Just one of a number of events. 2:30 Saturday outside Parkers. It is an open invitation for anyone against 'bubble' restrictions to peacefully protest the issue. CLICK for more information. please log in to view this image
I am in favour of opposing the bubble, but I am no sure that supporting the fsf is such a good idea. They clearly have discriminatory policies against some football supporters. Under the terms of the open letter (signed up to by people and organisations which do not represent me) What happened to those Hull City fans travelling to Burnley is exactly the kind of thing that they support and endorse. I do not.
Did you mention their city is gun capital of the UK? They seemed a bit soft when i read their board yesterday.
It'd make it look a lot more powerful if opposition fans are involved too. One set of fans doesn't mean so much, we might just be ****s. If there's two different teams there who are opposing in the day's match it shows football is United on the subject.
Try your contacts in the scooter world OLM. A couple of hundred of those Forest lads have scooters. http://www.facebook.com/?ref=tn_tnmn#!/groups/164346836918008/?fref=ts http://www.facebook.com/?ref=tn_tnmn#!/groups/192731684105948/?fref=ts
You said that on the other thread and I explained where you had misunderstood what was put. Why are you choosing to repeat it now? Just to clarify again. The FSF (and the other groups) do NOT support the actions taken against the fans on route to Barnsley. They DO support evidence based targeted action against risk supporters. The consequence of the 'evidence based' bit is that there would rarely, if ever, be an occasion where actions would occur. The whinging of an unprofessional, anti-football bus driver doesn't count as evidence.
I think the protest should start at 2.00pm. 2.30pm is too late and will cause problems at the turnstiles resulting in many not seeing the start of the Home game where we do not have any issues and as Notts Forest are bringing 3,500 the Tigers will need all our support from the start. We need to protest lawfully to support the cause and potential problems at the turnstiles should be avoided.
*Burnley even. The point is the WYP will take the drivers word every time. The evidence is, the driver took it upon himself to ring his boss who contacted the police. What do you think they will write down and salt away for further use? "They were a jolly nice bunch of blokes and we got this one wrong" I doubt it. You are still bleating on about how they support the persecution of risk supporters. Wake up fukwit, they are talking about you and monday night demonstrates this quite clearly.
I understand the protest walk behind the banner through the park to the stadium will take place at 2.30 for media photographers, protestors should obviously assemble just before 2.30, I'm sure organisors will clarify this but get down there its important.
I don't know how many different ways I can expalin this before one of them sinks in, but the FSF DO NOT SUPPORT POLICE RANDOMLY ABUSING FANS FREEDOMS. THE POLICE ON MONDAY NIGHT DID NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THE DRIVER AS NOT ONE SINGLE ARREST WAS MADE. At least one Humberside Police Officer has provided information to support the fans claims and discredit those of the driver.
WHAT discrimination? I agree with the FSF, Supporters Club etc that actions by the Police that delay the freedoms of innocent fans, is wrong. On Monday, the Police received a call from a coach driver. They (correctly) responded to the call and on finding nothing, did nothing. Perhaps they should have charged the driver with wasting their time, but certainly they should have delayed the fans no more than was necessary to determine the facts. Having held them up for no reason, the Police should have got them to the game ASAP instead of seemingly being arseholes and holding them up because they can. The bus company should look at their recruitment policy or at least the allocation of drivers to events. What you seem to be getting confused about is the bit that says they have no problem with targetting 'risk supporters' (that's not people that sing, that's people who are braking the law) based on hard evidence. I which case, I agree with that position as it means the Police can focus on law breakers and leave the rest of us to at least act like mature adults. With the stipulation for clear evidence, unless there's a bus load of people on banning orders I can't really see any situation where the Police would have evidence to restrict travel.
Well Dutch, seems it is worthy of much further discussion. The point I am getting at is the police can decide people are "risk supporters" at random. This is either all equal under the law or not at all. Just my take on it. Maybe you should try and arrange a public meeting for interested parties?
The point is NO they can't define what a 'risk supporter' is to suit their own ends. That's why the FSF are making the statement they are, and that you seem to be confused about. It's why I highlighted the stipulation about it being 'evidence based'.
OK I don't know if this is the right thread but I think I understand your point B2W What exactly is a "risk" supporter and how is this determined ? Yes , I am a bit uncomfortable with that as well
YES and thats the big problem and issue i have with it. If anything kicks off then the WYP will have made there point and be justified in the draconian actions being taken. Its a Hull City problem and should IMO be kept to Tigers fans only. With a bit of luck the protest will be featured on the FLS on saturday night.
