The Club Agreeing with The Police on the Huddersfield Fixture

My plans remain the same anyway. We're having a drink somewhere in the West Yorks area with some leeds and Huddersfield fans. I guess it's possible we could end up walking the same way as other people in Huddersfield at around 2:30, but we're also thinking of heading to leeds.

 

The FSF were talking to WYP about the march before that. I assume the fact we've now publically announced there will be one means we've been given permission to do it, otherwise the club is running the risk of arrest. Whilst it would be brilliant for publicity if the club were charged with that offence, I doubt they'd be taking the risk. It would be really good to see the headlines showing the police taking action because a professional football club told their fans to complain about the police though.

 

So West Yorkshire Police can't cope with a specific number of people heading to a specific point at a specific time but they reckon they CAN cope with the same people plus extras going to a variety of undisclosed locations at unknown times.

Who is in overall control of UK Policing? They need these Keystone Cops bringing to their attention.

 

I'll send one myself anyway, but I reckon one of the wordsmiths on here could manage far better in bringing this farce to the attention of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabularies. http://www.hmic.gov.uk/

[email protected]

[email protected]

We can't go to the game because some wessie ****wit has arbitrarily decided, without evidence, we could end up in a pub first. We can however go to Huddersfield and drink in pubs and march through the town to the ground, as long as we don't go to the game.

Good coppering that Officer.

 

Every PC that you see at football costs £52.50 per hour for a minimum of 6 hours. All of which is chargeable to the club.

 

If they're in the stadium and stadium property. They can't bill the club for officers for the policing of general areas. This is what Leeds were in court with WYP about.

 

I understand the nature of the dispute. There is no requirement in law for the football club to pay for the provision of SPS special police services, but if the police determine that there is a sufficiently high element of risk, they can prevent the fixture going ahead.
They have the ability to call off the match if they believe that there will be insuffient officers available. This is the nature of the compromise. The problem is in reality who assesses the level of risk and in doing so who sets the cost. It is wrong to have the assessment conducted by the same group who levy the charge and that is why the Safety Advisory Group is in place. But as this only accepts evidence from the police force that levies the charge it is flawed.
Football clubs cannot challenge the Police as they do not have the "risk intelligence"
The Leeds argument as I read it was that they pay for the full cost of policing their fixtures and that any additional cost not in the stadium footprint and not covered in the existing guidelines (such as parading from and to a train station) cannot by levied. The fact is that in reality (in West Yorkshire) there is often an overlap and it could be that Leeds paid for the Policing of Huddersfield fans and as such the charge is unfair. The same problem does happen in every region.
My complaint is that I am labeled as a risk, just on the assessment of WYP and only because it gives WYP the justification for there actions and the extra charges.

 

As much as I disagree with the decisions of WYP, I believe the preceeding arguments should take into account:

1. The body that would take final responsibility for any eventual calamity should have the final say on how to prevent that calamity. I believe that body is WYP.
2. Everyone, FSF, Clubs, WYP, seem to be following due process; what finally transpires will depend hugely on turn- out, attitude and organisation. We have seen too many peaceful demonstrations hijacked by outside groups either for their own political gain or just for the he'll of mayhem; I really hope this doesn't turn out to be one of them - it becomes increasingly difficult to read of someone's intentions where drink is not involved.
3. If, just if, something bad happens, will it then be thought constructive and worthwhile?

 

Focusing on point three, I have a feeling, that IF anything does happen now, it will be the small minority who try and cause something just to try and piss WYP off.. There're always small minded idiots like that who don't think of the long term affect.

 

WYP need to provide clear evidence to support their ridiculous infringements because without that, they look inadequate and not fit for purpose.

In the unlikely event of trouble, I would expect phone cams uploaded straight to youtube to show clear and unnecessary provocation from WYP

Anyone who genuinely fears trouble needs to be in Huddersfield to make sure they see first hand where the cause of any problem rests.

Suggestions that a 'rowdy' element may cause trouble are merely confirming the Police actions. That's not sticking my head in the sand, I'm fully aware that the situation generated by WYP incompetence and lies is one that some may now take advantage of. In the unlikely event there's trouble we need to make sure that version is the one the media gets, not some Hillsboroughesque white wash from WYP.

 

I think the talk of potential trouble is playing into WYP hands, but as some see it as an issue is it too late to organise arm bands and appoint our own march marshals?

 

I just love the irony of WYP, because of invented fears of alcohol related issues, putting restrictions on an event at the John Smiths Stadium.

I wonder if John Smiths would care to comment.

 

Completely agree with you but the problem with that last line is, regardless of who is to blame, any trouble at all will be blamed on Hull and be used as justification by the WYP of their actions, and that's my main concern. We really need to try our best to ensure that any potential arseholes from Hull are kept quiet. Not sure how we'd do that tbh.

 

I completely agree with Fez's concerns that if this protest does have any incidents at all then it will be seen as justification.
In another thread I suggested self stewarding but it hardly raised a response, so apathy will prevail as far as DMDs suggestion goes.

We have to get point across that WYP are using their own "risk intelligence" to raise funds, nothing else simply that! Just the same as placing "safety cameras" on roads that have never had any accidents on them this is simply a money making exercise. We get labled as high risk now and that increases our home fixture costs at any time that the "risk intelligence " is shared with Humberside. Hampshire use this method for Portsmouth and Southampton matches as there is genuine history of trouble involving both sets of fans, including what can only be discribed as small scale rioting. Yet their action had to be seen as justified before it was accepted by the clubs. In our case there is no justification as the changes are only due to the timing being changed.

 

I don't agree with this idea that if there is trouble, it proves the police right.

Surely if anything it would prove that their heavy-handedness has caused the trouble, which based on all evidence, would not have occurred without it.

 

The press release would say something like... We had intelligence that this fixture was likely to result in trouble. Hence we took the decision to impose restrictions. Notwithstanding those restrictions many supporters from Hull who did not have tickets travelled to Huddersfield and watched the match in the local pubs.

WYP officers had cause to arrest x number of Hull City supporters for [insert offences].

For the vast majority of the non-Hull City supporters who were not there, they will just see that the WYP suspected trouble from us, and that they were right because they had to make arrests

 

Just to make sure I am not misrepresented again, I would make it clear that I believe the actions and measures taken by WYP are not only Draconian, but, potentially, provocative to public order. I do not and have not stated or inferred that I believe Tigers supporters will be involved in any trouble, but the streets and attendance is beyond our control and awareness; folk in drink environments all too easily become embroiled, sometimes by choice from provocation, sometimes by a lack of options.

I do find it judgmental that there seems to be a pre-conceived thought that it will be WYP who will provoke any trouble; that was not my line of thinking and although it may happen, I have no reason to suspect it – they are just as much under the microscope as we are. I think WYP have made a gross error of judgment and I totally agree that this is a strategic move based on future budgetary implications – in other words, we have become a pawn in other things; the problem being they underestimated the weight of response. I think it can be guaranteed that there will be no shortage of cameras present, from various factions; that can be helpful, or maybe not.

My concern is that other factions: mischievous RL fans, football extremists, anarchists and simple ne’er-do-wells, could see an opportunity to add a different aspect to the bandwagon by hijacking the cameras, at the very least. Nothing is for sure, but it sure is a real and problematic risk to our clubs credibility in this matter – the WYP have already lost theirs, why gamble with ours?

Do the march and then get out of town; into Leeds , back to Hull, whatever, but take our colours and reputation out of harms reach as the job will be done and we would adopt the high moral ground. The march will be well observed, but afterwards will not be and that is where we may come unstuck.

If need be let the HTFC supporters pass on the banner so our supporters can get to the Services on time – that in itself would be a good self-serving action that would emphasise the unity of football supporters. Perhaps not the answer, but it is an option.