|
Post by metalhead on Aug 24, 2018 12:56:05 GMT
I remember in the day when you got one copper standing among all the louts on the boothen. When it turned nasty he just waded in and dragged out the offending twat and marched him off down the front. Now they all just group together like a bunch of cowardly muppets. It works both ways though mate. Unlike in the 'good old days' if a single copper waded in to a bunch of 'louts' today the cowardly muppets would turn on him giving him a right shoeing. Cowardly? There are few people more cowardly than your average copper.
|
|
|
Post by daz2631 on Aug 24, 2018 12:57:17 GMT
Back in the day though the lads had respect for the police and wouldnt wade into old bill where as now as is with all society there is no respect for anybody
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on Aug 24, 2018 12:59:35 GMT
It works both ways though mate. Unlike in the 'good old days' if a single copper waded in to a bunch of 'louts' today the cowardly muppets would turn on him giving him a right shoeing. Cowardly? There are few people more cowardly than your average copper. I was simply paraphrasing desman's description of the bunch of coppers as 'cowardly'. As it happens I disagree. But I'm not getting into that discussion on here.
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Aug 24, 2018 13:15:59 GMT
Cowardly? There are few people more cowardly than your average copper. I was simply paraphrasing desman's description of the bunch of coppers as 'cowardly'. As it happens I disagree. But I'm not getting into that discussion on here. Fair enough. I'll clarify that not all coppers are cowards. Some are brave and believe in the job they are doing. Others are frauds, and cowards and just want to hurt fairly innocent people.
|
|
|
Post by pottersrule on Aug 24, 2018 13:21:50 GMT
I remember in the day when you got one copper standing among all the laouts on the boothen. When it turned nasty he just waded in and dragged out the offending twat and marched him off down the front. Now they all just group together like a bunch of cowardly muppets. I don't know how far back your going mate but in the mid seventies the police used to wade in in groups of six.They must have then spent the next couple of hours trying to get the spit off their tunics and helmets.Remember it well.
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on Aug 24, 2018 14:59:11 GMT
I was simply paraphrasing desman's description of the bunch of coppers as 'cowardly'. As it happens I disagree. But I'm not getting into that discussion on here. Fair enough. I'll clarify that not all coppers are cowards. Some are brave and believe in the job they are doing. Others are frauds, and cowards and just want to hurt fairly innocent people. Unfortunately and fortunately mate coppers are representative of society. They display to best and worst of human traits and everything in between as well. I've seen em all.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Aug 24, 2018 15:58:01 GMT
Hang on. Your first sentence indicates that you agree with the only point I made in my post 👍 I don’t actually disagree with quite a lot of the rest but it doesn’t refute my rather simple point. Well yes, You've understood my point to a degree. I can agree your initial comment about generalisation logically. Rather, what I referred to as oversimplifying was your comparison of generalising of fans by police, and police by fans, which appeared to show both generalisations as holding equal value and therefore being of equal importance in an argument. Which as I tried to point out is false if claimed, or rejected if believed, due to the consequences of acting on considering equal weighting. The reason I went into depth is to show that there isn't the same value of equivalence to each generalisation, and further, it's unwise to advise people of whats appropriate to generalise based on that value status of equal comparison. We disagree that people shouldn't generalise Police at matchdays... You said: " This kind of generalisation is not helpful. It is as inappropriate to generalise about a whole police force as it would be for the police to generalise about Stoke fans " This is advice is unfortunately false equivocacy and is not appropriate subject matter to advice people on. Hang on again ! You have over-interpreted what I was saying. The poster was generalising about a whole police force from the actions of one officer in a non-football context and by strong implication using that as evidence relating to the Preston situation. I think in a football policing context generalisations on either "side" are hardly ever helpful, but if one was weighing one against the other, I would tend to agree with you that generalisations by the police about football fans are even less appropriate than generalisations about the police by fans.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2018 16:32:29 GMT
Instead of insulting why not just use a sensible counter point ? Ah wait its bayern.....never mind everyones a dick head unless they agree 100% with your point of view.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Aug 24, 2018 17:13:35 GMT
As mentioned above, the FSF was invited to attend the police debrief. I couldn't go but our caseworker Amanda Jacks attended, as did representatives of Stoke City. Amanda has written a detailed blog on it. Those of you who get our weekly "Fan Mail" which should appear later this evening, will get a link to it. Those of you who don't ( it's free by the way) will be able to access it through the FSF website www.fsf.org.uk when it is up on site. I will post a link after it's up.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Aug 24, 2018 18:48:43 GMT
As mentioned above, the FSF was invited to attend the police debrief. I couldn't go but our caseworker Amanda Jacks attended, as did representatives of Stoke City. Amanda has written a detailed blog on it. Those of you who get our weekly "Fan Mail" which should appear later this evening, will get a link to it. Those of you who don't ( it's free by the way) will be able to access it through the FSF website www.fsf.org.uk when it is up on site. I will post a link after it's up. Here it is www.fsf.org.uk/blog/view/Deepdale-incident-important-lessons-should-be-learned
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Aug 24, 2018 19:04:08 GMT
As mentioned above, the FSF was invited to attend the police debrief. I couldn't go but our caseworker Amanda Jacks attended, as did representatives of Stoke City. Amanda has written a detailed blog on it. Those of you who get our weekly "Fan Mail" which should appear later this evening, will get a link to it. Those of you who don't ( it's free by the way) will be able to access it through the FSF website www.fsf.org.uk when it is up on site. I will post a link after it's up. Here it is www.fsf.org.uk/blog/view/Deepdale-incident-important-lessons-should-be-learned Whilst the process and the Lancs Police's co-operation and inclusivity in the debrief is to be applauded, their explanation of the actual incident is still exceptionally flimsy and with that in mind you can only conclude that in reality, no lessons have been learned.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Aug 24, 2018 19:18:10 GMT
Whilst the process and the Lancs Police's co-operation and inclusivity in the debrief is to be applauded, their explanation of the actual incident is still exceptionally flimsy and with that in mind you can only conclude that in reality, no lessons have been learned. That's not Amanda's view and she's nobody's soft touch ( as a number of police forces and clubs will testify).
|
|
|
Post by samwidge on Aug 24, 2018 19:19:29 GMT
Fair enough. I'll clarify that not all coppers are cowards. Some are brave and believe in the job they are doing. Others are frauds, and cowards and just want to hurt fairly innocent people. Unfortunately and fortunately mate coppers are representative of society. They display to best and worst of human traits and everything in between as well. I've seen em all. Spot on!! You get good and bad in every walk of life, and every occupation. My wife is a copper ( I'm not!), and she's the most caring individual I have ever met, as she wants to help people. I'd also extend that to all of her friends in the force too. Alas there are colleagues that they dislike as they are either lazy, bad at there job, or arrogant and unpleasant. And they give them all a bad name!! She particularly mentions traffic cops!!! Not all mind!!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2018 19:55:18 GMT
Whilst the process and the Lancs Police's co-operation and inclusivity in the debrief is to be applauded, their explanation of the actual incident is still exceptionally flimsy and with that in mind you can only conclude that in reality, no lessons have been learned. That's not Amanda's view and she's nobody's soft touch ( as a number of police forces and clubs will testify). Whilst the three paragraphs setting the scene for the day were a good read, they were completely irrelevant to the specific incident in question. And in the interests of transparency it would still be good to see the detail that can’t be shared as the police are conducting their own internal investigation. I’ll be perfectly honest, the whole article seemed a bit too cosy for my liking.....
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Aug 24, 2018 20:22:02 GMT
Whilst the process and the Lancs Police's co-operation and inclusivity in the debrief is to be applauded, their explanation of the actual incident is still exceptionally flimsy and with that in mind you can only conclude that in reality, no lessons have been learned. That's not Amanda's view and she's nobody's soft touch ( as a number of police forces and clubs will testify). I'm sure she isn't and I'm sure they would Malcolm but at the end of the say there is an outcome and that outcome is is, that they ' acted in the honestly held belief that the threat they and others faced made the use of PAVA justified and proportionate' including the collateral damage of burning kids eyes and the mental consequences that could have. I consider that view to be utter nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Aug 24, 2018 21:02:08 GMT
That's not Amanda's view and she's nobody's soft touch ( as a number of police forces and clubs will testify). Whilst the three paragraphs setting the scene for the day were a good read, they were completely irrelevant to the specific incident in question. And in the interests of transparency it would still be good to see the detail that can’t be shared as the police are conducting their own internal investigation. I’ll be perfectly honest, the whole article seemed a bit too cosy for my liking..... Amanda doesn't have a cosy relationship with the police or football clubs. What she tries to develop, wherever possible ( and sadly it often isn't possible) is a professional relationship and looks to the future as well as, but not instead of, the past. She has been doing this for many years and has more experience than any of us in dealing with these kinds of problems on behalf of fans. If I had been available I would have gone with her to the meeting, but I have great trust in her ability and judgement. If you are really interested, prestwich, and would like to discuss it directly with her, PM me.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Aug 24, 2018 21:15:17 GMT
That's not Amanda's view and she's nobody's soft touch ( as a number of police forces and clubs will testify). I'm sure she isn't and I'm sure they would Malcolm but at the end of the say there is an outcome and that outcome is is, that they ' acted in the honestly held belief that the threat they and others faced made the use of PAVA justified and proportionate' including the collateral damage of burning kids eyes and the mental consequences that could have. I consider that view to be utter nonsense. There is a recognition that the belief that two stewards may have been under physical attack based on their disappearance from CCTV and loss of radio contact was actually incorrect. In this litigious age ( with Amanda herself on behalf of the FSF having supported fans, including Stoke city fans, in the taking of legal action against the police in the past) it is remarkably transparent of Lancs police to expose and explore that at a meeting to which the FSF were invited. Few forces would have done that. Incidentally, earlier in this thread I asked our fans who witnessed and were affected by the incident to send a statement to the FSF to help Amanda get the fullest possible picture. How many did we get ? - Nil !
|
|
|
Post by kjpt140v on Aug 24, 2018 21:21:21 GMT
I think some people are wearing rose tinted glasses when talking about the past. Things really haven't changed a great deal.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2018 21:32:53 GMT
Whilst the three paragraphs setting the scene for the day were a good read, they were completely irrelevant to the specific incident in question. And in the interests of transparency it would still be good to see the detail that can’t be shared as the police are conducting their own internal investigation. I’ll be perfectly honest, the whole article seemed a bit too cosy for my liking..... Amanda doesn't have a cosy relationship with the police or football clubs. What she tries to develop, wherever possible ( and sadly it often isn't possible) is a professional relationship and looks to the future as well as, but not instead of, the past. She has been doing this for many years and has more experience than any of us in dealing with these kinds of problems on behalf of fans. If I had been available I would have gone with her to the meeting, but I have great trust in her ability and judgement. If you are really interested, prestwich, and would like to discuss it directly with her, PM me. I have no issue with her, your good self or the FSF who do excellent work for ordinary fans. I merely try and comment honestly on what I read, and in my opinion she provided “context” at the beginning of that article that was completely irrelevant to the specific incident in question. In fact there’s an argument to say it may have clouded their judgement later on in the day, but luckily no one was hurt so small mercies and all that....
|
|
|
Post by numpty40 on Aug 24, 2018 22:03:21 GMT
Amanda doesn't have a cosy relationship with the police or football clubs. What she tries to develop, wherever possible ( and sadly it often isn't possible) is a professional relationship and looks to the future as well as, but not instead of, the past. She has been doing this for many years and has more experience than any of us in dealing with these kinds of problems on behalf of fans. If I had been available I would have gone with her to the meeting, but I have great trust in her ability and judgement. If you are really interested, prestwich, and would like to discuss it directly with her, PM me. I have no issue with her, your good self or the FSF who do excellent work for ordinary fans. I merely try and comment honestly on what I read, and in my opinion she provided “context” at the beginning of that article that was completely irrelevant to the specific incident in question. In fact there’s an argument to say it may have clouded their judgement later on in the day, but luckily no one was hurt so small mercies and all that.... So a bit of a to do about nothing really?
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Aug 24, 2018 22:53:11 GMT
I'm sure she isn't and I'm sure they would Malcolm but at the end of the say there is an outcome and that outcome is is, that they ' acted in the honestly held belief that the threat they and others faced made the use of PAVA justified and proportionate' including the collateral damage of burning kids eyes and the mental consequences that could have. I consider that view to be utter nonsense. Incidentally, earlier in this thread I asked our fans who witnessed and were affected by the incident to send a statement to the FSF to help Amanda get the fullest possible picture. How many did we get ? - Nil ! That's very sad.
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Aug 24, 2018 23:42:57 GMT
The statement says lessons have been learned but it does not say what lessons ? Other than that 'difficulties can be experienced communicating effectively in a loud and crowded environment'. If that is the only lesson then what is the moral of that lesson? Is it that had the police been better able to communicate among themselves then they would not have attacked fans with pelargonic acid vanillylamide in the first place ? Or perhaps that had they been better able to communicate to the Stoke supporters the need to back off they would not have had to had to incapacitate them in this very chemical way? I guess it will always be a bit vague when the police investigate the police. I would imagine if lawyers were involved they would have some proper searching questions: 1.How often if ever has PAVA been fired at the faces of fans at Deepdale? 2.When was it last used and in what circumstances? 3.Do police carry PAVA in all parts of the ground or just the away area? 4.Do they carry PAVA for all visiting teams and if not what is the criteria by which they decide? Of course the answer to those questions is very likely 'never', 'not before','no' and 'no'. So the follow up might be: 5.What made this instance so uniquely challenging since on the face of it it seems typical of the kind of low level idiocy you get from testosterone and alcohol fueled young males in concourses up and down the land every Saturday? What about my questions above Malcolm ? Without the answers to these I don't feel there is any context, not even a start point .
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Aug 25, 2018 8:50:14 GMT
The statement says lessons have been learned but it does not say what lessons ? Other than that 'difficulties can be experienced communicating effectively in a loud and crowded environment'. If that is the only lesson then what is the moral of that lesson? Is it that had the police been better able to communicate among themselves then they would not have attacked fans with pelargonic acid vanillylamide in the first place ? Or perhaps that had they been better able to communicate to the Stoke supporters the need to back off they would not have had to had to incapacitate them in this very chemical way? I guess it will always be a bit vague when the police investigate the police. I would imagine if lawyers were involved they would have some proper searching questions: 1.How often if ever has PAVA been fired at the faces of fans at Deepdale? 2.When was it last used and in what circumstances? 3.Do police carry PAVA in all parts of the ground or just the away area? 4.Do they carry PAVA for all visiting teams and if not what is the criteria by which they decide? Of course the answer to those questions is very likely 'never', 'not before','no' and 'no'. So the follow up might be: 5.What made this instance so uniquely challenging since on the face of it it seems typical of the kind of low level idiocy you get from testosterone and alcohol fueled young males in concourses up and down the land every Saturday? What about my questions above Malcolm ? Without the answers to these I don't feel there is any context, not even a start point . They are all relevant questions, Godfrey. I will ask Amanda if she knows the answer either from the meeting or her other contact with the police. Of course you ( or anybody) could request the information under the Freedom of Information Act, although that could become a long process.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Aug 25, 2018 9:06:15 GMT
The statement says lessons have been learned but it does not say what lessons ? Other than that 'difficulties can be experienced communicating effectively in a loud and crowded environment'. If that is the only lesson then what is the moral of that lesson? Is it that had the police been better able to communicate among themselves then they would not have attacked fans with pelargonic acid vanillylamide in the first place ? Or perhaps that had they been better able to communicate to the Stoke supporters the need to back off they would not have had to had to incapacitate them in this very chemical way? I guess it will always be a bit vague when the police investigate the police. I would imagine if lawyers were involved they would have some proper searching questions: 1.How often if ever has PAVA been fired at the faces of fans at Deepdale? 2.When was it last used and in what circumstances? 3.Do police carry PAVA in all parts of the ground or just the away area? 4.Do they carry PAVA for all visiting teams and if not what is the criteria by which they decide? Of course the answer to those questions is very likely 'never', 'not before','no' and 'no'. So the follow up might be: 5.What made this instance so uniquely challenging since on the face of it it seems typical of the kind of low level idiocy you get from testosterone and alcohol fueled young males in concourses up and down the land every Saturday? What about my questions above Malcolm ? Without the answers to these I don't feel there is any context, not even a start point . I should add that I know the answer to the communication question, both from Amanda and PC Elliot to whom I spoke on the phone. I don't think it's to do with communicating with the supporters. It is basically about the response to the urgent concern of the PNE safety officer that he had lost radio and CCTV contact with two of his stewards who he feared (wrongly as it turned out) might be under attack. There are apparently technical issues about radio communication in that concourse underneath the stand, and also reliance on radio communication in a very loud environment, which is perhaps not surprising.
|
|
|
Post by adi on Aug 25, 2018 9:52:52 GMT
It works both ways though mate. Unlike in the 'good old days' if a single copper waded in to a bunch of 'louts' today the cowardly muppets would turn on him giving him a right shoeing. Cowardly? There are few people more cowardly than your average copper. That’s an appalling thing to say and incredibly disrespectful. I hope for your sake you’ll never need the police to help you but it would almost serve you right if they turned up and just watched, all cowardly like. This attitude towards the police nowadays is part of the problem with society, no respect for the police, I think it is disgusting to be honest.
|
|
|
Post by Eggybread on Aug 25, 2018 10:08:59 GMT
What about my questions above Malcolm ? Without the answers to these I don't feel there is any context, not even a start point . I should add that I know the answer to the communication question, both from Amanda and PC Elliot to whom I spoke on the phone. I don't think it's to do with communicating with the supporters. It is basically about the response to the urgent concern of the PNE safety officer that he had lost radio and CCTV contact with two of his stewards who he feared (wrongly as it turned out) might be under attack. There are apparently technical issues about radio communication in that concourse underneath the stand, and also reliance on radio communication in a very loud environment, which is perhaps not surprising. This steward attack incident seems to be a main factor in the dibbles response.What has that got to do with a group of coppers lining up and spraying fans who were obviously NOT attacking a steward? Surely the response should have been to go and look in the areas not covered by CCTV.This is a feeble and unacceptable excuse for their actions and should be challenged. Another question what should be asked is where were the stewards in question and have they ever encountered a loss of radio and cctv contact before and what was their response then and what did they do about it to rectify the problem?And i wont accept the answer it has never happened before.
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on Aug 25, 2018 10:42:08 GMT
I should add that I know the answer to the communication question, both from Amanda and PC Elliot to whom I spoke on the phone. I don't think it's to do with communicating with the supporters. It is basically about the response to the urgent concern of the PNE safety officer that he had lost radio and CCTV contact with two of his stewards who he feared (wrongly as it turned out) might be under attack. There are apparently technical issues about radio communication in that concourse underneath the stand, and also reliance on radio communication in a very loud environment, which is perhaps not surprising. This steward attack incident seems to be a main factor in the dibbles response.What has that got to do with a group of coppers lining up and spraying fans who were obviously NOT attacking a steward? Surely the response should have been to go and look in the areas not covered by CCTV.This is a feeble and unacceptable excuse for their actions and should be challenged. Another question what should be asked is where were the stewards in question and have they ever encountered a loss of radio and cctv contact before and what was their response then and what did they do about it to rectify the problem?And i wont accept the answer it has never happened before. Ooh you've proper got your dander up haven't you?
|
|
|
Post by Eggybread on Aug 25, 2018 10:52:21 GMT
This steward attack incident seems to be a main factor in the dibbles response.What has that got to do with a group of coppers lining up and spraying fans who were obviously NOT attacking a steward? Surely the response should have been to go and look in the areas not covered by CCTV.This is a feeble and unacceptable excuse for their actions and should be challenged. Another question what should be asked is where were the stewards in question and have they ever encountered a loss of radio and cctv contact before and what was their response then and what did they do about it to rectify the problem?And i wont accept the answer it has never happened before. Ooh you've proper got your dander up haven't you? My anarchist mantra is: Accept nothing question everything.
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on Aug 25, 2018 10:54:06 GMT
Ooh you've proper got your dander up haven't you? My anarchist mantra is: Accept nothing question everything. Apart from the anarchist mantra of course.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Aug 25, 2018 21:19:53 GMT
I should add that I know the answer to the communication question, both from Amanda and PC Elliot to whom I spoke on the phone. I don't think it's to do with communicating with the supporters. It is basically about the response to the urgent concern of the PNE safety officer that he had lost radio and CCTV contact with two of his stewards who he feared (wrongly as it turned out) might be under attack. There are apparently technical issues about radio communication in that concourse underneath the stand, and also reliance on radio communication in a very loud environment, which is perhaps not surprising. This steward attack incident seems to be a main factor in the dibbles response.What has that got to do with a group of coppers lining up and spraying fans who were obviously NOT attacking a steward? Surely the response should have been to go and look in the areas not covered by CCTV.This is a feeble and unacceptable excuse for their actions and should be challenged. Another question what should be asked is where were the stewards in question and have they ever encountered a loss of radio and cctv contact before and what was their response then and what did they do about it to rectify the problem?And i wont accept the answer it has never happened before. Amanda and I have had a further chat today and decided to collate any further questions which have arisen out of this and if Amanda can't fully answer them from her attendance at the debrief we will put them to Lancs police and ask for a response. The questions from Gods above and Eggybread come into this category. So, if anyone has any, please send them to info@fsf.org.uk
|
|