What "house rules" have the individuals who have been banned broken then? If someone is responsible for smashing up seats, fighting in the East Stand, or something along those lines, then fine, issue a ban.
I don’t think that has happened, though?
The issue I have with your analogy, and others have done the same, is that you're using examples where abuse was hurled at someone in the stadium, or some sort of "house rule" was broken in the stadium.
This isn't the case. If you left a Motherwell game and then got accused of getting into a tussle with some wank who supported the opposing team in a pub two miles from the ground, would you accept a ban? A crime that is hardly worthy of a slap on the wrist if you do it on a Saturday night in the town, but deems having you treated like a gun-toting gangster if you happen to have just left a football game?
You’re right, though; a ban should not be based on a criminal conviction. But if that’s the case, why does the club issue such bans based on the police charges? That was precisely why these bans were put in place.
It only makes sense that if the club issues a ban based on police charges, it should then lift the ban and issue an apology when the charges are dismissed.
"Mistakes happen, no issue there."
Well actually, there is an issue there. A pretty fucking big one. There's absolutely no way that should be glossed over. Some poor lad wrongly accused, put through the stress of what that entails and when it's proven he wasn't even in the country it's just a case of "mistakes happen, no issue there?"
Not for me.