Presumably you meant to use the word "infallible" when describing it as a tool. I didn't say it was infallible, but rather that it can be successful if used correctly. Old Trafford has a capacity of about 76 000, the Camp Nou has a capacity of about 98 000, and the Millenium Stadium has a capacity of about 73 000. What you have described as impossible is utilised at all three.

How do you it does work beyond trusting the spin in a press release? You dont

If what you said about laws was correct, then we wouldn't have any. It is the penalty that has both the deterrent and the punishment aspect. Either people obey the law, or they are punished repeatedly and more severely each time. That is how the whole legal system works. Otherwise you may as well throw your arms in the air and live as a hermit in the Alaskan wilderness.

Rather than give a simplistic view of how a legal system works consider this. Rules, laws, regulations only work if 1. people are prepared to comply with the laws and 2. that the laws can be adequately policed and monitored.

Banning people from sports grounds suffers from both shortcomings.

Enjoy your time in Alaska.

As for the last point, you highlighted one sentence while completely ignoring the following one which qualified it. Also see that you didn't answer that particular question.

The question is irrelevant how he behaves at an event if he has been apparently "banned". Just because he has not hit the headlines does not mean he has not breached the banning order and attended the game. And you are right we dont know so what does that tell you about the effectiveness of banning people from a sports stadium? ...They dont know and they keep their fingers crossed in hope that it does.

Even a cursory search of the internet will show you instances in the UK where people have been charged and convicted of breaching "banning orders".

Is that to high attendance sports stadium or a domestic dispute? Even if did getting one or two right does not mean you get them all.

If it is the UK, then the issue of crowd monitoring is made somewhat simpler by the fact of the extent of soccer hooliganism and violence that they house spectator groups separately at the ground. They also corral the entry and exit of these supporter groups through different areas of the surrounding town ship. Nevertheless soccer behaviour there has been undermined and stirred by recidivist "supporters" who have been "banned" but still manage to evade crowd control measures to cause social disruption and violence.

How do you it does work beyond trusting the spin in a press release? You dont

How do you know drink driving legislation works? By looking at the level of fatalities/injuries caused by alcohol in motor vehicle accidents. The same rationale applies. BTW, these measures are regularly supported by the Fleet St press, hardly the least inquisitive or opinionated lot. But they must be believing the spin too......

Rather than give a simplistic view of how a legal system works consider this. Rules, laws, regulations only work if 1. people are prepared to comply with the laws and 2. that the laws can be adequately policed and monitored.

Banning people from sports grounds suffers from both shortcomings.

Enjoy your time in Alaska.

You accuse me of coming up with a simplistic view and then post this. Remarkable.

As I've said (and posted a link to a lengthy essay on the subject), there is evidence that banning orders can be appropriately policed and monitored.

The question is irrelevant how he behaves at an event if he has been apparently "banned". Just because he has not hit the headlines does not mean he has not breached the banning order and attended the game. And you are right we dont know so what does that tell you about the effectiveness of banning people from a sports stadium? ...They dont know and they keep their fingers crossed in hope that it does.

Why would anyone report that Peter Hore has not attended a sporting event? Again past experience would tell us that if he was at one, he'd be either causing trouble or desperately trying to drum up publicity.

Is it not better to do something that may have an effect than do nothing in the knowledge that it won't?

Is that to high attendance sports stadium or a domestic dispute? Even if did getting one or two right does not mean you get them all.

If it is the UK, then the issue of crowd monitoring is made somewhat simpler by the fact of the extent of soccer hooliganism and violence that they house spectator groups separately at the ground. They also corral the entry and exit of these supporter groups through different areas of the surrounding town ship. Nevertheless soccer behaviour there has been undermined and stirred by recidivist "supporters" who have been "banned" but still manage to evade crowd control measures to cause social disruption and violence.

A comparison of the level of crowd violence in UK (and European more generally) soccer would show you that there has been a substantial decrease over the past 10 or 20 years. As for coralling entry, that may occur in European Cometition (UCL etc.), but it doesn't and couldn't happen in say London where there are a myriad of clubs.

You are never going to get them all, the same as you will never catch every drink driver or murderer, but there are steps that can and should be taken to catch some which will provide a deterrent to others.

How do you know drink driving legislation works? By looking at the level of fatalities/injuries caused by alcohol in motor vehicle accidents. The same rationale applies. BTW, these measures are regularly supported by the Fleet St press, hardly the least inquisitive or opinionated lot. But they must be believing the spin too......

I dont think its the same comparison. Drink driving legislation applies to the whole population. Prevention of ground entry only applies to people who have been previously banned. Its not the legislation that necessarily works to bring down the fatalities but the impact of the policing of it. I am questioning the effectiveness of policing of hoons banned at grounds.

You accuse me of coming up with a simplistic view and then post this. Remarkable.

As I've said (and posted a link to a lengthy essay on the subject), there is evidence that banning orders can be appropriately policed and monitored.

I noticed you cant address the points made. No surprise. You keep saying this "evidence" but it not evidence at all. Just what you are prepared to accept on the basis that others say is true. That's your issue not mine

Why would anyone report that Peter Hore has not attended a sporting event? Again past experience would tell us that if he was at one, he'd be either causing trouble or desperately trying to drum up publicity.

Is it not better to do something that may have an effect than do nothing in the knowledge that it won't?

You missed the point. How do you that Hore does not attend events where he was banned? You dont so you dont know whether he has been identified and turned away or not. Its not an issue if he acts up or not. BTW, who said we do nothing? Not I. I just dont think they can ensure someone that is banned from the MCG re entering the ground again at a later date without being spotted. Therefore I have questioned the effectiveness of banning when it cant be policed without lots of money and resources thrown at the problem.

You are never going to get them all, the same as you will never catch every drink driver or murderer, but there are steps that can and should be taken to catch some which will provide a deterrent to others.

Nor are you going to be able to effectively police the banning of a person from a sporting event in this country. Glad we agree on that.

I dont think its the same comparison. Drink driving legislation applies to the whole population. Prevention of ground entry only applies to people who have been previously banned. Its not the legislation that necessarily works to bring down the fatalities but the impact of the policing of it. I am questioning the effectiveness of policing of hoons banned at grounds.

Then it is equivalent to a driving whilst disqualified charge. Same legislation, just a different section if you'd like to look that up. Only applies to people who have already lost their licence - losing a right to do something they otherwise would have had. Not that difficulty really.

You were not questioning the effectiveness, you said repeatedly that it was impossible. I have provided you with numerous evidence but you have chosen to ignore what has actually been done in the UK and elsewhere and replaced it with an opinion based on nothing. Not your finest work.

I noticed you cant address the points made. No surprise. You keep saying this "evidence" but it not evidence at all. Just what you are prepared to accept on the basis that others say is true. That's your issue not mine

There was no point made. Laws are obeyed by people who don't break them. Those who break them are punished. Adequacy is often a matter of resourcing and this can be done if there is the will of the government, venues and sports involved. Again, overseas experience proves this. You claim I have no evidence then produce absolutely nothing but an unjustified opinion. Did you read the essay I linked?

I just dont think they can ensure someone that is banned from the MCG re entering the ground again at a later date without being spotted. Therefore I have questioned the effectiveness of banning when it cant be policed without lots of money and resources thrown at the problem.

You stated it was impossible, not that it would be ineffective without sufficient money and resources. That is what I have said all along in this thread.

Banning orders are something that are effective as much in the observance rather than the breach. Probably more so.

Nor are you going to be able to effectively police the banning of a person from a sporting event in this country. Glad we agree on that.

Not what I have said at all. But you read what you want, you're obviously going to anyway.

it's just not in the movies that casinos have face recognition software. how do you think they police exclusion orders? i hope the alleged offenders, if found guily, get their right whack.

anyway, i hope mr jones is doing ok and his son is not too traumatised by the whole affair.