LCFC Supporter Bans.

[Jackubu]

55 minutes ago, VLC86 said:

 

That said, I do think the club have clearly been waiting to jump on something for him and many others because they want a certain type of supporter.

You only needed the second paragraph here, FYI. 

[Ricey]

1 hour ago, ajthefox said:

Do we think we could manage to get Rudkin and Suzy bans if we dressed up as them and did something daft? 

What, like signing Jordan Ayew?

[walkerleeds]

14 hours ago, Daggers said:

 

 

Only joking, I'm not really Brian....

[goose2010]

6 hours ago, Viva said:

I try to bring a bit of balance to the never ending, relentless negativity about anything and everything on here. 

Not all bans given out would be unjustified. 

i am all for balance but this is cut and shut case. You can ban people and expect people to accept it because "you were close to where it happened" 

 

Iti s a ridiculous ban and the club have just doubled down on themselves buy allowing an appeal and the SAME people that banned him were on the appeal committee. 

 

Read back about 1 year ago or even probably my first 5000 posts they were all so positive about the club and was similar to you really but Christ its impossible to support these absolute muppets that lead this great club 

[Viva]

58 minutes ago, goose2010 said:

i am all for balance but this is cut and shut case. You can ban people and expect people to accept it because "you were close to where it happened" 

 

Iti s a ridiculous ban and the club have just doubled down on themselves buy allowing an appeal and the SAME people that banned him were on the appeal committee. 

 

Read back about 1 year ago or even probably my first 5000 posts they were all so positive about the club and was similar to you really but Christ its impossible to support these absolute muppets that lead this great club 

It’s not a cut and shut case. The letter shown on here doesn’t say they were banned for being close to where it happened. It says at the very least, they took positive action to assist the individual that did.

 

[Drew Peacock]

6 hours ago, Pita said:

Looks like the club are trying to drive away supporters. When the need to encourage more to get out of the financial mess they have got us into. 

Only a certain supporter profile.

You can eventually imagine that one day in the future there will be one small, seated only area, with a pay per game ticket. No concessions within the pricing. The rest of the ground will be adapted into loads of small corporate boxes/areas from pitch side to the current back rows.
The game will be played in near silence, without any tribal rivalry or unwholesome talk, until the end of a 5-0 loss, where a sea of half and half scarves are waved in the air  and LCFC are cheered and clapped off the pitch from the seated area.
The corporate boxes containing customers who have spent a fortune to eat and drink and watch the odd minute of the game here and there, eventually realise the game has finished, ask if anyone knows what the score was at the end and then carry on eating and drinking. 

 

[CosbehFox]

31 minutes ago, Viva said:

It’s not a cut and shut case. The letter shown on here doesn’t say they were banned for being close to where it happened. It says at the very least, they took positive action to assist the individual that did.

 

You've ignore the key wording though at the club's only admittance, 'On the balance of probability' 

 

The probability of what? 

 

Of being close to the incident 

[jammie82uk]

42 minutes ago, Viva said:

they took positive action to assist the individual that did.

But the club has admitted they don’t know who the individual was that did it

[Viva]

6 minutes ago, jammie82uk said:

But the club has admitted they don’t know who the individual was that did it

They say that the person took positive action to assist the individual and the group acted together to conceal their identity. 

You can be found guilty of things in law even if you wasn’t the person that actually committed the final offence. 

 

 

[Dan]

8 hours ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Who is 'Dan' who broke the internet with his Twitter post, on this forum? Very eloquent post following a clear and logical timeline, not some emotional and garbled 'shambles mate clubs gone' type post. Well done, we need more Dan's. 

Never heard of the pillock  

[purpleronnie]

51 minutes ago, Drew Peacock said:

Only a certain supporter profile.

You can eventually imagine that one day in the future there will be one small, seated only area, with a pay per game ticket. No concessions within the pricing. The rest of the ground will be adapted into loads of small corporate boxes/areas from pitch side to the current back rows.
The game will be played in near silence, without any tribal rivalry or unwholesome talk, until the end of a 5-0 loss, where a sea of half and half scarves are waved in the air  and LCFC are cheered and clapped off the pitch from the seated area.
The corporate boxes containing customers who have spent a fortune to eat and drink and watch the odd minute of the game here and there, eventually realise the game has finished, ask if anyone knows what the score was at the end and then carry on eating and drinking. 

 

Yep, Only in England though.

[jammie82uk]

45 minutes ago, Viva said:

You can be found guilty of things in law even if you wasn’t the person that actually committed the final offence

Yes you can but that’s not based on probability, 7 people have been accused of acting together, just think about that for a second, 7 people in a row or even spread over a few rows have been accused of hiding an identity based on footage from a CCTV camera, so many things can be misleading in that scenario, 

 

I’m of the opinion to agree with Dan due to the openness of sharing the letters with are vague in details from the club, if he really was guilty in my opinion then just take the ban on the chin and keep your head down instead of invoking what will now be undoubtedly added consequences by sharing details about it, remember you are not allowed to criticize the club or employees online 

[CosbehFox]

2 minutes ago, jammie82uk said:

Yes you can but that’s not based on probability, 7 people have been accused of acting together, just think about that for a second, 7 people in a row or even spread over a few rows have been accused of hiding an identity based on footage from a CCTV camera, so many things can be misleading in that scenario, 

 

I’m of the opinion to agree with Dan due to the openness of sharing the letters with are vague in details from the club, if he really was guilty in my opinion then just take the ban on the chin and keep your head down instead of invoking what will now be undoubtedly added consequences by sharing details about it, remember you are not allowed to criticize the club or employees online 

The fact Union FS are happy for a discussion and the club don’t want it speaks volumes.
 

They don’t want to know the person who let it off. Having 7 banned is better than 1 

[CosbehFox]

1 hour ago, Viva said:

They say that the person took positive action to assist the individual and the group acted together to conceal their identity. 

You can be found guilty of things in law even if you wasn’t the person that actually committed the final offence. 

 

 

Well the story changes from the club half way though. 

They originally accuse of setting off a flare. Claiming CCTV evidence 
 

Upon the appeal, the club accuse Dan of assisting the setting of a flare. 
 

Their justification is the concealment of identity - that’s the evidence in the end. Not the CCTV as originally said 

 

[elangLCFC]

Maybe supporter conduct panels should be held in public (with the permission of the fan(s) involved), provides accountability and transparency for both sides

[Viva]

37 minutes ago, CosbehFox said:

Well the story changes from the club half way though. 

They originally accuse of setting off a flare. Claiming CCTV evidence 
 

Upon the appeal, the club accuse Dan of assisting the setting of a flare. 
 

Their justification is the concealment of identity - that’s the evidence in the end. Not the CCTV as originally said 

 

That’s not exactly what the letter states. It says they reviewed his version of events against the CCTV and remain satisfied that he was more than likely involved. 
At the very least, they say the group helped to conceal the person setting it off to an extent that it wasn’t clear which one actually did it. 

 

[Lesterlad]

6 hours ago, Sir Steve Howard said:

Football is not for you, get a grip

Maybe your right only seen in excess of 1500 games all over the world so I need to understand fans a bit  more 

[Bert]

12 hours ago, justfoxes said:

Bit silly taking a pyro into a crowded space I’ve seen some nasty injuries from them in the past !

Sorry Andrew Neville, please don’t ban me 

[Leicester_Loyal]

This whole thing is pretty mental, it's a dictatorship though isn't it?

 

At this point I genuinely think the best thing that can happen is we go really crap for a few years, that'll hopefully force KP out.

[Clogger_]

Of everything I read about, this topic makes me the most angry. Pathetic attempts to control and sanitise the sport we all love. Imagine wanting more happy-clapping, seat blocking Ginetta/FT types, and fewer passionate singing fans creating a slightly 'edgy' atmosphere. WTAF. Purge the lot of them.

 

KP OUT, and take your happy clappers with you. Let them watch Polo

[Knighton1976]

1 minute ago, Clogger_ said:

Of everything I read about, this topic makes me the most angry. Pathetic attempts to control and sanitise the sport we all love. Imagine wanting more happy-clapping, seat blocking Ginetta/FT types, and fewer passionate singing fans creating a slightly 'edgy' atmosphere. WTAF. Purge the lot of them.

 

KP OUT, and take your happy clappers with you. Let them watch Polo

Bed wetter.

[FrankieADZ]

i have to admit, i really dont like this kangaroo court stuff in terms of these bans

pretty sure alot worse has been said/done and hardly anything has been done

 

this club standards on the whole, from top to bottom are well and truly in the gutter imo

[SecretPro]

The apologists on this forum are becoming a scourge. Sad that they call themselves fans tbh. 

[Leeds Fox]

19 hours ago, LCFCJohn said:

It is a very bad look banning people for words not physical actions.

 

We all disagree on things even on here but a core principle of the democracy that is the United Kingdom is free speech. 
 

If Top doesn’t like that and wants to stamp out free speech, with respect, he is in the wrong Country and owning a football club in the wrong Country.

Well it depends on how the words are put across doesn’t it.

 

Verbal abuse to other fans (especially our own), staff or the police isn’t really on. Nobody needs to hear some steaming bloke screaming c*** at people when they’ve gone to watch the football. A few choice words can be let go but there has to be a line.

 

Giving a strong opinion whether in person or online should be fine and un-punishable.

 

I’m certainly not on the clubs side. I’ve led far from a sheltered life, not much fazes me and I’ve acted in ways I shouldn’t have. However some things you see/hear at the football, usually from the small minority are embarrassing. It’s usually someone who can’t handle their ale deciding they want to be the loudest voice in the vicinity.

 

FWIW, I don’t know who most of the posts in here are in reference to and I’m speaking in general terms rather than specifics. 

 

 

[Leeds Fox]

15 minutes ago, Leeds Fox said:

Well it depends on how the words are put across doesn’t it.

 

Verbal abuse to other fans (especially our own), staff or the police isn’t really on. Nobody needs to hear some steaming bloke screaming c*** at people when they’ve gone to watch the football. A few choice words can be let go but there has to be a line.

 

Giving a strong opinion whether in person or online should be fine and un-punishable.

 

I’m certainly not on the clubs side. I’ve led far from a sheltered life, not much fazes me and I’ve acted in ways I shouldn’t have. However some things you see/hear at the football, usually from the small minority are embarrassing. It’s usually someone who can’t handle their ale deciding they want to be the loudest voice in the vicinity.

 

FWIW, I don’t know who most of the posts in here are in reference to and I’m speaking in general terms rather than specifics. 

 

 

This aside… it won’t be long before we have Susan and Jon performing lobotomies as part of a pre-requisite entry requirement.

 

Really feel for the ones banned without justification. Such a massive part of life taken away without reason.