Pigs v. Blades - ticket databases & the DPA

[Linz]

As mentioned HERE, I've been in touch with the FSF about the fact that the two clubs comparing databases sounds a little dodgy to me.

Here are the replies I've got.

Hello Linz

Apologies for the delay in coming back to you.

We have had an example of this before when Leeds were away to MK Dons, exactly the same scenario to yours. The case was protracted but to sum it up, MKD denied breaching the DPA as they stated no information was passed between clubs. Simply, if MKD had reason to doubt the applicant for the ticket, they'd ring Leeds, ask if John Smith was on their database and Leeds were confirm or deny. No personal information was passed between clubs.

Having said that, it is always worth challenging such practices and I'd recommend you advise any supporter who has concerned to write to the club asking for reassurances they are acting within the DPA. If the supporter is not happy with the response, they should then take it up with the Football League and possibly the Independent Football Ombudsman.

Hi Linz

I think that if SUFC have not told people on their database that they may pass this fact to another organisation they may well be in breach of the DPA. I’m not sure that the “MKD defence” that they are not exchanging personal data holds up because I think that the fact that someone is on the SUFC database is probably personal data in itself – but I’m not certain and there may be some case law on it.

Anyone can apply to the Information Commissioner for an assessment under section 42 of the DPA as to whether a particular practice is lawful under the DPA. I think that is the thing to do in this case. It costs nothing, and nothing is lost by doing so, and it raises the issue.

It might of course just have the consequence that SUFC would start telling people they might do this when they purchase tickets.

Of course it assumes that anyone on the SUFC database is a Blades supporter. But this won’t always be the case will it ? What about, say, football-loving students in the City who might just want to watch the derby as a neutral and had previously brought tickets, as a neutral at Bramhall [sic] Lane.

So if anyone does find themselves caught out by being on both databases, let us know.

 

[norfolkblade]

On the subject of derby day, is there going to be any other way of watching it other than going? Sky have decided to show Newcastle v Plymouth instead and I imagine BBC will be showing something else as usual anyway! How they can't show it after the game at BDTBL is beyond me - idiots!

 

[lenners]

On the subject of televised games, the BBC should be embarrassed at their choice of games.
Neither Sheffield club being televised is outrageous. It's the biggest city represented in the league and has the largest number of fans attending games.
I think just about every midlands club has been shown at least once.

 

[norfolkblade]

I'd much rather watch that than the Newcastle promotion party Monday, the way sky have followed them this year is a disgrace, seems every week its them or WBA on the box, and the South Wales derby was shown yesterday, can't imagine many watched that!

 

[Santos]

As mentioned HERE, I've been in touch with the FSF about the fact that the two clubs comparing databases sounds a little dodgy to me.

Here are the replies I've got.





So if anyone does find themselves caught out by being on both databases, let us know.

Isn't this a bit of fuss about nothing. Why on earth any Unitedite would want to sit in the Wednesday end when there are hundreds of spare tickets going in the Leppings Lane end is beyond me.

I do sympathise with the example Malcolm put forward of football loving students but on the whole I don't really have a problem with Wednesday checking with United if such and such is a United/Wednesday fan.

 

[Rustyblade]

I don't really have a problem with Wednesday checking with United if such and such is a United/Wednesday fan

That sounds dangerously close to the, "if you've got nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear" argument to me. It's an invasion of privacy. Broken Britain. Bloody Thatcher. It's all Brown's sodding fault.

Time for a lie down.

 

[Jon Bon]

Why on earth any Unitedite would want to sit in the Wednesday end when there are hundreds of spare tickets going in the Leppings Lane end is beyond me.

We considered sitting amongst the pigs if there was a chance that we could have sent them down, just so we could inwardly gloat at all the misery and suffering going on around us.

Can't happen now so we won't.

 

[raul]

I have two tickets available, one adult and one junior, should anyone wish to purchase from a non-Big Brother Is Watching You source.

 

[judge]

how much ?

 

[raul]

Face, obv. £33 the pair.Or two cases of Magic Apples. I'll even pay postage to Liverpool if you're not coming next week.

 

[sblive]

whats all the fuss?call me ignorant are they concerned about segregation at the uncleans sty?

 

[Linz]

Since when does sending an email constitute a "fuss"?

As a former law student, I've seen some dodgy practices by football clubs, stewards and coppers over the years. Just as they are keen to use the law against us to protect themselves, they should be bound by the same laws which protect individuals. One of those is that you have the right to control who has information about yourself.

I assume all those who aren't bothered about this sort of thing don't have curtains in their homes?

 

[sblive]

blinds dear!blinds!maybe they want to know how many blades are on the way so they can mince some of their filthy offspring to use as pie ingredients lol

 

[Santos]

Since when does sending an email constitute a "fuss"?

As a former law student, I've seen some dodgy practices by football clubs, stewards and coppers over the years. Just as they are keen to use the law against us to protect themselves, they should be bound by the same laws which protect individuals. One of those is that you have the right to control who has information about yourself.

I assume all those who aren't bothered about this sort of thing don't have curtains in their homes?

I understand the civil liberties argument but I think that althoughit is a sad indictment on the way football and society has gone it is quite fair in this day and age to expect football clubs to do their best to prevent opposing fans from sitting in areas where they shouldn't, and perhaps if the stories are to be believed the fracas on the kop yesterday is evidence of this being taken more seriously. If, someone buys a ticket from the Wednesday box office who isn't on their database I personally don't see whats wrong with checking with us if they're a Blade.

 

[Rustyblade]

I understand the civil liberties argument but I think that althoughit is a sad indictment on the way football and society has gone it is quite fair in this day and age to expect football clubs to do their best to prevent opposing fans from sitting in areas where they shouldn't, and perhaps if the stories are to be believed the fracas on the kop yesterday is evidence of this being taken more seriously. If, someone buys a ticket from the Wednesday box office who isn't on their database I personally don't see whats wrong with checking with us if they're a Blade.

Then you don't understand the civil liberties argument.

The assumptions involved are incredibly dangerous. You are on a SUFC database. Therefore you are banned from sitting in certain areas of other grounds. Just why is it that you are considered a danger to society because your name is on a database?

Let's say you are on a database at a concert venue. You always buy tickets near the mosh pit at death metal gigs. You try and buy a ticket for a string quartet and are refused on the assumption that you will not be able to behave. You have no record of misbehaviour and yet are treated as if you have.

It sounds fucking loopy. But it really is exactly the same thing. And even if you disagree with this and reckon it's okay, just where do you draw the line? Are you qualified to draw it? Are SUFC? The government?

We either live in a free country or we don't. My view is that to a large extent we don't anymore. But this should not mean that we get to used to assuming the position without at least some small murmur of protest.

 

[Linz]

The assumptions involved are incredibly dangerous. You are on a SUFC database. Therefore you are banned from sitting in certain areas of other grounds. Just why is it that you are considered a danger to society because your name is on a database?

And if you are found to be on both databases, SWFC can essentially fine you for your trouble by not giving you a refund on the ticket you bought.

 

[shorehamview]

Here's a scenario that scuppers their great plan.

Man moves far away from home, but still wants to watch football. He supports Monaco, but seeing as he now lives in Sheffield he rather likes the idea of a home match almost every week. He buys a ticket for United one week, and a ticket for Wendy the other. He doesn't support either of them, he just likes to watch football. How does he go on now he's on the database at each club? Will he be barred from both, even though he is so obviously French he rides a bike and wears a stripy jumper with a string of onions?

 

[Santos]

Then you don't understand the civil liberties argument.

The assumptions involved are incredibly dangerous. You are on a SUFC database. Therefore you are banned from sitting in certain areas of other grounds. Just why is it that you are considered a danger to society because your name is on a database?

Let's say you are on a database at a concert venue. You always buy tickets near the mosh pit at death metal gigs. You try and buy a ticket for a string quartet and are refused on the assumption that you will not be able to behave. You have no record of misbehaviour and yet are treated as if you have.

It sounds fucking loopy. But it really is exactly the same thing. And even if you disagree with this and reckon it's okay, just where do you draw the line? Are you qualified to draw it? Are SUFC? The government?

We either live in a free country or we don't. My view is that to a large extent we don't anymore. But this should not mean that we get to used to assuming the position without at least some small murmur of protest.

I think you are over complicating the issue Rusty. You can get all philosophical and have these deep debates but it doesn't detract from the fact that if you let United & Wednesday fans sit together there will be fights bursting out all over the ground (as i said, it shouldn't be this way and it is a sad fact).

We will have to agree to disagree I think, I am perfectly happy for the clubs to take these measures, and infact if they wern't doing it I would question their responsibility and safety to supporters.

 

[Rustyblade]

Okay, we will have to agree to disagree, Santos. But just a few points/rants.

I'm not overcomplicating it at all. If anything I'm simplifying the issue.

Have you ever considered the idea that the segregation itself perpetuates the problem? It's never really worked in any other field so why is football apartheid acceptable? I cannot in all probability imagine a situation where a job lot of window lickers would be able to purchase an entire bloc of tickets in the away end. Isolated incidents will be just that. But, as long as some people think it's okay to twat someone for sitting in the wrong seat and, more to the point, those around do fuck all to prevent it, well let them to it say I. Stewards and police, do your job. And, just like it isn't but should be at demonstrations, that should be to protect our rights to sit wherever the fuck we like.

Also, why is it that other people have to be responsible on our fucking behalf? It then becomes so easy to deny one's own responsibility in any given situation. Then it's never anyone's personal fault, it's always the fault of some 'they'. They shouldn't allow it etc etc etc. Personal responsibility and accountability. Where did they disappear to? What's wrong with this country? It isn't the government, not even the monarchy, nor is it football fans.

It's us. Every single one of us.

Medicate me somebody. Please.

 

[Santos]

Okay, we will have to agree to disagree, Santos. But just a few points/rants.

I'm not overcomplicating it at all. If anything I'm simplifying the issue.

Have you ever considered the idea that the segregation itself perpetuates the problem? It's never really worked in any other field so why is football apartheid acceptable? I cannot in all probability imagine a situation where a job lot of window lickers would be able to purchase an entire bloc of tickets in the away end. Isolated incidents will be just that. But, as long as some people think it's okay to twat someone for sitting in the wrong seat and, more to the point, those around do fuck all to prevent it, well let them to it say I. Stewards and police, do your job. And, just like it isn't but should be at demonstrations, that should be to protect our rights to sit wherever the fuck we like.

Also, why is it that other people have to be responsible on our fucking behalf? It then becomes so easy to deny one's own responsibility in any given situation. Then it's never anyone's personal fault, it's always the fault of some 'they'. They shouldn't allow it etc etc etc. Personal responsibility and accountability. Where did they disappear to? What's wrong with this country? It isn't the government, not even the monarchy, nor is it football fans.

It's us. Every single one of us.

Medicate me somebody. Please.

Ha, I think you kinda drifted off topic there. But going on your theory I might just come round to your house today and plonk myself infront of your TV all day. I'll bring the beers you bring the nachos.

 

[Rustyblade]

Ha, I think you kinda drifted off topic there. But going on your theory I might just come round to your house today and plonk myself infront of your TV all day. I'll bring the beers you bring the nachos.

You're on. But you spill it, you clean it up.

 

[JohnDenver]

Okay, we will have to agree to disagree, Santos. But just a few points/rants.

I'm not overcomplicating it at all. If anything I'm simplifying the issue.

Have you ever considered the idea that the segregation itself perpetuates the problem? It's never really worked in any other field so why is football apartheid acceptable? I cannot in all probability imagine a situation where a job lot of window lickers would be able to purchase an entire bloc of tickets in the away end. Isolated incidents will be just that. But, as long as some people think it's okay to twat someone for sitting in the wrong seat and, more to the point, those around do fuck all to prevent it, well let them to it say I. Stewards and police, do your job. And, just like it isn't but should be at demonstrations, that should be to protect our rights to sit wherever the fuck we like.

Also, why is it that other people have to be responsible on our fucking behalf? It then becomes so easy to deny one's own responsibility in any given situation. Then it's never anyone's personal fault, it's always the fault of some 'they'. They shouldn't allow it etc etc etc. Personal responsibility and accountability. Where did they disappear to? What's wrong with this country? It isn't the government, not even the monarchy, nor is it football fans.

It's us. Every single one of us.

Medicate me somebody. Please.

Hallelujah and amen all at once. Post of the day.

 

[lenners]

Blades in Wednesday ends - legalities?

I notice that SWFC's fans website is taking great delight in pointing out that some Blades have had their tickets bought in home ends cancelled without refunds.
Setting aside the ethics - and I really think it's ridiculous that you can't buy a ticket to sit anywhere if you're going to behave - on what basis are SWFC able to keep people's money?
They've effectively contracted with fans to give them a ticket when they take the money off them.
I can see there might be circumstances in which they could potentially cancel on grounds of identity but it seems outrageous they are simply keeping the money.
Are they then even re-selling the tickets and pocketing twice the money for the same seat?
It doesn't seem morally right but I'm wondering if it's even legally right.
I'm also concerned that the issue of identity might have been based on SUFC providing personal data to SWFC, which I think Linz mentioned on here the other day. That should be a complete no-no for any company.
If Dazzler or any other legal eagles are out there, any thoughts?

 

[Darren]

I notice that SWFC's fans website is taking great delight in pointing out that some Blades have had their tickets bought in home ends cancelled without refunds.
Setting aside the ethics - and I really think it's ridiculous that you can't buy a ticket to sit anywhere if you're going to behave - on what basis are SWFC able to keep people's money?
They've effectively contracted with fans to give them a ticket when they take the money off them.
I can see there might be circumstances in which they could potentially cancel on grounds of identity but it seems outrageous they are simply keeping the money.
Are they then even re-selling the tickets and pocketing twice the money for the same seat?
It doesn't seem morally right but I'm wondering if it's even legally right.
I'm also concerned that the issue of identity might have been based on SUFC providing personal data to SWFC, which I think Linz mentioned on here the other day. That should be a complete no-no for any company.
If Dazzler or any other legal eagles are out there, any thoughts?

I suspect the contractual position is that it is a (probably) explicit term of the contract that anyone buying a ticket at the SWFC end is an SWFC supporter and that anyone discovered not to be a supporter of SWFC can be denied entry without a refund. If that is a term of the contract, United fans who are busted in this way don't have a legal leg to stand on.

On the information sharing point, football clubs do it on a regular basis. There may be DPA issues heer, but I suspect they are covered by the section of the DPA that allows the processing of information for the purpose of preventing and detecting crime (on the basis that crime is more likely if United fans are in SWFC areas).

Edit: having checked SWFC's website, there is a clear statement that any fans with tickets at the SWFC end found to be on United's databse will have their tickets cancelled without a refund. Open and shut case - if you buy a ticket at the SWFC end you do so at your peril.

 

[lenners]

I suspect the contractual position is that it is a (probably) explicit term of the contract that anyone buying a ticket at the SWFC end is an SWFC supporter and that anyone discovered not to be a supporter of SWFC can be denied entry without a refund. If that is a term of the contract, United fans who are busted in this way don't have a legal leg to stand on.

On the information sharing point, football clubs do it on a regular basis. There may be DPA issues heer, but I suspect they are covered by the section of the DPA that allows the processing of information for the purpose of preventing and detecting crime (on the basis that crime is more likely if United fans are in SWFC areas).

Do you think it's likely that SWFC sell tickets on the basis that you have to be an SWFC supporter to get in? Can't see that as being a valid position.
I could also see being denied entry on the day as being feasible - but having a ticket cancelled well before the event and keeping the money?
As for the DPA, is it for two private companies to provide personal information to each other or would the police have to be involved?
I get the feeling that this is a situation where football fans are being treated completely differently to any other section of society ever would be.

 

[Student Blade]

im not a 'legal eagle' at all - far from it in fact.

but surely this (the getting tickets off you once youve paid bit) comes down to t's and c's
they is probably somewhere on the ticket or elsewhere that states something like by purchasing this ticket then the buyer agrees to comfirm to these t's and c's
and one of them might be something like they with hold the right to cancel someones ticket without reason and without refund??

or am i just barking down the wrong tree?

UTB

 

[LouTheBlade]

I suspect the contractual position is that it is a (probably) explicit term of the contract that anyone buying a ticket at the SWFC end is an SWFC supporter and that anyone discovered not to be a supporter of SWFC can be denied entry without a refund. If that is a term of the contract, United fans who are busted in this way don't have a legal leg to stand on.

On the information sharing point, football clubs do it on a regular basis. There may be DPA issues heer, but I suspect they are covered by the section of the DPA that allows the processing of information for the purpose of preventing and detecting crime (on the basis that crime is more likely if United fans are in SWFC areas).

Edit: having checked SWFC's website, there is a clear statement that any fans with tickets at the SWFC end found to be on United's databse will have their tickets cancelled without a refund. Open and shut case - if you buy a ticket at the SWFC end you do so at your peril.

That's true although the argument against that would be;

A) Sitting with opposition supporters does not necessarily mean there is intention to commit a crime; and
B) How do you prove that someone is a "SUPPORTER" of a particular team. The term itself is more a concept than anything tangible. There are probably people on the Bramall Lane database who have simply gone to a game whilst in Sheffield (say on business) and are not Blades supporters.

I know point B is a hypothetical scenario but what I'm saying is it doesnt seem right that you can label someone a supporter of any club purely because they attend games regularly. I know weird sorts of people who support both Sheffield clubs because they have never wanted to form a preference. Are those classed as Blades supporters just because they have a record of buying tickets??? Even though it may be obvious in some cases, I don't see how you can brand someone a supporter of anything. You can only claim to be a supporter, its not something you or anyone else can prove!

Despite all that, I can't begin to imagine why any Blade (or pig for that matter) would want a ticket in the Wednesday end!!! I would rather stay at home and read a book!

 

[lenners]

im not a 'legal eagle' at all - far from it in fact.

but surely this (the getting tickets off you once youve paid bit) comes down to t's and c's
they is probably somewhere on the ticket or elsewhere that states something like by purchasing this ticket then the buyer agrees to comfirm to these t's and c's
and one of them might be something like they with hold the right to cancel someones ticket without reason and without refund??

or am i just barking down the wrong tree?

UTB

If it were quite as simple as that we may as well all sell tickets for a trip to the moon and just cancel them once we've got the dosh handed over.
I would have thought there has to be some intention to provide a good or service when you take someone's money off them.
I'm really interested in whether there's been a breach of the DPA though because United could get in legal hot water for that.

 

[Student Blade]

If it were quite as simple as that we may as well all sell tickets for a trip to the moon and just cancel them once we've got the dosh handed over.
I would have thought there has to be some intention to provide a good or service when you take someone's money off them.
I'm really interested in whether there's been a breach of the DPA though because United could get in legal hot water for that.

in this case its a good job im not anything to do with the law cos im guessing i would end up leaving massive loop holes and all sorts behind me :d

ill definately class myself as a legal eagle from now on

 

[GRUMPY BLADE]

Lenners

Not something to get yer knickers in a twist over. Trying it on is OK but don't cry if you get caught.

I mentioned this in another thread but when we went to watch Plymouth v Wolves and were asked for our address in the ticket office at Plymouth we were surprised that we came up as season ticket holders at SUFC. When questioned how they knew it was explained that the computer checked on some data base held by the police.

As we live in Sheffield I can only assume it must be a national data base in position lawfully.