Welcome to the TTP community
Be apart of something great, join today!
Bylaw officer calls cops to kick group off Surrey Field
- Thread starter dezza
- Start date
To play on any sports field in Surrey, you require a permit. Normally, the Bylaws Officers don't make a big deal about if it's a small group, but if it looks like anything organized, they will call you on it. It may seem harsh, but the grass fields won't survive if they aren't regulated. People play in the goal mouths, let their dogs crap on it and such. It seems to me that this particular Bylaws Officer was quite professional and civil. The RCMP Constable was too. These rules have been in place for 20 years plus. Tom Duncan and I have been in a few battles with unauthorized users on CAP 2, and there are signs everywhere. I do understand the frustration of uninformed users.
I think soon we are gonna have to ask for a permit to breathe.......one side they complaining our kids are to big to lazy, when we go out play with them you get slapped so what is left play on the concrete, why do we have grass fields in the parks, and the permits are just making money for the city, the city needs more money?
jimmy_jones
Well-Known Member
Looks like the bylaw officer was wrong and just on a power trip...this is an elementary school park it's meant for kids to play on it.... The only issue is when organized groups are using it without permits.
I remember when NAP 1 ( now #4) was first built a long time ago, SFC people were calling the cops on little kids who would jump the 3' fence for a kick around with friends after school or in the daytime during school holidays because SFC would lock the doors to the pitch because they felt only they could/should use it...
I'm pretty sure you only need a permit for an organized event ( please correct me if I'm wrong ). I believe the bylaw officer misinterpreted the bylaw and then the cop clapping her hands ( idiot ).
Clap, Clap, Clap....listen to me I'm important!!!!! Fcuk me what a joke.
Clap, Clap, Clap....listen to me I'm important!!!!! Fcuk me what a joke.
On the other side of the coin...
If I had a dollar for every time I personally, (he says like there is any other way) saw an 'unauthorized' group or 3/4/5 muppets doing doggies or having a 5 aside inside the 18 yard box or goal mouth of a club used soccer pitch, I would be able to by the bleeding hearts a grass field of your very own just to stay off the proper game fields. Go on, dig it up the goal mouth, climb the nets, have your dog crap where it pleases. We all pay taxes, but some of us pay extra to be a members of proper clubs who use and pay extra for these permits, money used to maintain these pitches and facility's... and we/they don't want them chewed up.
The 18 yard box is like the bloody Bermuda Triangle. Everyone seems to end up there and nothing ever good comes of it.
all the other shite... stopping a group of 6 kids and their dads, being (I assumed disrespected enough) to have them forced to have the police called? Video shot USofA style, arguing with Police and demanding ID#'s... all so ridiculous
If I had a dollar for every time I personally, (he says like there is any other way) saw an 'unauthorized' group or 3/4/5 muppets doing doggies or having a 5 aside inside the 18 yard box or goal mouth of a club used soccer pitch, I would be able to by the bleeding hearts a grass field of your very own just to stay off the proper game fields. Go on, dig it up the goal mouth, climb the nets, have your dog crap where it pleases. We all pay taxes, but some of us pay extra to be a members of proper clubs who use and pay extra for these permits, money used to maintain these pitches and facility's... and we/they don't want them chewed up.
The 18 yard box is like the bloody Bermuda Triangle. Everyone seems to end up there and nothing ever good comes of it.
all the other shite... stopping a group of 6 kids and their dads, being (I assumed disrespected enough) to have them forced to have the police called? Video shot USofA style, arguing with Police and demanding ID#'s... all so ridiculous
- Admin
- #9
Pretty sure two guys with their children were no threat and not any organization of any kind, point is there should not have been anything here at all, bylaw chick shouldn't have even given this a thouight and police should not have been involved at all.... its 2 fcking guys with their kids at a park FFS!!!!
trece verde
Well-Known Member
Reading comprehension issues, people?
Location: Brookside Elementary School
Number of people involved: 6 parents and 6 kids
* 1 bylaw officer: Hemu Narayan I.D (204350)
* 1 identified RCMP officer: V. Churchille
* 1 unidentified RCMP officer.
Watch the video.
The bylaw officer (right or wrong) felt she needed help to deal with a group who she stated were not being compliant with a city bylaw. That was why police were called, not because they don't have better things to do (which they do). It appears that the issue is being addressed by the bylaw enforcement manager...
Vancouver Parks Board's field usage policy is that if nobody has permitted time on a field, and it's not closed, then it is open for public usage. That doesn't stop the pinheads from doing a David Lam on a field with their dogs (really people, there are legitimate offleash dog parks in the city, not just anything that has soccer goalposts on it), or the group of assclowns at Adanac who have their fcuking touch football games on closed fields there, or especially the twats at Andy Livingstone who think they can just run onto the field in the middle of kids' practice times and then get hostile and abusive when asked to leave (even when it was still being done politely).
Location: Brookside Elementary School
Number of people involved: 6 parents and 6 kids
* 1 bylaw officer: Hemu Narayan I.D (204350)
* 1 identified RCMP officer: V. Churchille
* 1 unidentified RCMP officer.
Watch the video.
The bylaw officer (right or wrong) felt she needed help to deal with a group who she stated were not being compliant with a city bylaw. That was why police were called, not because they don't have better things to do (which they do). It appears that the issue is being addressed by the bylaw enforcement manager...
Vancouver Parks Board's field usage policy is that if nobody has permitted time on a field, and it's not closed, then it is open for public usage. That doesn't stop the pinheads from doing a David Lam on a field with their dogs (really people, there are legitimate offleash dog parks in the city, not just anything that has soccer goalposts on it), or the group of assclowns at Adanac who have their fcuking touch football games on closed fields there, or especially the twats at Andy Livingstone who think they can just run onto the field in the middle of kids' practice times and then get hostile and abusive when asked to leave (even when it was still being done politely).
TulioMaravilha
Active Member
Same as most everyone here, I have kids that play organized soccer, have coached youth teams for a long time and played on those soccer fields.
So, I have experienced and suffered over time from poor conditions of the grass soccer fields.
Having said that, IMHO it's absolutely ridiculous that parents cannot play with their kids in the parks.
This bylaw is wrong in so many levels that it isn't funny.
You know what, I may be shooting myself in the foot here but I'd rather play and coach in crappy fields than accept a state of things in that I am forbidden from going with my boys to a city park for a kick about.
Actually, I go one over, what's wrong with people having a impromptu pickup game in the park?
Don't we as soccer people want the profile of the sport to grow as it did in other more established countries?
When football started in Brasil, it was a "gentleman's game" played by the British ex-pats and well-to-do people in their social clubs.
How far do you think it would have gone if when the masses tried to adopt it and play in the public spaces, somebody came and said: "no can do, you're gonna ruin the lawn".
Give me a break!
So, I have experienced and suffered over time from poor conditions of the grass soccer fields.
Having said that, IMHO it's absolutely ridiculous that parents cannot play with their kids in the parks.
This bylaw is wrong in so many levels that it isn't funny.
You know what, I may be shooting myself in the foot here but I'd rather play and coach in crappy fields than accept a state of things in that I am forbidden from going with my boys to a city park for a kick about.
Actually, I go one over, what's wrong with people having a impromptu pickup game in the park?
Don't we as soccer people want the profile of the sport to grow as it did in other more established countries?
When football started in Brasil, it was a "gentleman's game" played by the British ex-pats and well-to-do people in their social clubs.
How far do you think it would have gone if when the masses tried to adopt it and play in the public spaces, somebody came and said: "no can do, you're gonna ruin the lawn".
Give me a break!
OK Balls, that is weak, and if I may, selfish of the club.
The buck starts and stops w/ organized teams. That said, if the field is "open" and not in use, it becomes a public park that is open to the public...to use respectfully, of course. Are you telling me that, in the case of CAP, when the fields are completely empty that Surrey United has a permit for them, to use 100% at their discretion? I get it and become manic when I show up at a pitch and there is dog crap left on it. Totally get it. That user who failed to pick-up is a douche. I have in the past picked-up, and ran after the dog walker to hand her the bag of crap. But seriously, to completely close an otherwise "open" facility, one we all pay for as part of the public park system? Should never happen. And yes, SirM, a very poor use of public funds. No need to get the cops involved. Watch from a safe distance, and advise people that if a group shows up w/ a permit, they'll have to move along.
Last edited:
So good this bears worth repeating.
I used to (when kids were younger) go out with them and kick a ball around when artificial fields were completely empty (no users whatsoever). Quite a few times I had to leave when a "city employee" came to warn me that the field is only for organized groups. When I made argument that it was a public place, no organized users on any filed, and that I had every right to be there with kids he'd start a ridiculous story about insurance, liability, etc.
I understand that the grass fields get ruined but I cannot understand that they get ruined easily when it's raining too much and when it is hot too much. Instead of protecting the goal mouth with a plastic fence (to help grass regrow and let people play on other parts of the field) it is obviously easier (for City) to ban any users without exception! Where is logic in that? Why people pay taxes after all? I guess for Translink Adviser who makes $35,000 a month; yet greedy majors are in shock when people vote "No" to their proposal to increase PST.
I understand that the grass fields get ruined but I cannot understand that they get ruined easily when it's raining too much and when it is hot too much. Instead of protecting the goal mouth with a plastic fence (to help grass regrow and let people play on other parts of the field) it is obviously easier (for City) to ban any users without exception! Where is logic in that? Why people pay taxes after all? I guess for Translink Adviser who makes $35,000 a month; yet greedy majors are in shock when people vote "No" to their proposal to increase PST.
Better question is why are police services expensive?
trece verde
Well-Known Member
Umm, the logic is that when you see the plastic fencing on the field and the accompanying "field closed" sign it's usually a hint that the field is closed... Not sure what's so complicated about that.
I think that is what RL is saying. He's pointing out the non-logic of the situation.
And it is entirely non-logical. From by-law people trying to throw people off unused turf pitches for "insurance liability" reasons, to by-law people calling the cops to remove citizens from using a public park, from the cops actually responding to the situation. All of it is stupid, and badly handled. I don't care what clout soccer clubs think they have in the situation, it isn't their personal property to dictate the use of, it is their privilege that the city allows the clubs to use the fields as much as they do.
And it is entirely non-logical. From by-law people trying to throw people off unused turf pitches for "insurance liability" reasons, to by-law people calling the cops to remove citizens from using a public park, from the cops actually responding to the situation. All of it is stupid, and badly handled. I don't care what clout soccer clubs think they have in the situation, it isn't their personal property to dictate the use of, it is their privilege that the city allows the clubs to use the fields as much as they do.
Dirty Daddy 3
Active Member
Is it just me or does the confrontational nature of the group of "soccer players" leave any doubt as to why the by-law office called for back up? If she was the origin of the call? The RCMP office did have to clap her hand to get their attention. Thankfully she was able to gain control with this simple action, in other parts of NA other tactics may have been deployed.
DD3
DD3
Members online
No members online now.
