I saw this article on the BBC web site today: ‘Hooligans’ banned from World Cup:
Isn’t that a little much? Without any kind of due process, they’re banning people from leaving the country in any way. How is this legal? Shouldn’t it be Japan’s problem to keep them out, instead of the UK’s to keep them in?
I believe that these are people who have been convicted of violent offences within the area surrounding a football ground before, during or after a football game. Part of the possible punishment is (IIRC) a five year or ten year ban on travelling to countries where the British (especially English) team is playing for a period before and after that game.
Because of the way that the legislation was drawn, it is missing some of the hardcore streetfighters who no longer go anywhere near the ground at the time of the game, but who organize ‘rumbles’ with opposing violent groups at agreed locations. It has proved impossible for the courts to ban these people from travel as the violence was not sufficiently football-related.
These are known repeat offenders; it’s more of an infringement on the rights of their potential victims than it is on the hooligans to prevent them travelling to commit violence (there can be very little doubt that this is their intention).
I’m not sure if a passport is an inalienable right.
Perhaps (we in the UK can only hope) the antics of this group of hardcore thugs has had less press overseas than in the UK. I doubt you’ll find many people here losing sleep over this. Certainly not me.
So they fly to Japan, if the authorities identify them at the airport, who’s pay’s to fly them back ? And if they try again, and this time they get in, damage to people and property is done, they go to court…more and more time and resources is spent on something that could be avoided.
As it stands, I think it’s fine and dandy that the UK authorities are taking responsibility for their proven troublemakers. Besides, we don’t want to get banned again from international competitions…which may not be entirely irrelevant to this policy decision.
Unless otherwise informed, I’m content to rely on the European Convention on Human Rights (I suspect the primary UK legislation in this area) apropos the legality of doing this.
There’s nothing stopping them leaving the country. All they need is a boat. Their Magna Carta right to free passage is not impeded.
Passports accredit you as being a citizen in good standing, and deserving of the protection of 'er Majesty’s government. In these bureacratic times, the practice of carrying a passport has become so universal that you can’t get through normal immigration procedures, or even get on a vessel leaving the country, without one… but that doesn’t mean anyone has an inalienable legal right to one. As I recall, a British passport is government property and can, technically, be withdrawn if the government feels like it.
The hardcore soccer hooligans are determined as not being upstanding citizens, and therefore not deserving the protection of Her Majesty’s government. And quite right too.
They certainly can. A British passport is the property of the crown and is lent to you. It can be demanded back at any time. Things are a bit murkier in Europe, as we have freedom of travel there.
There are specific conditions which can be applied if yuo have been convicted under the Football Offences Act, 1999 and this is one of them.
However the great majority of “hooligans” have never been convicted, thus removing this 1,000 is really just window dressing.
However I am relaibly informed that there is no intention to travel to the World cup, as it is too far, too expensive and “too foreign”, and England have very little hope of doing well. I can’t see any trouble being likely. Also the local people won’t be looking for trouble either.
I’m not sure about the average town centre on the Friday that Argentina or France put us out though (remembering similar nights before).
I fully agree that this is a necessary step to stop these “people” getting to the games and causing trouble, but I wonder what would happen if they had booked to go somewhere unrelated to football (or were already out of the country) at the time of the world cup?
Do they have the right to appeal if they can prove they are just going to Spain for a holiday in the sun and nowhere near the football? Would they be allowed to keep their passport if they needed to travel to Germany on business at the same time as the football in Japan?
I wonder how long these bans last? Let’s say they turn over a new leaf and lose interest in football. Is this going to stop them taking a family holiday at the same time as the football in 12 years time? That would be over the top IMO. I agree these bans are needed, but I feel they should only be banned for a set amount of time. Say five years?
Maybe that’s already the case. Anyone know?
I suppose they would have a right to appeal, but the process would probably drag on so long that they would miss their legitimate holiday anyway; that’s the price of being a wanker, I suppose.
Heheh, nicely put, Mangetout. 
If they miss a holiday due to the time an appeal would take, then I agree that seems poetic justice and quite funny. I do think there should be a time limit on the bans though. Five years should be enough to make these people think again.
As to the spain example, no they would not have the right to appeal. As Spain is in the EU, techically you don’t need a passport, so the usual condition is that you have to sign in at a police station at match time to ensure you are not there. World cups etc are planned years in advance, so the person would know not to book at this time.
The German example is a bit trickier and I am not sure about that.
Usual length of ban is 5,7 or 10 years. There are life bans, but very very few.
Ah, thanks, owlstretchingtime, it all sounds a lot fairer to me now. It seems quite a sensible solution really… providing they can get the worse of them.
Why not start throwing them in jail for months or years? If convicted of felonious assault in the US, a person can do some time ranging up into a couple of years. I think whacking some innocent guy with a wooden post would qualify for felonious assault. Plus, here in the US, the attacker, even if not convicted, can be sued. CCTV cameras at the games have caught scores of these guys abusing people, so the lawsuits would be a win-win situation. Hit them in the pockets where it hurts badly. Make it so that they cannot afford to leave the country to attend games.
They do throw people in jail for lengthy sentences. However the hoolies are a bit smarter than you might think and know to outwith CCTV, with hoods scarves etc, so evidence isn’t always there.
Following a recent Millwall/Birmingham game there was a bad riot (easily predictable) and the police are now contemplating suing Millwall for not controling their fans.
You can have your season ticket removed at any time if the club suspect you.
Maybe the ‘eye for an eye’ law, like some other nations have, would be good. A hooligan inflicts pain on someone and gets caught and has to have an equal or worse amount of pain inflicted on them. Like caning. Publicly also.
I never have liked it that some thug beats up some guy, puts him in the hospital and then, when caught, has to be handled with kid gloves and delicate touches, then gets pushed gently through trial and conviction and poked in the Big House. I say, beat the crap out of them a few times so that they will get to experience what they have inflicted a few times and they might learn a few things.
You’ve not had any dealings with the Metropolitan Police then?
I wish I had the faith of owlstretchingtime that the hooligans aren’t going to bother going. I fear that the lure of the spotlight on the world stage may prove too tempting.
Don’t forget that, in addition to leaving the UK, they’d be attempting to enter either Japan or South Korea (both countries are jointly sharing the honour of hosting the World Cup). Each of those countries can decide to deny entry to someone. No doubt, the UK will forward a list of names to those governments.
Another thing to keep in mind is that the penalties for violent crimes in Japan and Korea are a bit different than the slap on the wrist the hooligans got in Europe.
My understanding (based on people I know) is that people are generally giving it a miss on the basis that ( I should point out that this is their perception, I’m only reporting it)
All in all this is the world cup I am finding it most difficult to get excited about. I can’t watch football at 7 in the morning. It’s not right.
Indeed, the first English fan on a “Watch out for” list provided by the UK police has already been denied entry and send home. You can read about it here.
I don’t think the European police have been particularly soft on these people, I seem to remember during Euro 2000 they deported people just for being suspected or in the general area of the troubles. The trouble is, as mentioned above, it is so hard to identify the main troublemakers, and with no proof these laws are as strict as they can really get. I may understand this wrong, but I think the UK police are going so far as to warm the Japanese and Korean police about people who have violent records, but not even football related ones. If so, coupled with the bans, they can’t do much more than they’re doing.