 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The duty holder i.e. West Ham United are responsible for their actions and inactions ,,,
In cases where ineffectual fan segregation inside stadiums leads to violent confrontation between rival fans the host club has failed its duty to risk access and implement reasonable measures to reduce the potential hazard ....
West Ham are at fault...
Judge Sox....  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The duty holder i.e. West Ham United are responsible for their actions and inactions ,,,
In cases where ineffectual fan segregation inside stadiums leads to violent confrontation between rival fans the host club has failed its duty to risk access and implement reasonable measures to reduce the potential hazard ....
West Ham are at fault...
Judge Sox.... "
Also it's their fault because a Chelsea fan says so 
LAWYERED!
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The duty holder i.e. West Ham United are responsible for their actions and inactions ,,,
In cases where ineffectual fan segregation inside stadiums leads to violent confrontation between rival fans the host club has failed its duty to risk access and implement reasonable measures to reduce the potential hazard ....
West Ham are at fault...
Judge Sox.... "
Isn't this one of those odd ones though as West Ham only rent the stadium?, I remember when the terms of the deal come out they (WHFC) weren't even responsible for the cost of the corner flags |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The duty holder i.e. West Ham United are responsible for their actions and inactions ,,,
In cases where ineffectual fan segregation inside stadiums leads to violent confrontation between rival fans the host club has failed its duty to risk access and implement reasonable measures to reduce the potential hazard ....
West Ham are at fault...
Judge Sox....
Isn't this one of those odd ones though as West Ham only rent the stadium?, I remember when the terms of the deal come out they (WHFC) weren't even responsible for the cost of the corner flags"
I would imagine West Ham United are the responsible Duty Holder while conducting their business in the stadium..
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The duty holder i.e. West Ham United are responsible for their actions and inactions ,,,
In cases where ineffectual fan segregation inside stadiums leads to violent confrontation between rival fans the host club has failed its duty to risk access and implement reasonable measures to reduce the potential hazard ....
West Ham are at fault...
Judge Sox....
Isn't this one of those odd ones though as West Ham only rent the stadium?, I remember when the terms of the deal come out they (WHFC) weren't even responsible for the cost of the corner flags"
I think Judge Sox has it right. West Ham are responsible. No different from if it happened when playing away. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Why make excuses for the actions of those imbeciles.. They give the thousands of loyal fans a bad name and reputation..
I remember the bad old days of running battles along the barking Rd.. Twats
Unfortunately the extra capacity and cheap seats means this type can again get into games..
Until they are ed out and have enforceable lifetime bans with convictable consequences if they don't abide, this thug mentality will just continue and no amount of risk assessment paperwork will stop it.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
