|
Post by skip on Oct 5, 2015 18:23:50 GMT
Perhaps to some the reaction on here to this incident is over the top but looking at it as objectively as possible, if a Stoke fan had let off an extinguisher in an away pub all hell would break loose and they'd have the book thrown at them.
And the blind eye turning by that copper is a dereliction of duty.
|
|
lwspj
Academy Starlet
Posts: 104
|
Post by lwspj on Oct 5, 2015 18:26:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by dexta on Oct 5, 2015 18:27:48 GMT
Lets swing this around the other way.if stoke fans started to let fire extinguishers off and sprayed people or the landlady in the pub...we would be absolutely slated by the press and the old bill would just be baton happy
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2015 18:38:33 GMT
As the last few posts have pointed out, if you look at this situation closely you realise it's prejudice. And as a number of other posters have pointed out, if this had occurred two decades previously then there's a high likelihood she would've been using that extinguisher on a real fire. The relevance of that observation is that our supporters have come a long long way in recent times yet we are still tarnished and experience injustice due to a reputation that precedes us, and a reputation that precedes football supporters in general. The tickets alone for this game were £41. Our supporters at this match are hard-working people enjoying a day out and boosting the economy of Birmingham. To suggest for one moment that we should lie down and accept this sort of unjustified treatment is missing the point entirely and is a dangerous precedent.
|
|
|
Post by gonk on Oct 5, 2015 18:39:16 GMT
Its common assault pure & simple and the copper who ignored it needs dragging over the coals. CO2 extinguishers are clearly marked regarding their use and in particular pointing them at people. Take the landlord for every penny you can get..absolute disgrace. Class Action Lawsuit written all over it. It is assault 100% as for the inspector he should get knocked off for neglect of duty. Is the pub run by a brewery ?.If so has any one made a complaint to them about the landlady.
|
|
|
Post by Boothen on Oct 5, 2015 19:00:23 GMT
Better call Saul!
|
|
|
Post by stokie25 on Oct 5, 2015 19:16:04 GMT
Spraying chemicals at people in a confined space is assault, In tort law, a duty of care is a legal obligation which is imposed on an individual requiring adherence to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others. There is a precedent known as the "thin eggshell skull" rule. This rule holds that a tortfeasor is liable for all consequences resulting from his or her tortious (usually negligent) activities leading to an injury to another person, even if the victim suffers an unusually high level of damage (e.g. due to a pre-existing vulnerability or medical condition).
That woman didn't anticipate that there may have been patrons who suffer from bronchial or asthmatic conditions. In any event, in law, even spitting is considered "common assault" . I hope the very accomodating stoke fans take issue in this regard as we shouldn't have our names tarnished without responding in someway. Is there anything that Malcolm Clarke can do?
You all should claim!
|
|
|
Post by wrightspies on Oct 5, 2015 19:20:34 GMT
Why bring Greenhoff's up here? The only tool here is you. No need. Why NOT bring Greenhoffs' up here? I was illustrating a point using a hypothetical scenario. Do you own Greenhoffs' mate? Are you bringing a dog to this fight? You were illustrating people who drink in there as tools. Why not just say 'a Stoke town center pub' or a 'Stoke on Trent pub'? I don't own Greenhoffs no. But does it matter?
|
|
|
Post by enuntio on Oct 5, 2015 19:33:48 GMT
I'd hate to think that any Stoke fans would waste time reporting this to the police. Yes she went over the top but I think no real harm was done. At worse she should receive a lecture on how to deal with football fans and perhaps a few signs that stating that enjoyment is forbidden should be displayed. I hope this makes it to Sky Sports. This incident could well become legendary It's not a waste of time or a trivial matter. The staff member clearly had malicious intent. She assaulted a group of paying customers whilst she was at work. From all that we've been told so far her response to the behaviour of the stoke supporters appears completely disproportionate to their "crime". From comments in articles there could well have been prejudice against football fans / stoke supporters in play here. Would she have taken the same course of action if some regular punters were in a group upstairs loudly singing? The more we learn the less trivial this matter seems to be so I passionately disagree with the tone of your post and your summation of the events. Yes, fair point. What if it had been another Stoke fan letting the fire extinguisher off? Someone just having a laugh with hus mates, I'm certain that such incidents have happened ;-) If that had have been the case there would have been a completely different slant on this thread. Absolutely full credit goes to the Stoke fans in the way in which they behaved during and after the incident. Has the big lad who got covered in foam made any comments about this? This is only my opinion, but, we are Stoke. We are bigger than this. Leave the tale telling to other teams supporters. By all means complain to the brewery, but leave the police out of it. Take this incident for what it is and not to the litigators. Once again, absolutely full credit goes to the fans involved for their restraint
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2015 19:49:10 GMT
It is a violation of section 8 of the Health and Safety act and as it happened in a pub, it falls under the jurisdiction of the Local Authority's environmental health department. Criminal charges can follow.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2015 20:00:00 GMT
At the very least, the license holder should get a stern ticking off and some staff training seems to be in order. She should have aimed the foam at the base of Danny for starters.
|
|
|
Post by wrightspies on Oct 5, 2015 20:04:20 GMT
At the very least, the license holder should get a stern ticking off and some staff training seems to be in order. She should have aimed the foam at the base of Danny for starters. Questions should be asked about the reason she mainly aimed it at Danny when there was a number of people singing.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2015 20:05:41 GMT
It is a violation of section 8 of the Health and Safety act and as it happened in a pub, it falls under the jurisdiction of the Local Authority's environmental health department. Criminal charges can follow. Forget the HSE she already has assaulted them, Common Assault section 39.
|
|
tvgc
Spectator
Posts: 24
|
Post by tvgc on Oct 5, 2015 20:07:52 GMT
I applaud the lady's actions completely and believe every time that shite song is sung the fire extinguishers should come out. In fact I'm taking one to the next match.
|
|
|
Post by Ayupshag on Oct 5, 2015 20:13:54 GMT
Anyone know which pub it was?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2015 20:16:03 GMT
Assault would require one of the victims to make a complaint, detailing how they had been affected by the incident. Considering the somewhat carnival atmosphere, I can't see that holding much weight, unless someone happens to be admitted to hospital with a skin or lung complaint. There would certainly be an argument for damage to clothing, but that is a civil matter for the small claims court.
However, it is as clear an environmental health breach as you will ever see. That is the most likely way anyone is going to be held to account.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2015 20:18:46 GMT
Assault would require one of the victims to make a complaint, detailing how they had been affected by the incident. Considering the somewhat carnival atmosphere, I can't see that holding much weight, unless someone happens to be admitted to hospital with a skin or lung complaint. There would certainly be an argument for damage to clothing, but that is a civil matter for the small claims court. However, it is as clear an environmental health breach as you will ever see. That is the most likely way anyone is going to be held to account. Wrong mate there does not have to be injuries shock or fear can be an assault as I have said Section 39 common assault and any damage would not be civil it's criminal too. But yes there does need to be a complaint.
|
|
|
Post by Stokeontrent on Oct 5, 2015 20:23:42 GMT
Should have turned the fucking place over, certainley would of 10years ago
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2015 20:28:00 GMT
Common Assault, contrary to section 39 Criminal Justice Act. i) An offence of common assault is committed when a person either assaults another person or commits a battery. ii) An assault is committed when a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to apprehend the immediate infliction of unlawful force.
Criminal Damage.
Meaning of Damage Damage is not defined by the Act. The courts have construed the term liberally. Damage is not limited to permanent damage, so smearing mud on the walls of a police cell may be criminal damage. What constitutes damage is a matter of fact and degree and it is for the court, using its common sense, to decide whether what occurred is damage (Archbold 23-6).
The damage need not be visible or tangible if it affects the value or performance of the property.
As regards the offence of criminal damage, you should note that by Section 3(6) Computer Misuse Act, a modification of the contents of a computer will not be regarded as damaging any computer or computer storage medium unless its effect on the computer or computer storage medium impairs its physical condition. Damage or changes to software etc are now to be dealt with under the Computer Misuse Act 1990: refer to The Computer Misuse Act 1990, elsewhere in the Legal Guidance.
|
|
|
Post by marcofstoke on Oct 5, 2015 20:31:50 GMT
Anyone know which pub it was? The Wellington in Birmingham City Centre
|
|
|
Post by Ayupshag on Oct 5, 2015 20:44:35 GMT
Anyone know which pub it was? The Wellington in Birmingham City Centre Cheers mate. They're on Twitter so they've had my feelings aired
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2015 20:48:07 GMT
Assault would require one of the victims to make a complaint, detailing how they had been affected by the incident. Considering the somewhat carnival atmosphere, I can't see that holding much weight, unless someone happens to be admitted to hospital with a skin or lung complaint. There would certainly be an argument for damage to clothing, but that is a civil matter for the small claims court. However, it is as clear an environmental health breach as you will ever see. That is the most likely way anyone is going to be held to account. Wrong mate there does not have to be injuries shock or fear can be an assault as I have said Section 39 common assault and any damage would not be civil it's criminal too. But yes there does need to be a complaint. It is arguably a s.47 ABH given its an assault with a weapon spraying a noxious substance. Either way though there does not need to be a complaint for there to be an assault. The incident is captured on camera. It is clearly an assault, there is no issue of consent. Alternatively there are public order offences committed, section 4 maybe, definitely section 5 - neither of which need there to be a complaint. The only matter that would require a complaint is criminal damage.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2015 20:53:20 GMT
Wrong mate there does not have to be injuries shock or fear can be an assault as I have said Section 39 common assault and any damage would not be civil it's criminal too. But yes there does need to be a complaint. It is arguably a s.47 ABH given its an assault with a weapon spraying a noxious substance. Either way though there does not need to be a complaint for there to be an assault. The incident is captured on camera. It is clearly an assault, there is no issue of consent. Alternatively there are public order offences committed, section 4 maybe, definitely section 5 - neither of which need there to be a complaint. The only matter that would require a complaint is criminal damage. It may well be but home office guidelines would dictate it being a section 39. Legislation and home office guidelines differ I'm afraid, as for the public order deffo a section 4 maybe even a 3 affray but again it would be a lower for charging.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2015 20:57:41 GMT
It is arguably a s.47 ABH given its an assault with a weapon spraying a noxious substance. Either way though there does not need to be a complaint for there to be an assault. The incident is captured on camera. It is clearly an assault, there is no issue of consent. Alternatively there are public order offences committed, section 4 maybe, definitely section 5 - neither of which need there to be a complaint. The only matter that would require a complaint is criminal damage. It may well be but home office guidelines would dictate it being a section 39. Legislation and home office guidelines differ I'm afraid, as for the public order deffo a section 4 but again it would be a 5 for charging. Home office guidelines dont 'dictate' anything. It would be a decision for a CPS lawyer. I'm under no illusions it would be charged as a common assault given the lack of any real injury.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2015 21:00:51 GMT
It may well be but home office guidelines would dictate it being a section 39. Legislation and home office guidelines differ I'm afraid, as for the public order deffo a section 4 but again it would be a 5 for charging. Home office guidelines dont 'dictate' anything. It would be a decision for a CPS lawyer. I'm under no illusions it would be charged as a common assault given the lack of any real injury. CPS would have no say in the charging decision it's the Police based on home office guidelines, CPS would only be involved with it if she was being charged with Affray which the Police cant make the decision it is the CPS they would make the decision for affray.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2015 21:08:50 GMT
Home office guidelines dont 'dictate' anything. It would be a decision for a CPS lawyer. I'm under no illusions it would be charged as a common assault given the lack of any real injury. CPS would have no say in the charging decision it's the Police based on home office guidelines, CPS would only be involved with it if she was being charged with Affray which the Police cant make the decision it is the CPS they would make the decision for affray. The police MAY make a charging decision. They could of course offer a variety of out of court disposals or take no action at all. Given the nature of the offence though if a charge was being considered I would be surprised if they did not seek CPS advice. But even if they didn't and charged a s.39 the CPS could alter the charge at any time
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2015 21:15:02 GMT
CPS would have no say in the charging decision it's the Police based on home office guidelines, CPS would only be involved with it if she was being charged with Affray which the Police cant make the decision it is the CPS they would make the decision for affray. The police MAY make a charging decision. They could of course offer a variety of out of court disposals or take no action at all. Given the nature of the offence though if a charge was being considered I would be surprised if they did not seek CPS advice. But even if they didn't and charged a s.39 the CPS could alter the charge at any time Well I dont know about you but where I work and for 20ys I might add the CPS would not be involved as a matter or course however if they were asked for advice they would still take the home office guidelines and apply them. But yes your right they do have the power to change the charge after the police charge but given what I have seen they would not. And as for what I have seen it's pretty open and simple case so I will say again the CPS would not be involved pre charge. It's a clear section 39 assault and criminal damage to clothing or other items that might have been damaged that I cant see. Edit I said the Police can charge but not for affray it's the CPS but for assault the Police can which is what I said.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2015 21:25:04 GMT
The police MAY make a charging decision. They could of course offer a variety of out of court disposals or take no action at all. Given the nature of the offence though if a charge was being considered I would be surprised if they did not seek CPS advice. But even if they didn't and charged a s.39 the CPS could alter the charge at any time Well I dont know about you but where I work and for 20ys I might add the CPS would not be involved as a matter or course however if they were asked for advice they would still take the home office guidelines and apply them. But yes your right they do have the power to change the charge after the police charge but given what I have seen they would not. And as for what I have seen it's pretty open and simple case so I will say again the CPS would not be involved pre charge. It's a clear section 39 assault and criminal damage to clothing or other items that might have been damaged that I cant see. Edit I said the Police can charge but not for affray it's the CPS but for assault the Police can which is what I said. Hmmm the day the CPS apply any sort of guidance is the day I jack in my job. It is only guidance though it does not 'dictate' anything. As for the charge it shouldn't be charged as damage and assault....guidance states where an assault results in damage to clothing for example the assault charge alone is sufficient. Anyways...I know what you do. I pm'd you about Nzonzi not collecting his player of the season award as he'd been arrested for allegedly assaulting his wife
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2015 21:37:57 GMT
Well I dont know about you but where I work and for 20ys I might add the CPS would not be involved as a matter or course however if they were asked for advice they would still take the home office guidelines and apply them. But yes your right they do have the power to change the charge after the police charge but given what I have seen they would not. And as for what I have seen it's pretty open and simple case so I will say again the CPS would not be involved pre charge. It's a clear section 39 assault and criminal damage to clothing or other items that might have been damaged that I cant see. Edit I said the Police can charge but not for affray it's the CPS but for assault the Police can which is what I said. Hmmm the day the CPS apply any sort of guidance is the day I jack in my job. It is only guidance though it does not 'dictate' anything. As for the charge it shouldn't be charged as damage and assault....guidance states ;-) where an assault results in damage to clothing for example the assault charge alone is sufficient. Anyways...I know what you do. I pm'd you about Nzonzi not collecting his player of the season award as he'd been arrested for allegedly assaulting his wife :-D I know and remember :-) but your not looking at it from another viewpoint. As a matter or routine the CPS would not be involved and any Police charge would be taking into account home office guidelines and to say the CPS do not work with those same guidelines and apply them IMO is wrong of course they do. The CPS still have charging standards and if consulted would charge a 39. As for the damage I bow to your superior knowledge Your right about the complaint but there does not have to be a victim to complain anyone can complain but no way will that act without one it would take a complaint to get the investigation going as you well know we are talking about West Mids here
|
|
|
Post by lordherefordsknob on Oct 5, 2015 21:38:16 GMT
Anyone know which pub it was? The Wellington in Birmingham City Centre I can see this pub being very "busy" next time Stoke are in town.
|
|