Last week Burnley FC announced that 19 people had been given life bans from Turf Moor following convictions for football related offences. Somewhere over 150 people are apparently now banned for life from Turf Moor.
In the main, feedback seems to have been positive, both to the bans themselves and to the fact that the club have made such a public announcement. Clearly, given that so many people are banned from Turf Moor, they haven't always seen the need to go public in the past. That they do so now may be partly in response to supporters' clubs such as ours and web sites such as this one, which have called on the club to take a more public stance on racism.
So, it's hats off to Burnley FC?
Well, yes and no. For a start, let me make clear that I approve of the strongest action being taken against racist chanting. There simply shouldn’t be a place for it at the match, and Burnley FC are to be commended for making that clear. If people now think twice before voicing a racist comment – comments which have the power to ruin the match for a good many – then all the better.
I would be suspicious of anyone who attempts to defend the rights of those convicted of racist abuse to keep attending matches. They should be interrogated closely about the basis on which they find the expression of racist views acceptable. Such people are suspicious by association.
Attempts by Burnley’s BNP co-ordinator Steven Smith to query bans for racist chanting are laughable. You’d think someone
recently convicted of electoral fraud would try to keep a low profile, but there you go. Presumably he thinks people convicted of racism should be free to go to matches, where presumably they can express their racist views again and again? Don’t mistake this for a freedom of speech issue, by the way. There are no absolute freedoms in society, and we all accept curbs on ‘freedoms to’ in order that we can have ‘freedoms from’. Otherwise, it’s okay for me to burgle your house.
Similarly, I guess, violence and affray should be punished. They sound bad, those words, although obviously I’m not privy to the particular ins and outs of each offence.
I am concerned about some of the other offences for which people, having been convicted, have now been given life bans. Drunkenness, for example, I worry about. Now, it is against the law to be drunk in a football ground. You can get arrested for it, and if arrested you can get convicted and fined. It’s tough luck if you do, but if you do get unlucky, we assume your bad fortune will now extend to being banned from Turf Moor for the rest of your life. Yes, you’ve broken the law, yes you’ve been convicted, but doesn’t this seem harsh?
As I say, I don’t know the particular circumstances of the arrests, convictions and bannings, and that information is really no one’s business other than the club and the people concerned. I can only comment on generalities. It’s just that there are quite a lot of people I know who regularly flout the law by entering football grounds after having a substantial amount to drink. There are members of the London Clarets. There are people who report on matches for this site. They include me. I would dispute whether I’ve been properly drunk at a football match on more than a handful of occasions, but I regularly go to games having drunk six or so pints of beer, which I assume would make me fail any sort of breathalyser test going. A policeman would have grounds for deciding I was drunk, and I assume his word would count.
I can immediately think of one person I know who was convicted of being drunk at a football match a few years back. He did the sensible thing – pleaded guilty, paid his fine. If the current regime had been in charge then, he would now be permanently excluded from Turf Moor.
Personally, I like drinking. I’m good at it. I like socialising with football supporters before the game. I like visiting new pubs at away games. I enjoy the way an exciting game can sober me up. I think I’m in control and I don’t see why I should give up one important part of my day out. But all it takes, I suppose, is one bored policeman.
And this concerns me. I do not know anyone who has supported football for any length of time who has not at some point
or other had an altercation with the law. At some time, it seems the lot of any match going football fan is to pushed
around by a copper. We’ve all got on the wrong side of the law for no good reason, and that could lead all the way to a
life ban from Turf Moor. Even people who don’t drink aren’t immune – see our report of the Preston home match last season.
That didn’t result in an arrest, but what if it had? Then I think of the match at Cardiff the other season where, on the
forced march to the station and unlawful imprisonment outside the station, quite a few of us were explicitly told we would
be arrested if we didn’t do exactly what the police told us to.
Ultimately, we’re left relying on the police, who can’t be trusted, and on the courts, which make mistakes, if no one
is going to be banned from Turf Moor unfairly. And with Burnley, it seems, there’s no right of appeal.
As I say, I think you’d be unlucky to get caught for drunkenness. Normally, it’s only an issue if you get caught for doing something else. If your drunkenness leads to violence, for example, or threatening behaviour. In which case, fair enough, probably. Perhaps that was the case with people receiving those latest bans. If so, I’m barking up the wrong tree.
Except I can recall a heated argument on the old Longside terrace that once led to me having my hands around my adversary's throat. Violence? Well yes, I suppose. It’s a game of strong passions.
The lack of discretion is the problem with zero tolerance, as practised by Burnley FC. It imposes a uniform punishment when the crimes aren’t uniform. Some offences are just worse than others. And it is logically nonsensical to apply zero tolerance at the stage they do. If you have zero tolerance, you have to have a uniform approach to policing, arrests and conviction. You can’t suddenly apply zero tolerance at the punishment stage of a system riddled with inconsistencies and variations. It’s like giving everyone convicted of any crime the same sentence; what you should be doing is making sure that everyone committing a particular crime is dealt with in the same way.
We all know, as football supporters, that some police forces are worse than others. Something that might not be considered serious in one region might be pounced on in another. And sure, you’d be unlucky to get done just for drunkenness, but on one day in one particular town they might be getting tough, because of something that happened there that has nothing to do with you. On another day in another place, you might walk free.
One of the people given a life ban from Turf Moor invaded the pitch at the end of the Preston home game. You might think this is fair enough. Personally I don’t, and I think we all get far too wound up about pitch invasions these days. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with a good old-fashioned pitch invasion, and I think people are smart enough to tell the difference between a friendly pitch invasion and one with a violent intent. We even have fond memories of some pitch invasions. Ah, remember that night at York in 1992? Compared to, say, people throwing things, I don’t think it’s serious.
But if you disagree with me, then you surely have to take the view that all pitch invasions must be punished equally. So how come a man who invaded the pitch at home against Preston apparently got a life ban, while the sizeable number who ran on at the end of the Coventry game were shown back to their seats? Why aren’t they now banned from Turf Moor? Because there were too many of them? So you can get away with something if enough of you do it?
Is that why there was never any action taken over the disgusting ‘town full of pakis’ chant at Ewood Park?
In applying equal punishment to unequal crimes, it seems we’re back to the old days of ‘racism and foul language’.
Remember that? The club tried to issue a strong statement about racism. They so nearly got it right. But they muddled up their condemnation of racism with an equally strong attack on something called ‘foul language’ and immediately weakened their case. Then, as now, I felt they should focus on racism: we know what it is, we know it's wrong, and there will be a lot of support. You may wish people didn’t swear at football matches – although I don’t – but this should never have been presented as an offence equivalent to racism. They threatened a life ban then, too.
Now, are we repeating this mistake by saying that running on the pitch of even having a pint too many is as bad as racism?
I do worry that the club are trying to sanitise the already atmosphere free zone of Turf Moor. There are references in their public announcement to making Turf Moor a safe place for families. What are they trying to get rid off here? To what extent are we expected to behave ourselves? For me, part of the appeal of football has always been the opportunity to let off some steam. I don't want people around me practising racial abuse and I don't want violence, but I don't want to be sat in silence with people biting their tongues, afraid to shout, swear or stand up. It’s an unreasonable game, and there has to be space for people to get carried away. There has to be middle ground between reigning in the worst excesses of the few and retaining the character of the game.
To be honest, I do feel a bit sorry for the club. They have, after all, tried to do the right thing. With people like me and websites like this calling for them to be more vocal in their stance against racism, they have gone public. They didn’t have to. They could have just kept quiet. Presumably they've done so in the past. In going public they’ve opened up an opportunity for people like me to pontificate and criticise them. I do think they’re on the right track, but it needs a little more thought. And I am prepared to entertain the possibility that I might be wrong. After all, I don’t know the ins and outs of the particular offences. Perhaps they did deserve the punishment. But hang on - all one of them did was streak!
Anyway, to me it’s personal, and this is why. A couple of years ago, after questioning their policy of searching people
only after they’d paid to get in, I was physically thrown out of the ground at Fulham. One outside, the policeman made it clear that he was aware I had been drinking. I was also told that if I tried to re-enter another part of the ground I would definitely be arrested. Well, I entered another part of the ground. I waited until I was sure no one was looking, then went and stood quietly on the home end. I wasn’t arrested, but I could have been. If I had, I could then have been convicted. If I had been convicted, I assume I would now never be allowed to watch Burnley play at home again. That’s how easy it is. That’s why I can’t sign up to zero tolerance.
It seems quite clear to me that you must have a range of punishments to fit the crime. For racism and violence, a ban is fair enough – although, given that policing is unpredictable and justice haphazard, there must always be the right of appeal. For offences which are clearly lesser, lesser punishments are appropriate. Perhaps pitch invaders could get a season ban – providing that’s all pitch invaders, always. Perhaps those convicted of minor crimes – pure, simple drunkenness, for example – could get, for a first offence, a warning. Details can be debated, but what I’d like to see is a system that still punishes, but in proportion to the offence. Once determined, these punishments must be advertised, so that people know what the consequences of their actions are. That would act as a deterrent, without having to make examples out of people. And there must be a system for appeals, perhaps heard by club and supporters’ representatives. It would be messier than zero tolerance, less clear cut, and take more work – but it would be fair, transparent, and worthy of all our support.
Otherwise, you do end up looking absurdly harsh, in giving a life ban for people such as the streaker who ran on during the Preston match. Is a life ban a fair punishment for someone running about without their kit on and giving everyone a laugh? When even the courts don’t do more than give a slap on the wrist, as in the case of the streaker, why must Burnley crash down like a ton of bricks? Do they risk looking like they don’t have a sense of humour?
I urge, therefore, the club to concentrate on the important stuff. Root out that which is truly vile. Tackle racism, and show no mercy there. For other offences, let’s have a little bit of common sense, discretion and willingness to compromise, eh?
The Burnley FC London Supporters Club has also issued a statement on the bans, which you can view here.
