E
Eric Youngs Contact Lense
Guest
Offering a measured view, typically backed up by researched facts doesn't sit easily with everyone!
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Albion] Abuse in Football: How Brighton are tackling fan behaviour [BBC Sport]
- Thread starter chaileyjem
- Start date
Offering a measured view, typically backed up by researched facts doesn't sit easily with everyone!
Green Cross Code Man
Wunt be druv
Personally, although I don't always agree with [MENTION=24867]chaileyjem[/MENTION], I like many of his posts, they are often useful and interesting. Be boring if we were all automatons with the same ideas and views.
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
I've not heard anything about Waxy Lemon, neither songs, Twitter, nor reported on Nsc. I'm sure someone would have posted about it, if it happened.
I think people have seen the press reports about Chelsea and Burnley fans being arrested for racial crimes, and Brighton fans banned for attacking a steward, female doctor and West Brom fans.
It COULD put off the public who aren't used to going to football, and I'm sure a granddad posted on Nsc, that his daughter wasn't happy about him bringing his grandson anymore.
Barber is like a headmaster, and instead of reassuring the general public, he's used a sledgehammer to crack a nut, and exaggerated the risks.
Last edited:
AlastairWatts
Active member
Getting a bit bored with the whole bottle top thing, you would think the Amex is the only place in the country you can’t take them. I’ve be to every away game so far this season and I think I’ve only been able to keep my top in a couple of them. It’s not a PB thing it’s a PL thing and as others have mentioned numerous times it also happens at plenty of other venues including concert and cinemas so please please please give it a rest
Exactly right! I'd also like to point out that the Ariana Grande atrocity wouldn't have happened had the door supervisors(?) been more aware and not let anyone in after the concert ended. All of the whingers about bottle tops would soon complain if there was , heaven forbid, some kind of incident using a capped bottle or flask. There was one here in the centre of High Wycombe a little while back when an off duty nurse sitting on a public bench in the town centre was hit by acid sprayed by a yob intending to use it on someone else. She eventually died, he got a long prison sentence. Isn't prevenetion better than cure?
Tom Hark Preston Park
Will Post For Cash
- Jul 6, 2003
- 70,161
If prevention is better than the cure then maybe the Albion should put their money where their mouth is. Remove Albion-branded flasks from the shelves on match days. Ditto the Albion-branded golf stuff like golf balls and that divot-removal tool. Both items could inflict a whole lot more damage than plastic bottles, with or without tops. Basically on a match day they shouldn't be selling things that are going to then be confiscated on the gate. How about some joined-up thinking PB?
You could put acid in a perfume bottle. Just saying like...............
Exactly. Spot on. "Media whore" is the phrase that springs to mind.
No, it would have happened outside the doors.
portlock seagull
Why? Why us?
- Jul 28, 2003
- 17,071
That's what's known as 'check-mate', the mate in this instance being Barber!
CAPTAIN GREALISH
Well-known member
- Jan 6, 2010
- 2,600
Fans Forum should be fun this year.
make a change from the same boring questions
Green Cross Code Man
Wunt be druv
So ban plastic bottles in town centres then.
darkwolf666
Well-known member
I don't know, I don't follow Palace so don't see his quotes!
portlock seagull
Why? Why us?
- Jul 28, 2003
- 17,071
Trouble is, all this seemingly petty officialdom will never prevent an attack. Unless we get targeted by THE most incapable 'terrorist' of all time, in which case I'd argue the risk assessment should conclude they'd incapacitate themselves during preparations. Why never? Because a) there's enormous inconsistency in application, as numerous fans have pointed out b) no club steward will ever stop a determined attack, that is if the assailant is armed with a knife (because steward has choice to either run or potentially die); acid (ditto) ; firearm (ditto). And even if unarmed, Palace have already proven that a high-vis is unlikely to get involved.
Therefore, how effective are these measures and who is really impacted / to what degree? The answers are: a) ineffective b) ordinary law-abiding fans c) many are really cheesed off!
If the sum total is basically lose-lose-lose, why implement? Because even if doing so from tick-box/arse-covering angle, an enquiry will inevitably be full of lapse-in-security examples underlining just how ineffective (and therefore needless?) these measures were against said nutter(s). So again why bother? The threat being so small or unpreventable as to not even worth annoying pensioners about their flasks
If something happens, we've just got to thank our lucky stars we weren't one of the unfortunates. That's the reality, unpalatable as that is for many people and probably why we suffer these annoyances i.e. people can't accept it's a dangerous thing, stepping out your front door. Nor always someone else's fault, least those trying to prevent this sort of thing. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Blimey, I'm now completely sympathetic to clubs situation. Barber IN!
Therefore, how effective are these measures and who is really impacted / to what degree? The answers are: a) ineffective b) ordinary law-abiding fans c) many are really cheesed off!
If the sum total is basically lose-lose-lose, why implement? Because even if doing so from tick-box/arse-covering angle, an enquiry will inevitably be full of lapse-in-security examples underlining just how ineffective (and therefore needless?) these measures were against said nutter(s). So again why bother? The threat being so small or unpreventable as to not even worth annoying pensioners about their flasks
If something happens, we've just got to thank our lucky stars we weren't one of the unfortunates. That's the reality, unpalatable as that is for many people and probably why we suffer these annoyances i.e. people can't accept it's a dangerous thing, stepping out your front door. Nor always someone else's fault, least those trying to prevent this sort of thing. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Blimey, I'm now completely sympathetic to clubs situation. Barber IN!
Taybha
Whalewhine
Surely if you removed the bottle top from any standard water/coke bottle sold at The Amex then luzzed the bottle at your intended target hardly any holy water/coke inside would escape until actually hitting something , it's called gravity , so the removal of bottle tops is totally negated by a law that actually supersedes any other looney law implemented to defy gravity , the only way to stop the threat is remove the threat completely by not selling them at all as THPP has said , the likelihood of that happening is zero considering the profit margins made on refreshments once inside the ground so implementing a law that is fundamentally flawed from the off is what i guess is pissing most people off , hopefully everyone will now be in their back gardens trying to poohar this radical bit of info and the more experienced pedants will be quoting wind speed velocity variables to counter this mumbo jumbo 
darkwolf666
Well-known member
Trouble is, all this seemingly petty officialdom will never prevent an attack. Unless we get targeted by THE most incapable 'terrorist' of all time, in which case I'd argue the risk assessment should conclude they'd incapacitate themselves during preparations. Why never? Because a) there's enormous inconsistency in application, as numerous fans have pointed out b) no club steward will ever stop a determined attack, that is if the assailant is armed with a knife (because steward has choice to either run or potentially die); acid (ditto) ; firearm (ditto). And even if unarmed, Palace have already proven that a high-vis is unlikely to get involved.
Therefore, how effective are these measures and who is really impacted / to what degree? The answers are: a) ineffective b) ordinary law-abiding fans c) many are really cheesed off!
If the sum total is basically lose-lose-lose, why implement? Because even if doing so from tick-box/arse-covering angle, an enquiry will inevitably be full of lapse-in-security examples underlining just how ineffective (and therefore needless?) these measures were against said nutter(s). So again why bother? The threat being so small or unpreventable as to not even worth annoying pensioners about their flasks
If something happens, we've just got to thank our lucky stars we weren't one of the unfortunates. That's the reality, unpalatable as that is for many people and probably why we suffer these annoyances i.e. people can't accept it's a dangerous thing, stepping out your front door. Nor always someone else's fault, least those trying to prevent this sort of thing. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Blimey, I'm now completely sympathetic to clubs situation. Barber IN!
I think American airlines were using your model of "it probably won't happen" right up to 9/11...
fosters headband
Well-known member
You don't have to be a Palace fan to read his thoughts or listen to him if he goes on talksport , or have his thoughts published on the BBC web site. If he were like our Mr Barber he claims in the report he has many fans from other clubs supporting his views
darkwolf666
Well-known member
Pop Mr Alexander's name into Google and see what the good people of the Palace forums think of their CEO, complimentary it ain't...
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
Surely if you removed the bottle top from any standard water/coke bottle sold at The Amex then luzzed the bottle at your intended target hardly any holy water/coke inside would escape until actually hitting something , it's called gravity , so the removal of bottle tops is totally negated by a law that actually supersedes any other looney law implemented to defy gravity , the only way to stop the threat is remove the threat completely by not selling them at all as THPP has said , the likelihood of that happening is zero considering the profit margins made on refreshments once inside the ground so implementing a law that is fundamentally flawed from the off is what i guess is pissing most people off , hopefully everyone will now be in their back gardens trying to poohar this radical bit of info and the more experienced pedants will be quoting wind speed velocity variables to counter this mumbo jumbo
One of the justifications I've seen is that if someone steps on a bottle that has a lid on it, they could slip over
The horror.
Forgive me for wanting to express my view on the subject but it seems you can hardly read a thread without it being mentioned.
Please accept my apologies with respect to my reference to the cinema and theatre but as I don’t go to either I was taken in, obviously foolishly by the reference to both on the hallowed NSC pages.
Sadly to abandon a thread when it descends into the bottle top drama is to miss much of what the thread is really about which would be unfortunate.
Never mind I’ll just have to keep plodding through
portlock seagull
Why? Why us?
- Jul 28, 2003
- 17,071
You’ve not really accounted for the key differences there,