Thank you for your detailed explanation of the details involved in this sorry state of affairs. As always we are grateful for your considered opinion and the time and work you took on our behalf.
Firstly the Legia decision was completely different being taken operationally as a consequence of disturbance and because separation of fans had become impossible
so that invalidates your use of Legia as precedence for the Maccabi decision
and secondly I think you brush under the carpet a key question which is which resources are brought to bear to achieve public safety and more specifically to separate fans. this is not a black and white legal issue but a choice to apply resources or not to do so.
west midlands police and SAG did indeed choose : they clearly decided the required resource was too much.
I for one would like to see the figures and understand what it generally costs to separate crowds at football venues or for that matter at political demonstrations. If, as you say, public safet trumps all else then there are actually two options here
a) prevent people from coming to the event
b) allow them to come but separate them
the toxicity in this case arose because a) was chosen without explaining b) and explaining why generally b) is chosen (even in the Legia case.)
what if in fact a) was chosen even though budgets would have allowed for b)? would that not raise an entirely new strain of discussion for the Empty City?
I am so pleased this substack exists - thank you deeply for sharing your mind and thoughts and experience.
Had you not used "brush under the carpet" - implying evasion - I would have responded to rest of the comment. But I have not "brushed anything under a carpet".
I agree. and I wanted to change the wording but one cannot edit here. Wrong wording entirely, sorry for that. I stand corrected since I cannot correct my words. what I meant to say was just that I think the circumstances of the decisions regarding the two games were different even though the decision may have come out to the same.
it feels to me that this Villa issue today was a question of wishing to provide for public safety (which has a cost) or not feeling the cost was appropriate. wherewas the Villa decision previously was made when there was no other option.
Thank you for the apology which I, of course, accept.
No two situations leading to a ban on away fans will be factually identical, or perhaps even similar. The facts of the Legia decision will, of course, be different from that of the Maccabi decision.
But what they do have in common is that there was a risk assessment on the basis of public safety by experts, and that assessment led to the same decision - a ban on away fans.
SAG expressly stated they would review the decision if the risk assessment changed. Had it been a simple question of more police resources then the assessment may have changed. Perhaps it would have done.
I aver it is a fallacy to equate more police resources with a changed risk assessment. As I set out in my post: public safety is not the same as public order. In Paris in 2022 there were substantial police resources - and that became a threat to public safety.
In Israel there was also a risk assessment in respect of the derby match. That assessment went further - the match was cancelled.
My personal view is that away fans should not ever be banned lightly, but I also do not want Villa Park to be another Heysel. Football stadiums can be very dangerous places. If the experts in safety make a recommendation, I will respect that. If the experts change their mind, I will respect that too.
I'm struck by the fact that many of those politicians and press pundits who normally scream blue murder when, in their view, central government oversteps the democratic mark are now demanding that it overrules a decision carefully taken at the local level. So it's less of a matter of a principle at stake and more an individual decision which they happen to dislike. So much for consistency.
Thank you for your detailed explanation of the details involved in this sorry state of affairs. As always we are grateful for your considered opinion and the time and work you took on our behalf.
I wish to make two points
Firstly the Legia decision was completely different being taken operationally as a consequence of disturbance and because separation of fans had become impossible
so that invalidates your use of Legia as precedence for the Maccabi decision
and secondly I think you brush under the carpet a key question which is which resources are brought to bear to achieve public safety and more specifically to separate fans. this is not a black and white legal issue but a choice to apply resources or not to do so.
west midlands police and SAG did indeed choose : they clearly decided the required resource was too much.
I for one would like to see the figures and understand what it generally costs to separate crowds at football venues or for that matter at political demonstrations. If, as you say, public safet trumps all else then there are actually two options here
a) prevent people from coming to the event
b) allow them to come but separate them
the toxicity in this case arose because a) was chosen without explaining b) and explaining why generally b) is chosen (even in the Legia case.)
what if in fact a) was chosen even though budgets would have allowed for b)? would that not raise an entirely new strain of discussion for the Empty City?
I am so pleased this substack exists - thank you deeply for sharing your mind and thoughts and experience.
Had you not used "brush under the carpet" - implying evasion - I would have responded to rest of the comment. But I have not "brushed anything under a carpet".
I agree. and I wanted to change the wording but one cannot edit here. Wrong wording entirely, sorry for that. I stand corrected since I cannot correct my words. what I meant to say was just that I think the circumstances of the decisions regarding the two games were different even though the decision may have come out to the same.
it feels to me that this Villa issue today was a question of wishing to provide for public safety (which has a cost) or not feeling the cost was appropriate. wherewas the Villa decision previously was made when there was no other option.
Thank you for the apology which I, of course, accept.
No two situations leading to a ban on away fans will be factually identical, or perhaps even similar. The facts of the Legia decision will, of course, be different from that of the Maccabi decision.
But what they do have in common is that there was a risk assessment on the basis of public safety by experts, and that assessment led to the same decision - a ban on away fans.
SAG expressly stated they would review the decision if the risk assessment changed. Had it been a simple question of more police resources then the assessment may have changed. Perhaps it would have done.
I aver it is a fallacy to equate more police resources with a changed risk assessment. As I set out in my post: public safety is not the same as public order. In Paris in 2022 there were substantial police resources - and that became a threat to public safety.
In Israel there was also a risk assessment in respect of the derby match. That assessment went further - the match was cancelled.
My personal view is that away fans should not ever be banned lightly, but I also do not want Villa Park to be another Heysel. Football stadiums can be very dangerous places. If the experts in safety make a recommendation, I will respect that. If the experts change their mind, I will respect that too.
I'm struck by the fact that many of those politicians and press pundits who normally scream blue murder when, in their view, central government oversteps the democratic mark are now demanding that it overrules a decision carefully taken at the local level. So it's less of a matter of a principle at stake and more an individual decision which they happen to dislike. So much for consistency.