Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to bcfcforum.co.uk. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Leeds United win policing case; Could blues follow suit?
Topic Started: Jul 24 2012, 11:49 AM (149 Views)
blue casual
Member Avatar
Frank Worthington
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
I wonder if blues could claw back some of the money WMP have hit them with over the years, has to be worth a shot...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-18965193

Quote:
 
Leeds United has won its High Court action against West Yorkshire Police over who should pay for policing around the stadium on match days.

The club had argued policing streets and car parks near its Elland Road ground was the force's responsibility.

Mr Justice Eady agreed these were not special police services and said the force must repay the club.

West Yorkshire Police said the judgement would have a "significant impact" on police and the taxpayer.

The club claimed wider policing fell within the scope of normal police obligations to maintain public order. Mr Justice Eady ruled the club should not pay for such policing.

Michael Beloff QC, for the club, had told Mr Justice Eady the action was "in the nature of a test case" and the footballing and policing worlds hoped the ruling would provide "powerful guidance" on the issue.

The force must now repay the club the costs of wider policing from the past three years. The amount is so far unknown.

'Step too far'

He had said the club was content to pay for services within the stadium and on land owned or controlled by it, but policing on land not owned or controlled by the club did not constitute special police services.

"West Yorkshire Police's insistence on charging Leeds United Football Club for such policing is illegal," he added.

John Beggs QC, for the police, had told the court the footprint around the stadium was a tightly drawn and strategically determined boundary.

The judge concluded that the services fell within the normal constabulary duty to keep the peace.

In a statement, Leeds United's chief executive Shaun Harvey said the payments to police had been made under protest.

He said: "We have never objected to paying for the cost of policing on land owned, leased or controlled by the club.

"However, West Yorkshire Police's stance to seek to charge us for policing the public highway and for areas away from the ground is a step too far.

'Invidious position'

"We have been paying under protest for the last three seasons on this basis and are pleased to have received this clarification in a dispute which was only capable of being resolved in front of a judge."

West Yorkshire Police said the judgement had significant implications for the policing of West Yorkshire's communities and cost to the taxpayer.

A statement said: "The judgement in favour of the club highlights the legal difficulties the force faces in minimising the large amounts of public money being spent on policing Leeds United.

"The impact of the judgement cannot be underestimated."

The force said it graded games from A to C "in accordance with their anticipated level of risk [of trouble]", with category C being the highest-risk game.

The statement added: "By way of illustration, a category C football match for the coming season will cost the force about £80,000 of which we will seek to recover only £62,000 from Leeds United.

"If the High Court's judgement limits that further, the shortfall would have to be met by drawing up to 180 officers away from neighbourhood policing and patrol teams across West Yorkshire on a Saturday afternoon, just to police a football match.

"We welcome the fact that the judge recognised the invidious position the force faces and the possibility of the force being unable to support the club's existing match arrangements in the present economic climate."

In his ruling, the judge said there was no single drain on West Yorkshire Police's diminishing resources greater than that of policing the club's matches, and it was not surprising that it wished to recover as much as it reasonably could.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lowdham bluenose
Joe Bradford
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I disagree with the ruling and hope the police appeal.

This high cost of policing only applies to clubs who are trouble. If the club is hit hard by the police financially (and hard by the police with KO times) then perhaps the club and it's fans would wise-up................and of course this applies to Blues.

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Des
Malcom Page
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Lowds.
You tell me a team who havent experienced trouble over the yeaRS, ONE OF THE BEST THINGS ABOUT THE pREM IS THE WAY IT HAS `gentryfied` FOOTY.
i WILL NEVER FORGET OUR 1ST AWAY GAME IN THE PREM v aRSENAL AT THE HIGHBURY.`
Scuse Caps!!

We were drinking in pubs with Arsenal ex boyos!
Last time I had been there in 1986, we got battered from Euston back to Euston!
Now that was par for the course back in the day, but get real lads how much better is it now, my Mrs wouldnt have let me take kidz back then but now my grankidz love it.
80% of our home matches need virtually no extra policing, so lets find a compromise with WMP.

KRO
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
blue casual
Member Avatar
Frank Worthington
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
WMP do nothing but aggravate and incite trouble outside St.Andrews with their OTT presence, they don't deserve a penny of the club's money for policing outside of the ground.

I've seen a number of travelling hooligan groups, notably Man Utd, take the proverbial around the side streets of the ground while all of the tarts in riot getup have been concentrated outside the away exit.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
mccp
Alex Govan
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Some fans mentality has actually developed, but there are still the neanderthals who want to imitate the 70s and 80s.

Unfortunately police tactics haven't developed much either.
Admitted they have technology nowadays, but that is all for retrospective analysis.
The police still think a mass of bodies (paid for) is the answer 30 or 40 years later.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
pooley
The Icon
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
lowdham bluenose
Jul 24 2012, 02:39 PM
I disagree with the ruling and hope the police appeal.

This high cost of policing only applies to clubs who are trouble. If the club is hit hard by the police financially (and hard by the police with KO times) then perhaps the club and it's fans would wise-up................and of course this applies to Blues.

agreed
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve
Member Avatar
Malcom Page
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
pooley
Jul 24 2012, 08:18 PM
lowdham bluenose
Jul 24 2012, 02:39 PM
I disagree with the ruling and hope the police appeal.

This high cost of policing only applies to clubs who are trouble. If the club is hit hard by the police financially (and hard by the police with KO times) then perhaps the club and it's fans would wise-up................and of course this applies to Blues.

agreed

Surely that's like saying that policing shouldn't happen in any businesses though unless the business pays for it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Non-Blues Chat · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Forum Design by Hirsty.