If football clubs have to pay for policing why not march organisers?

[wednesday1]

I pledge to stay on topic.

 

 

You LibDems treat pledges like pie-crusts!

[Tony]

I was about to say 'Yes', then I saw this... and instantly I remembered why I agreed that football clubs (and bars and clubs, etc), should pay towards the regular trouble that is associated with events.

 

So, No!

Clubs generally pay for their own security inside the ground which is why you see so many stewards and obviously they can't do that on the public streets. They pay for the police outside. This is splitting hairs though as the OP is about the principle.

[harvey19]

On a serious note I seem to recall several years ago the Remembrance Day Parade(I think ) at Stannington had to be cancelled because the police said they did not have the manpower to police it.

Presumably meaning they would not pay for officers overtime.

[Guest sibon]

Clubs generally pay for their own security inside the ground which is why you see so many stewards and obviously they can't do that on the public streets. They pay for the police outside. This is splitting hairs though as the OP is about the principle.

 

The BBC seem to think otherwise.

 

As for the OP, anyone should have the right to protest. Ability to pay shouldn't come into it.

[andygardener]

Clubs generally pay for their own security inside the ground which is why you see so many stewards and obviously they can't do that on the public streets. They pay for the police outside. This is splitting hairs though as the OP is about the principle.

 

They only pay for the police immediately outside, which is the issue. All the other extra policing in town/railway station/hillsborough corner etc is paid for by the taxpayer. All the club pays for is sufficient police to allow safe ingress/exgress into/from their commercial venue.

 

If one or other protest group hired a venue and charged people to attend and the police felt it needed a police presence to allow people safely in and out then i'd support them paying. A non-commerical public protest is a different matter in my view.

[Tony]

How about British National Party / English Defence League / Anti Fascist League / Muslims Against Crusaders marches?

 

They seem to have inevitable excessive policing costs that wouldn't be needed if they could all behave. Shouldn't they pay for policing that arises when some of their number burn poppies or shout abuse at people going to worship?

[harvey19]

How about British National Party / English Defence League / Anti Fascist League / Muslims Against Crusaders marches?

 

They seem to have inevitable excessive policing costs that wouldn't be needed if they could all behave. Shouldn't they pay for policing that arises when some of their number burn poppies or shout abuse at people going to worship?

 

I think the relevant point is that all organisations would say they intend having a peacefull march, protest etc.

If it does turn nasty who would you bill ? The organisers would say it was not their intention for such events to happen and it was against their direction.

[andygardener]

How about British National Party / English Defence League / Anti Fascist League / Muslims Against Crusaders marches?

 

They seem to have inevitable excessive policing costs that wouldn't be needed if they could all behave. Shouldn't they pay for policing that arises when some of their number burn poppies or shout abuse at people going to worship?

 

Presuming the aim is to protect the right of peaceful protest while reducing the cost of policing those who use protests to commit offences under the guise of protest how about a banning order similar to those in force for football hooligans. Get convicted of 2 minor or one serious public order or violent offence at a public protest and you forfit your right to attend further demos and have to present to your local cop shop on the day of such protests? If you break the order then criminal sanctions apply.

 

That should at least deter the "proffesional" protestors of all persuasions whose sole aim is causing trouble rather than legitimate protest.

[Guest sibon]

How about British National Party / English Defence League / Anti Fascist League / Muslims Against Crusaders marches?

 

They seem to have inevitable excessive policing costs that wouldn't be needed if they could all behave. Shouldn't they pay for policing that arises when some of their number burn poppies or shout abuse at people going to worship?

 

Freedom of speech extends in all directions. However, a criminal act is a criminal act and should be punished. That includes inciting racial hatred, throwing fire extinguishers and wrecking police vans.

 

The principle remains, they have the right to protest and the state should uphold that right.

[Tony]

Freedom of speech extends in all directions. However, a criminal act is a criminal act and should be punished. That includes inciting racial hatred, throwing fire extinguishers and wrecking police vans.

 

The principle remains, they have the right to protest and the state should uphold that right.

I have to agree with everything that you say there.

 

So, why shouldn't they pay when it kicks off as expected?

 

I think the relevant point is that all organisations would say they intend having a peacefull march, protest etc.

If it does turn nasty who would you bill ? The organisers would say it was not their intention for such events to happen and it was against their direction.

 

Maybe peacekeeping forces could use the same trick before they start killing locals?

 

Obviously it's a nonsense to suggest that certain events will be trouble free and not require any policing and obviously the costs of damage are another thing altogether.