Ditch the Drum

[Villa in Denmark]

I don't think you understand the concept of what Brigada are trying to do and achieve UK Redsox, and its obviously not possible to that in a seated position. The common sense thing to do would be to speak to the club and have this organised so all parties are happy, and doesn't impact or infringe upon anyone else.

I understand what they're trying to do. Its just what they're trying to do is not allowed under the current regulations. Why should they be given special treatment ?

If standing is reintroduced and an area can be set up where Brigada's standing and flag waving does not impact any other supporters (whether standing or seated), then fine**. Until then, they should sit down like everyone else is supposed to.

** my use of the word fine should in know way be construed as condoning the use of the drum, that should be banned at all times.

The bold bit is where your argument falls down I'm afraid...literally a few thousand ppl stand at most games regardless of the current regulations that everyone *should* sit down. The argument works both ways...why should Brigada be forced to sit down and observe the current regulations unless its enforced around the ground.

Not too sure about that.

If I get stopped for doing 80 on the motorway, and point out to the police all the other people doing 80 without getting stopped, does that mean I've somehow been wronged?

Or, what if someone in the Trinity (or any area where there is no standing) decides he'll stand up for the whole match, obscuring the view of those behind, does the "but you're not making that lot sit down" argument hold any water there?

Appreciate the point about checking if the people behind you can see, but there are clearly lots and lots of examples where people have bought expensive tickets for football matches only to find they can't see a thing because the people in front of them are going to stand.

What would have happen if the people behind you had said "actually, we can't see a thing because you're standing", for example?

The problem at the moment is the system in that there is no way to both give people a place they can stand and watch matches AND for other people to know that when they buy their ticket, they'll have a reasonable chance of being able to see the match.

It's a broken system, and there's one obvious way to fix it, but the way the law is now, when it comes down to it, it isn't the people sat down and unable to see the match that are at fault, it is the people standing up.

The presence of 3,000 standing away fans doesn't really change that.

In my much younger days (ca. 25 years ago) I got stopped doing 50mph on Boulevard West (in Quinton if you know it) which is a dual carriageway 40 mph zone.
Just before I got stopped I'd had a BMW 5 series go tearing past me doing at 70 mph from the rate at which disappeared.

When I got pulled over as we were going through documents etc, I asked the officer what had happened to the BMW.
"We'd got no chance of catching him, but we've got you speeding so don't go thinking that's a defence"
I wasn't looking to use it as a defence, just a bit pissed off that someone who was being way more reckless than I was got away scot free.  Still didn't excuse my own bad driving.

To use an old proverb.  Two wrongs don't make a right.

[KRS]

I don't think you understand the concept of what Brigada are trying to do and achieve UK Redsox, and its obviously not possible to that in a seated position. The common sense thing to do would be to speak to the club and have this organised so all parties are happy, and doesn't impact or infringe upon anyone else.

I understand what they're trying to do. Its just what they're trying to do is not allowed under the current regulations. Why should they be given special treatment ?

If standing is reintroduced and an area can be set up where Brigada's standing and flag waving does not impact any other supporters (whether standing or seated), then fine**. Until then, they should sit down like everyone else is supposed to.

** my use of the word fine should in know way be construed as condoning the use of the drum, that should be banned at all times.

The bold bit is where your argument falls down I'm afraid...literally a few thousand ppl stand at most games regardless of the current regulations that everyone *should* sit down. The argument works both ways...why should Brigada be forced to sit down and observe the current regulations unless its enforced around the ground.

Not too sure about that.

If I get stopped for doing 80 on the motorway, and point out to the police all the other people doing 80 without getting stopped, does that mean I've somehow been wronged?

Or, what if someone in the Trinity (or any area where there is no standing) decides he'll stand up for the whole match, obscuring the view of those behind, does the "but you're not making that lot sit down" argument hold any water there?

Appreciate the point about checking if the people behind you can see, but there are clearly lots and lots of examples where people have bought expensive tickets for football matches only to find they can't see a thing because the people in front of them are going to stand.

What would have happen if the people behind you had said "actually, we can't see a thing because you're standing", for example?

The problem at the moment is the system in that there is no way to both give people a place they can stand and watch matches AND for other people to know that when they buy their ticket, they'll have a reasonable chance of being able to see the match.

It's a broken system, and there's one obvious way to fix it, but the way the law is now, when it comes down to it, it isn't the people sat down and unable to see the match that are at fault, it is the people standing up.

The presence of 3,000 standing away fans doesn't really change that.

Context to the words "should" and "supposed" to are the key words here. May be my words were too generalised, but I'm not saying Brigada are justified or have any kind of defence on the basis of others standing as there is clearly a common sense and courteous solution here that I have clearly pointed out in previous posts. In any case, its clearly not just an issue of standing vs sitting as there are flags involved which are equally or more view restrictive.

With regards to the speeding analogy, thats a bad example as we all know that speeding is against enforceable law regardless of the actions of others, however if someone is asked to sit because they are restricting the view of others by a steward or another fan then the right (or courteous) thing to do is oblige (caveat: unless your view is then subsequently restricted)...you may as well have said I shot someone because someone else did...it doesn't make it right, but its equally not relative to someone standing in a football ground which isn't even an illegal offence:

http://www.fsf.org.uk/campaigns/safe-standing/the-legalities-of-standing/

Like I said previously, I don't want this to descend into yet another standing vs sitting debate, but if the chap at the game the other night had asked me to sit down then I would have done so without any fuss and would have subsequently asked the bloke in front of me to sit. Common sense, communication and courtesy.

The only common sense solution to this is that Brigada re-open communications with the club and arrange relocation to a more appropriate area of the ground. If they can't manage that then they can rightly expect to be asked to leave the ground more often than not.

[pauliewalnuts]

Context to the words "should" and "supposed" to are the key words here. May be my words were too generalised, but I'm not saying Brigada are justified or have any kind of defence on the basis of others standing as there is clearly a common sense and courteous solution here that I have clearly pointed out in previous posts. In any case, its clearly not just an issue of standing vs sitting as there are flags involved which are equally or more view restrictive.

With regards to the speeding analogy, thats a bad example as we all know that speeding is against enforceable law regardless of the actions of others, however if someone is asked to sit because they are restricting the view of others by a steward or another fan then the right (or courteous) thing to do is oblige (caveat: unless your view is then subsequently restricted)...you may as well have said I shot someone because someone else did...it doesn't make it right, but its equally not relative to someone standing in a football ground which isn't even an illegal offence:

http://www.fsf.org.uk/campaigns/safe-standing/the-legalities-of-standing/

Like I said previously, I don't want this to descend into yet another standing vs sitting debate, but if the chap at the game the other night had asked me to sit down then I would have done so without any fuss and would have subsequently asked the bloke in front of me to sit. Common sense, communication and courtesy.

The only common sense solution to this is that Brigada re-open communications with the club and arrange relocation to a more appropriate area of the ground. If they can't manage that then they can rightly expect to be asked to leave the ground more often than not.

It doesn't matter that it is not an illegal offence, the tickets are sold on the basis that the buyers sit down - or the club will lose its license. The general point is that "they are doing it too, why haven't you stopped them?" is not really an argument as to why someone should or should not sit down when asked to.

Your point re sitting down when asked is fine, and I agree entirely, but the problems start when people refuse to do that. Your caveat is important - "unless that means their view is restricted".

So, someone sat behind the last row of Brigada standers taps the person in front "sorry, I can't see, can you sit down?" That person happens to be polite about it, says "yes". He then asks the person in front of him to do the same. He says "Not my problem, mate".

Then what happens? That's where it gets tricky.

The point I was trying to get across (but probably failing) is that under the terms and conditions under which those tickets are sold, which reflect the licensing conditions to the ground, the people in the wrong are those standing.

They're not lent any more moral authority in doing so just because people elsewhere are standing and getting away with it - which was the point you made that I originally disagreed with.

[KRS]

When all is said and done...I think we both pretty much agree with each other on the subject of standing vs sitting. The issue here is the Brigada lads being courteous to other fans that have paid good money to attend the games without having their view restricted by the standing and/or flags, and the need for Brigada to communicate with the club so they can be suitably accommodated without infringing on the rights of other supporters.

[KevinGage]

Wiser heads than me know the exact detail on this matter, but isn't there some exemption in the current regulations for standing during moments of excitement in a game?

Which, of course, is entirely subjective.

Some might get excited by a Ciaran Clark fluttering his eye lids, others by Charles N'Zog running the ball out of play.

[KRS]

You'll find it here: http://www.fsf.org.uk/campaigns/safe-standing/the-legalities-of-standing/

In practice, standing to go to the toilet or snack bar and standing at ‘moments of excitement’ is permitted. The boundary between ‘moments of excitement’ and ‘persistent’ is rather grey and open to very wide interpretation. - See more at: http://www.fsf.org.uk/campaigns/safe-standing/the-legalities-of-standing/#sthash.P0DkTNmn.dpuf

[KevinGage]

That, for me, is why any talk of enforcement or comparisons with road traffic offences falls down completely.

[PeterWithesShin]

This incident isn't about 'just' standing though. One of them stood on a seat, refused to get down when asked, so was removed from the ground. The rest chose to leave with them. None of Brigada were removed for flags, 'just' standing or anything else.

[pauliewalnuts]

That, for me, is why any talk of enforcement or comparisons with road traffic offences falls down completely.

Why rule out any talk of enforcement? Just because something isn't an offence doesn't mean it can't be enforced.

[john e]

my little lad (7) stands on his chair at every game he goes to a match,
 he has to when Villa attack or get a corner or something everyone stands up, he stands on his chair, he's pretty adept at it now, I actually think he quite likes doing it

I think you know what your getting especially in away games, so he just stands on his chair

he's not got thrown out yet

[Legion]

I also have to have my Grandson Freddy (aged 7) stand on a chair at times so he can see what is going on due to the inconsiderate, selfish people standing in front of him.

[Chris Jameson]

my little lad (7) stands on his chair at every game he goes to a match,
 he has to when Villa attack or get a corner or something everyone stands up, he stands on his chair, he's pretty adept at it now, I actually think he quite likes doing it

I think you know what your getting especially in away games, so he just stands on his chair

he's not got thrown out yet

There's a fairly obvious difference between a small child standing on a seat to be able to see and an adult standing on a seat.

[cdbearsfan]

Especially when said small child only has to stand on the seat because selfish bastards are standing in front of him.

[Chris Jameson]

Especially when said small child only has to stand on the seat because selfish bastards are standing in front of him.

Exactly.

[john e]

my little lad (7) stands on his chair at every game he goes to a match,
 he has to when Villa attack or get a corner or something everyone stands up, he stands on his chair, he's pretty adept at it now, I actually think he quite likes doing it

I think you know what your getting especially in away games, so he just stands on his chair

he's not got thrown out yet

There's a fairly obvious difference between a small child standing on a seat to be able to see and an adult standing on a seat.

your quite right, I wasn't making serious a direct comparison, the 'he hasn't been thrown out yet' was just a little joke