We wouldn’t be branding fans as criminals ... quite the opposite, in fact

EXCLUSIVE: Mulraney on facial recognition:

ALLOA chairman Mike Mulraney sat on the SPFL working group that was behind t he idea of introducing facial recognition cameras to keep offensive and anti- social behaviour out of Scottish football grounds.

Plans to seek £2m-£4million of f i nancial assistance f rom the Scottish Government have drawn heavy criticism from supporters who believe the Big Brother-style facial mapping cameras will treat them like criminals and prompt many to stay away.

Here, Mulraney answers the key questions relating to the plans in a Sportsmail question and answer exclusive…

SUPPORTERS ARE CONCERNED FACIAL RECOGNITION WILL UNJUSTLY TREAT THEM LIKE CRIMINALS. THAT IT WILL MAKE SCOTTISH FOOTBALL A BIG BROTHER STATE. ARE THEY RIGHT?

My view is that this does not criminalise fans. At the moment, fans are videoed.

What happens is that we have to take screenshots of the faces of fans who have acted inappropriately. Those who have committed criminal acts.

The only way to currently deal with that is to go to the police, go to the courts and get a banning order. Which means that, in order for us to legally ban them from our grounds, we have to criminalise them.

This system actually makes it a civil matter. Much the same as if you are asked to leave your local pub.

What we would say is: ‘We are not allowing you into our club or our facility because we think you are unsafe and will let off a flare’.

We are making it a civil matter. So we no longer have to go to court and criminalise. We can now just go and say: ‘you’re barred’. Much the same as people are at their local.

Stirling shopping centre has security guards and cameras to keep troublemakers out. We’re proposing to do the same.

Act inappropriately and you are excluded. But we don’t need to go to court to exclude you — we just say: ‘you are not getting in.’

So it is t he opposite of criminalising fans — the opposite of how they perceive it.

FANS FEEL THERE IS ALREADY TOO MUCH SURVEILLANCE OF THEM VIA THE OFFENSIVE BEHAVIOUR IN FOOTBALL ACT — WHAT WOULD YOU SAY TO THOSE WHO THINK THIS IS A STEP TOO FAR?

IF someone is of the opinion we can do this in another manner without surveillance — and can keep out the people letting off flares and bangers and acting unsafe in another way — I would be interested to know what the other way is.

ISN’T THE IDEA OF USING HUGE SUMS OF PUBLIC MONEY TO INSTALL CAMERAS AT ALBION ROVERS OR STRANRAER FOR CROWDS OF 250 LUDICROUS?

We don’t need to do that. This is why the proposal i s out f or discussion now.

What we are saying is: ‘ Do we really need to be filming Albion Rovers playing Stranraer?’. No, we don’t.

But if there is an issue we think has a high-risk potential at any ground, we could send mobile units in via vans. Much as police do at the minute.

And instead of having to arrest people to ban them, we can just say: ‘Hang on, you threw a lighter or a flare on the pitch last month. you are not getting in.’

It’s a civil matter. The very opposite of branding fans criminals and taking them to court.

We are treating them with courtesy — as customers in any kind of business environment, be it a pub or a superstore.

But what we are saying to them is: ‘If you do something we think makes it an unenjoyable experience for everyone else, we are not going to let you in’.

THE CAMERA TECHNOLOGY WOULD ONLY APPLY TO PEOPLE ALREADY BANNED. DO YOU NOT STILL NEED TO FIND THESE PEOPLE AND BAN THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE?

THAT doesn’t change. That’s what happens at the minute anyway. But what the database allows us to do is maintain the action. To put them out and keep them out. To manage the outcomes because, at the moment, we cannot manage the outcomes.

Take the three fans Celtic banned after Stranraer. How the hell would I keep them out of the next Alloa match if they turned up with flares? I can’t. I don’t know who they are.

IN SEASON 2014-15 THERE WERE ONLY 193 CHARGES OF OFFENSIVE BEHAVIOUR AT FOOTBALL IN SCOTLAND. CAN WE REALLY ASK GOVERNMENT FOR £2M-£4M OF TAXPAYERS’ CASH TO TACKLE RELATIVELY SMALL NUMBERS?

PEOPLE say there are only a couple of hundred banned and the cost is too high. But what you are talking about there are the people we had to actually criminalise.

We don’t want to criminalise people. It’s not about the number of successful or unsuccessful court cases we see at the minute.

It would appear to me that the legislation currently does not work. We need to not do it by the law.

We need to do it by good practice and normal business practice. And by saying to people: ‘We are not criminalising you i f we can avoid it’.

We might if you let off a flare and hurt someone. But if you are not acting reasonably, we don’t want you in.

Whether that is for a game, a month, a season or forever is up to the clubs.

But what we are saying is that we have a problem at the minute where we cannot be consistent. This changes that.

PEOPLE SAY FANS WILL JUST PUT SCARVES ROUND THEIR FACES AND PULL A HAT DOWN TIGHT TO AVOID BEING CLOCKED BY YOUR CAMERAS. THAT IT WON’T WORK. ARE THEY RIGHT?

IS any system that we adopt going to be 100- per-cent foolproof? No. But the bottom line is that we have to say to folk: ‘you are not getting through the turnstile if you don’t show us what you look like.’

you are not al l owed in a supermarket with a crash helmet on or wearing a balaclava. Why should it be different for football?

If you turn up at a turnstile with a scarf around your face, you will be asked to remove it.

THE NEGATIVE REACTION TO THIS OWES MUCH TO A PERCEPTION THE SPFL HAVE LOST THE PLOT. THAT THE PEOPLE ON THE BOARD AND THE PEOPLE WHO RUN IT ARE NO LONGER FIT FOR PURPOSE. HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO SUCH CRITICISMS?

We are well used to people saying that about lots of things. It seems to be the default position for people to take no matter what we come forward with.

We get accused of doing nothing. Then we do something, and we get accused for that, as well.

you have to have broad shoulders and thick skin to be prepared to come up with ideas, brainstorm stuff and approve things.

What I would say to all of those saying, ‘This is a daft, hair-brained scheme which breaches my civil l i berties’ is this: ‘ Have you criticised the SPFL over the last 36 months for not doing anything about some of these high-profile incidents?’

every single one of you in the media would have to say: ‘yes’. To which I would say: ‘OK then, what’s your idea?’