is arrested for any other breach, may be used against him. It would be intersting to know if he was cautioned and told that it would be referred to the Fiscal for consideration as well. As I say, Broggy Man is probably your best source for complete legal advice on here as I am not a qualified solicitor, just feeding back what my legal team are telling me It says charged. When I spoke to the sergeant in Inverness, he told me my dad was going to be released without charge and we have heard nothing since. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broon Posted March 29, 2006 Report Share Posted March 29, 2006 From my point of view - if these folk were not charged then it sounds VERY harsh. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Saints surely can't justify banning them without any proof or evidence. It seems far more likely that Saints are scared of getting a fine from the SFA or SFL or whoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lethamsaintee Posted March 29, 2006 Report Share Posted March 29, 2006 Of course I can understand that you'd defend your father. If he wasn't directly involved in any trouble then he should contest it - and hopefully he'll be successful. But for those who were directly involved...it doesn't matter if they've supported Saints for 22 minutes or 22 years, they claimed to be representing SJFC as 'supporters', so Saints are quite right to decide on whether or not they should be allowed into McD. but if they havent actually done anything wrong................. just say you were arrested on route to mcdiarmid, in suspicion of being a hoolie, but nothing came of it, how would you feel then being banned? think about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Wallace Posted March 29, 2006 Report Share Posted March 29, 2006 I agree that this does seem very harsh. The club obviously want to be seen to be sending out a warning that such behaviour will not be tolerated, but it is unfair if those being targeted are in fact innocent. I think individual representations to the club from those concerned, with legal backup, would be the most effective way of getting the club to change its mind, whilst still having warned others of the potential consequences of their actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintSam1884 Posted March 29, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 29, 2006 I agree that this does seem very harsh. The club obviously want to be seen to be sending out a warning that such behaviour will not be tolerated, but it is unfair if those being targeted are in fact innocent. I think individual representations to the club from those concerned, with legal backup, would be the most effective way of getting the club to change its mind, whilst still having warned others of the potential consequences of their actions. I'd like to contest something you said earlier. Saints clearly cannot ban anyone on a whim, if and when they feel like it. If they were able to do so, they would've had these people banned a very long time ago. Indeed, two individuals from this group have already served a ban from McDiarmid Park, because they WERE charged. This was a year or so ago. This would be evidence to the suggestion that Saints need solid grounds before they ban people. Stewart Duff was recently quoted in the press as saying he was waiting for these individuals to be brought before the courts so that the club could take action against them. He has now pounced with incorrect facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lethamsaintee Posted March 29, 2006 Report Share Posted March 29, 2006 because he is a dawber Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Wallace Posted March 29, 2006 Report Share Posted March 29, 2006 I'd like to contest something you said earlier. Saints clearly cannot ban anyone on a whim, if and when they feel like it. If they were able to do so, they would've had these people banned a very long time ago. Indeed, two individuals from this group have already served a ban from McDiarmid Park, because they WERE charged. This was a year or so ago. This would be evidence to the suggestion that Saints need solid grounds before they ban people. Stewart Duff was recently quoted in the press as saying he was waiting for these individuals to be brought before the courts so that the club could take action against them. He has now pounced with incorrect facts. I'm not sticking up for the club in any way on this one, from what you say I think they are completely out of order in this case, but they do have the right to refuse anyone they like admission to McD, just as a nightclub has a right not to let you in if you look at the bouncers in a funny way. Lots of entertainment venues (which is what McD is, ha ha) have disclaimers on tickets etc saying "the management retain the right to refuse admission" or suchlike. I never said I agree that this is right, it's just the way it is. Maybe one of our legal experts could explain this in more detail. Where is Broggy Man when you need him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintSam1884 Posted March 29, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 29, 2006 I would've thought so too, JW but Saints have wanted rid of these people for the past couple of seasons now, they could've banned them long before today. I just phoned the procurator fiscals office and they had no record of any charges being laid against my dad. He is going to see his solicitor tomorrow and I am emailing the club on yet another disgusting dismissal of fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hazel1884 Posted March 29, 2006 Report Share Posted March 29, 2006 because he is a dawber A great worthwhile comment to add to the topic! I do not think banning these 20 "casuals" was the right answer, but Saints have obviously talked over this and decided amongst this between the board...it's not a decision Stewart duff can take on and make a decision on single handedly. Whilst i don't want to get involved in this debate too much, i am sure it's not the first (or last!) time some will be arrested with football related incidents! Although i hope to god that Mr Duff hasn't been caught out using the wrong terms and the club faces legal action because of inappropriate wording. Maybe you, Sam, or your dad could write to or phone Stewart Duff and question the letter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintSam1884 Posted March 29, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 29, 2006 A great worthwhile comment to add to the topic! I do not think banning these 20 "casuals" was the right answer, but Saints have obviously talked over this and decided amongst this between the board...it's not a decision Stewart duff can take on and make a decision on single handedly. Whilst i don't want to get involved in this debate too much, i am sure it's not the first (or last!) time some will be arrested with football related incidents! Although i hope to god that Mr Duff hasn't been caught out using the wrong terms and the club faces legal action because of inappropriate wording. Maybe you, Sam, or your dad could write to or phone Stewart Duff and question the letter? I'm not condoning their behaviour, and I hope my dad learns his lesson from this but they have accused him of being a criminal. Others have phoned the club only to be met with rudeness. I will be contacting them myself too, I might even go in in person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perthsaint1884 Posted March 29, 2006 Report Share Posted March 29, 2006 the letter says, acting upon information receiver from the police authorities, st johnstone football club has been advised that, whilst acting with others, you were involved in an incident in inverness which resulted in you being charged with a breach of the peace. Bollocks, i have not heard anything form inverness police on this matter and find it shockin that we have been banned for reasons which are a load of shite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Wallace Posted March 29, 2006 Report Share Posted March 29, 2006 I would've thought so too, JW but Saints have wanted rid of these people for the past couple of seasons now, they could've banned them long before today. I just phoned the procurator fiscals office and they had no record of any charges being laid against my dad. He is going to see his solicitor tomorrow and I am emailing the club on yet another disgusting dismissal of fans. Sam, I would recommend you wait until your dad has seen his solicitor before contacting the club, just so you don't say something you might regret and which might make things worse. I presume the best outcome for your dad and his "co-accused" would be for the club to change their mind and issue an apology. It is possible that if you go in all guns blazing then the stubborn git that is our Managing Director might just dig his heels in even more. As Theodore Roosevelt once said "Speak softly and carry a big stick", the big stick in this case being a sound legal opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintSam1884 Posted March 29, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 29, 2006 Sam, I would recommend you wait until your dad has seen his solicitor before contacting the club, just so you don't say something you might regret and which might make things worse. I presume the best outcome for your dad and his "co-accused" would be for the club to change their mind and issue an apology. It is possible that if you go in all guns blazing then the stubborn git that is our Managing Director might just dig his heels in even more. As Theodore Roosevelt once said "Speak softly and carry a big stick", the big stick in this case being a sound legal opinion. You speak sense. I'm too shy anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts