The April Trust newsletter.

[Snakebite]

I’m presuming it’s an April fool and our glorious overlords will correct it later. But I read this part of the April trust newsletter and it rang some bells of concern that the club/trust still don’t quite get it.

The last paragraph appears to suggest that the stewards acted correctly in stopping the protest and that supporters will be reminded to STFU and clap politely (sort of).

Trust Board Meeting - 11th March 2024

Core to this meeting was the attendance of COO Justin Quick and our Safety Officer, Kevin Instance.

Some members had expressed concern around the restriction by the club to disallow freedom of expression, or to protest, as is their right under the European Convention of Human Rights, following an incident of St James during the Shrewsbury game on November 28th.

Justin and Kevin provided a detailed account of the regulations surrounding match-day security and then looked more closely at the incident concerned.

Upon hearing all of the circumstances the Trust Board felt that there was no further action to be taken, other than the club would consider a statement, in the near future, reminding supporters of ground rules and the importance of co-operating with stewards and security staff. They are present to keep us all safe and the Trust Board and some members present thanked both Justin and Kevin for their professionalism and efforts in this respect.

 

[QOTPOD Podcast]

That meeting did happen, it was brought forward to accommodate them, some people missed the meeting as a consequence!

 

[Grecian in Guzz]

I sincerely hope that the minutes of this meeting cover all information presented both verbally and on paper and that the promised statement includes the words used at the pre-match briefing and subsequently by our contracted Safety Officer (who according to Board Members has final say during matchdays) that "Caldwell Out banners and the like will be tolerated" conditionally.

 

[cannockred]

Think this an overreaction to the meeting.

The club have said they are not stifling protests, just that all banners bought into the ground have to be passed by the safety officer as safe.

The stewards on the day were perhaps a bit heavy handed and didnt deal with it well.

If people want to bring banners or flags into the ground show them to a steward in advance to get approval from the safety officer?

 

[Snakebite]

I sincerely hope that the minutes of this meeting cover all information presented both verbally and on paper and that the promised statement includes the words used at the pre-match briefing and subsequently by our contracted Safety Officer (who according to Board Members has final say during matchdays) that "Caldwell Out banners and the like will be tolerated" conditionally.

Interesting to read this, it seems at odds with the Trust newsletters narrative. Has the Trust applied some spin? ‘Recollections may vary’

 

[Colesman Ballz]

Think this an overreaction to the meeting.

The club have said they are not stifling protests, just that all banners bought into the ground have to be passed by the safety officer as safe.

The stewards on the day were perhaps a bit heavy handed and didnt deal with it well.

If people want to bring banners or flags into the ground show them to a steward in advance to get approval from the safety officer?

I think that you are the one that is overreacting. There are safety regulations regarding banners, and for example those over a certain size need to be fireproofed. Have you actually seen a picture of the item in question ? It was basically about the size of a scarf !
It was hand held so no poles etc that could be interpreted as potential weapons, and all it said was simply "Caldwell Out", so nothing descriminatory or derogatory in racial terms (no mention of GC's Scottish heritage ). The T shirt being worn that the Club official sought to be removed also had the same simple wording.
This is a classical example of "Jobsworth Culture" and the response by Club and Trust to concerns being raised would be laughable if it wasn't such an absurdly wooden reaction.

 

[Mid Devon Grecian]

Interesting to read this, it seems at odds with the Trust newsletters narrative. Has the Trust applied some spin? ‘Recollections may vary’

Unfortunately I wasn’t able to attend the March Trust Board meeting as was brought forward to a 6pm start.

In my view the newsletter is worded in a way to suggest ‘nothing to see here, move on’

The main point that I struggle with is that the club say freedom of expression is ok until it upsets someone else in the crowd.

From the dawn of time there’s always been ‘banter’ and arguments between fans. If I shouted Caldwell out repeatedly throughout the game someone is likely to disagree and tell me to STFU. It happens.

If stewards/the safety officer can’t handle disagreement/differing opinions between fans then we’re in a very uninteresting and sterile environment.

 

[Grecian Max]

I think that you are the one that is overreacting. There are safety regulations regarding banners, and for example those over a certain size need to be fireproofed. Have you actually seen a picture of the item in question ? It was basically about the size of a scarf !
It was hand held so no poles etc that could be interpreted as potential weapons, and all it said was simply "Caldwell Out", so nothing descriminatory or derogatory in racial terms (no mention of GC's Scottish heritage ). The T shirt being worn that the Club official sought to be removed also had the same simple wording.
This is a classical example of "Jobsworth Culture" and the response by Club and Trust to concerns being raised would be laughable if it wasn't such an absurdly wooden reaction.

The regulations I believe vary across club to club- certainly Wembley has a stringent one, which we had to work round for the 16/17 final

A lot of places have a minimum size of which if you’re under there’s no need for a fire cert - or at least this was the case; the Caldwell out banner was very small so who knows if there’s a little bit of using that as an excuse to remove. Perhaps.

I doubt a Caldwell Legend banner of the same size would have been removed.

 

[cannockred]

I think that you are the one that is overreacting. There are safety regulations regarding banners, and for example those over a certain size need to be fireproofed. Have you actually seen a picture of the item in question ? It was basically about the size of a scarf !
It was hand held so no poles etc that could be interpreted as potential weapons, and all it said was simply "Caldwell Out", so nothing descriminatory or derogatory in racial terms (no mention of GC's Scottish heritage ). The T shirt being worn that the Club official sought to be removed also had the same simple wording.
This is a classical example of "Jobsworth Culture" and the response by Club and Trust to concerns being raised would be laughable if it wasn't such an absurdly wooden reaction.

I agree although the steward was a jobsworth and may have been asked by his bosses to watch out for suchlike. If the guy had shown the banner to a steward on the way in and asked, it could have been sorted there and then.

Cant see how that is over reacting on my behalf, but hey ho. Depends what the ground regulations say and the clubs regulations regarding conditions for access to the ground.

There you go, I am overreacting again

 

[Grecian in Guzz]

The regulations I believe vary across club to club- certainly Wembley has a stringent one, which we had to work round for the 16/17 final

A lot of places have a minimum size of which if you’re under there’s no need for a fire cert - or at least this was the case; the Caldwell out banner was very small so who knows if there’s a little bit of using that as an excuse to remove. Perhaps.

I doubt a Caldwell Legend banner of the same size would have been removed.

Max.
I can only repeat that the words of our Safety Officer (SO) used at a Safety Personnel briefing before the Shrews game, considered during the match and the aftermath since -
"Caldwell Out banners and the like will be tolerated provided they are not offensive."
From reading papers submitted to / attending via Zoom various Trust Boards since the Shrews game the fire safety issue was not a problem to the SO on the night.

Pfb David Thompson's 2 page precis handed out to those attending the Trust Board meeting in person on 11 March 24 in his absence which I trust will at least be referred to in the minutes of the meeting particularly given that the Trust Chair ruled out Options 1 (impractical) and 2 (too costly) and was unhappy at the wording of Option 2 statement despite it being based on the SO's own words.



SUBJECT :PEACEFUL FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION UNDER THE LAW @ SJP



1.WHAT are the 2 'key' words ?........... 'PEACEFUL' & 'LAW'



2. WHY is the issue of 28/11/23 important to Our club? : ECFC has a national reputation as a shining example of how a supporters owned club should be.



3. From the evidence of written exchanges with the Safety Officer : Although I share Ashley Pilbrow's deeply held concerns as to his treatment I consider there to be much 'common ground'.



4. Consider Mr Instance to be a decent/peaceable man facing challenging situation. : Why ?

Answer : Safety Officer's reasonableness when faced with a potential Breach Of Peace .

a) He accepted full responsibility

b) Acknowledged he had committed an earlier oversight : 'staff' engaging in protest'

c) Accepted that the banner and T shirt were 'not offensive'

d) As to 'decency', he didn't take the easy route : 'Removal on the grounds of no ticket'

e) Mr Instance was clearly aware of Ashley's proven good character and behaviour.



5).What is the problem? It's the inalienable right to PEACEFUL Freedom of Expression.

N.B. An INALIENABLE Right in Law is , 'One that cannot be taken Away' : That is the 'nub'.

( European Convention on Human Rights & Fundamental Freedoms : 1950)



6) Legislators recognised that individuals will have differing views on any subject. In some cases , deeply held. SO The law accepts the right to freedom of expression in public , providing it is not in any way offensive, insulting, abusive or threatening



Problem : Differing View : Police have to protect both 'inalienable' peaceful rights

How? By arresting those, on either side, who engage in abusive and threatening behaviour



On what grounds ? ' Any person who, in any public place or at any public meeting, uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to provoke a breach of the peace, whereby a breach of the peace is likely to be occasioned, shall be guilty of an offence'.



7. 28/11/23 :

a) No evidence that Ashley engaged in abusive or threatening behaviour at any time .

b) There is however evidence that others did . Two ( inc.one staff member ?) reacted negatively to the modest banner and themselves engaged in abusive speech towards Ashley ..which unfortunately is 'reasonable grounds to suspect' them of committing a Breach of The Peace.

c). SO what action was taken ? Safety Officer ,' I made the decision to give you a choice, to not put the banner up in the 2nd half or leave if you were unable to comply with that condition'.

d).The action taken is understandable BUT hasn't it deprived Ashley of his inalienable right to peaceful freedom of expression under the Law?

e).Safety Officer states, ' Your conditional right to free speech and protest was maintained' HOW?



Conclusion ; THAT'S THE DILEMMA & 'NUB' OF THE PROBLEM FOR THE CLUB.



Solution : 'NO BANNERS ( to inc. Slogans on T Shirts) ' ...as a condition of Entry? Not recommending it.Can't see any other way out ...legally?



Three Formal Proposals attached for consideration by the Trustees.



DAVID THOMPSON TRUST NO.391 11/03/24

AS A RESULT OF THE UNFORTUNATE EVENTS OF 28TH NOVEMBER 2023 THE ECFC BOARD CONSIDERS :-



1. IMPOSING A 'NO BANNER RULE ( TO INCLUDE SLOGANS ON 'T' SHIRTS) ' AS A CONDITION OF ENTRY



2. ISSUING THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT :-



'SUPPORTERS, INCLUDING VOLUNTEERS, HAVE A RIGHT TO PEACEFUL FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION CONDITIONAL UPON THEM NOT BEING DISCRIMINATORY, OFFENSIVE OR CAUSING ALARM OR DISTRESS. 'CALDWELL OUT' BANNERS AND THE LIKE WILL BE TOLERATED PROVIDED THEY ARE NOT OFFENSIVE'.



( N.B. THESE ARE THE WORDS OF THE SAFETY OFFICER)



3.TAKING IMMEDIATE STEPS TO PAY FOR A DEVON & CORNWALL POLICE OFFICER TO ACT AS CONTROL AND FINAL ARBITER AS REGARDS POTENTIAL BREACHES OF THE PEACE AT ST JAMES PARK.