|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Apr 12, 2021 14:44:06 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by rambo61 on Apr 12, 2021 15:07:12 GMT
We sleepwalked into these lockdowns(Which were largely ineffective) and now we're sleep walking into a police state. If anyone thinks the old bill wont use these new rules against fans...please wake up... the bristol riots looked bad but at least it kept the bill in the news!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by prudhoe on Apr 12, 2021 15:30:33 GMT
We sleepwalked into these lockdowns(Which were largely ineffective) and now we're sleep walking into a police state. If anyone thinks the old bill wont use these new rules against fans...please wake up... the bristol riots looked bad but at least it kept the bill in the news!!! The lockdowns were ineffective? Remind me again what todays death rate is compared to 3 months ago? |
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Apr 12, 2021 15:40:26 GMT
Can we kindly feck this thread off onto the EE part of the board? This really shouldn’t be getting dragged into the football section of the board. With respect, the thread as I started it is about football - the possible effect of the proposed Bill on match-going fans. The stuff about lockdown might be better discussed elsewhere, but not the the bill's implications for fans. |
|
|
|
Post by a on Apr 12, 2021 15:43:05 GMT
Can we kindly feck this thread off onto the EE part of the board? This really shouldn’t be getting dragged into the football section of the board. With respect, the thread as I started it is about football - the possible effect of the proposed Bill on match-going fans. The stuff about lockdown might be better discussed elsewhere, but not the the bill's implications for fans. At the risk of being embroiled in discussion, don’t kick off at a match = no trouble with the police. I don’t see any defence for mindless hooliganism and it shouldn’t be defended, nor should the police come under fire for trying to protect the ‘non-dickheads’ amongst us. Edit: yes, Ive read the piece as well as a fairly detailed explanation of the proposal. It’s possible that football fans could be prosecuted for “annoyance” but as f you honestly believe that the police would arrest/report and the CPS/mags would convict a football fan for peacefully walking to/from a ground then you might as well stick on a tinfoil hat. Edit again: I mean no offence to you Malcolm or any other board member but I just think that this is almost certainly only going to affect the hooligan elements which should be held to account for their actions. If you’re just chanting/walking/socialising then I highly doubt youve anything to fear. |
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Apr 12, 2021 16:04:26 GMT
With respect, the thread as I started it is about football - the possible effect of the proposed Bill on match-going fans. The stuff about lockdown might be better discussed elsewhere, but not the the bill's implications for fans. At the risk of being embroiled in discussion, don’t kick off at a match = no trouble with the police. I don’t see any defence for mindless hooliganism and it shouldn’t be defended, nor should the police come under fire for trying to protect the ‘non-dickheads’ amongst us. Neither I nor the FSA would defend mindless hooliganism. It's just not about that. It's about the way in which a power which is ill-defined, might be used in an unreasonable way against football fans. If you believe that couldn't happen, we'll have to agree to differ. Stoke fans have particular cause to know that. Some years ago, the infamous Section 27 was used in just that way to forcibly bus about 40 stokies back from a pub in Irlam before a game at Old Trafford. We had to go to law, which we were able to do because, thanks to Tony Scholes, our Club agreed to underwrite the legal costs if we lost with costs awarded against. But we won, and the fans got decent financial compensation from GMP. Sometime later we had another problem with our fans returning by rail from a game at Bolton being forcibly route-marched between stations in Manchester and not being allowed to leave the crocodile to have a meal or drink, meet friends etc. One poor bloke who lived in Nottingham was even forcibly put on the train to Stoke  . As a result of that, the Deputy Chief Constable (to his credit) came down to Stoke to meet fans affected and personally apologised. Please do not believe that wide-ranging powers of this kind could never be used against law abiding football fans. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2021 16:50:28 GMT
With respect, the thread as I started it is about football - the possible effect of the proposed Bill on match-going fans. The stuff about lockdown might be better discussed elsewhere, but not the the bill's implications for fans. At the risk of being embroiled in discussion, don’t kick off at a match = no trouble with the police. I don’t see any defence for mindless hooliganism and it shouldn’t be defended, nor should the police come under fire for trying to protect the ‘non-dickheads’ amongst us. Edit: yes, Ive read the piece as well as a fairly detailed explanation of the proposal. It’s possible that football fans could be prosecuted for “annoyance” but as f you honestly believe that the police would arrest/report and the CPS/mags would convict a football fan for peacefully walking to/from a ground then you might as well stick on a tinfoil hat. Edit again: I mean no offence to you Malcolm or any other board member but I just think that this is almost certainly only going to affect the hooligan elements which should be held to account for their actions. If you’re just chanting/walking/socialising then I highly doubt youve anything to fear. I would love to live in your world. The police misused Coronavirus legislation repeatedly. This is just a recent example of the police misusing legislation. To think that they wouldn't misuse this legislation is an odd opinion to have and backing up that opinion with the "Mags would never convict" is even worse. What if they do convict? What if they dont, but you have spent thousands defending yourself. What then! |
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Apr 12, 2021 17:06:47 GMT
At the risk of being embroiled in discussion, don’t kick off at a match = no trouble with the police. I don’t see any defence for mindless hooliganism and it shouldn’t be defended, nor should the police come under fire for trying to protect the ‘non-dickheads’ amongst us. Neither I nor the FSA would defend mindless hooliganism. It's just not about that. It's about the way in which a power which is ill-defined, might be used in an unreasonable way against football fans. If you believe that couldn't happen, we'll have to agree to differ. Stoke fans have particular cause to know that. Some years ago, the infamous Section 27 was used in just that way to forcibly bus about 40 stokies back from a pub in Irlam before a game at Old Trafford. We had to go to law, which we were able to do because, thanks to Tony Scholes, our Club agreed to underwrite the legal costs if we lost with costs awarded against. But we won, and the fans got decent financial compensation from GMP. Sometime later we had another problem with our fans returning by rail from a game at Bolton being forcibly route-marched between stations in Manchester and not being allowed to leave the crocodile to have a meal or drink, meet friends etc. One poor bloke who lived in Nottingham was even forcibly put on the train to Stoke . As a result of that, the Deputy Chief Constable (to his credit) came down to Stoke to meet fans affected and personally apologised. Please do not believe that wide-ranging powers of this kind could never be used against law abiding football fans. Here are a couple of links. I must admit to being gobsmacked at the realisation that it happened more than 12 years ago I've been at this game too long! www.bbc.co.uk/news/10412281www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/dec/18/civilliberties-humanrights |
|
|
|
Post by heworksardtho on Apr 12, 2021 17:28:44 GMT
Can we kindly feck this thread off onto the EE part of the board? This really shouldn’t be getting dragged into the football section of the board. With respect, the thread as I started it is about football - the possible effect of the proposed Bill on match-going fans. The stuff about lockdown might be better discussed elsewhere, but not the the bill's implications for fans. The way we are playing Malcom there will be no fans watching us |
|
|
|
Post by leicspotter on Apr 12, 2021 18:22:46 GMT
[/b] Malcolm, I applaud the approach the FSA is taking on this. Lobbying to amend/improve the Bill in order to avoid the type of misuse that GMP were guilty of is the right way to do things I fundamentally oppose the "Kill the Bill" marches and demonstrations, as seen recently in Bristol and other cities. These only serve to reinforce the opinion that the Bill is needed especially as they were clearly NOT Covid compliant. Had I not read Amanda's piece I too might have been less favourably disposed toward the FSA stance (based on these recent events) I would encourage everyone to read this piece, and support the FSA |
|
|
|
Post by andystokey on Apr 12, 2021 19:13:10 GMT
The ability for the police to use the noise level as a reason to disperse, will be truly ridiculous that's for sure. |
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Apr 12, 2021 19:23:54 GMT
The ability for the police to use the noise level as a reason to disperse, will be truly ridiculous that's for sure. They will pick and choose when they are using it depending who is breaking the law they have always seen football fans/ lads as fair game, it's no different for football fans than it has ever been don't kid yourselves. |
|
|
|
Post by creweoatcake1 on Apr 12, 2021 19:34:51 GMT
With respect, the thread as I started it is about football - the possible effect of the proposed Bill on match-going fans. The stuff about lockdown might be better discussed elsewhere, but not the the bill's implications for fans. At the risk of being embroiled in discussion, don’t kick off at a match = no trouble with the police. I don’t see any defence for mindless hooliganism and it shouldn’t be defended, nor should the police come under fire for trying to protect the ‘non-dickheads’ amongst us. Edit: yes, Ive read the piece as well as a fairly detailed explanation of the proposal. It’s possible that football fans could be prosecuted for “annoyance” but as f you honestly believe that the police would arrest/report and the CPS/mags would convict a football fan for peacefully walking to/from a ground then you might as well stick on a tinfoil hat. Edit again: I mean no offence to you Malcolm or any other board member but I just think that this is almost certainly only going to affect the hooligan elements which should be held to account for their actions. If you’re just chanting/walking/socialising then I highly doubt youve anything to fear. Oh Dear. What games have you been to over the past ** years?  |
|
|
|
Post by Squeekster on Apr 12, 2021 19:45:35 GMT
Will it still be set in Sun Hill?
|
|
|
|
Post by andystokey on Apr 12, 2021 21:01:57 GMT
With respect, the thread as I started it is about football - the possible effect of the proposed Bill on match-going fans. The stuff about lockdown might be better discussed elsewhere, but not the the bill's implications for fans. At the risk of being embroiled in discussion, don’t kick off at a match = no trouble with the police. I don’t see any defence for mindless hooliganism and it shouldn’t be defended, nor should the police come under fire for trying to protect the ‘non-dickheads’ amongst us. Edit: yes, Ive read the piece as well as a fairly detailed explanation of the proposal. It’s possible that football fans could be prosecuted for “annoyance” but as f you honestly believe that the police would arrest/report and the CPS/mags would convict a football fan for peacefully walking to/from a ground then you might as well stick on a tinfoil hat. Edit again: I mean no offence to you Malcolm or any other board member but I just think that this is almost certainly only going to affect the hooligan elements which should be held to account for their actions. If you’re just chanting/walking/socialising then I highly doubt youve anything to fear. ha ha ha ha, brilliant mate 🤣 |
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Apr 12, 2021 21:32:50 GMT
With respect, the thread as I started it is about football - the possible effect of the proposed Bill on match-going fans. The stuff about lockdown might be better discussed elsewhere, but not the the bill's implications for fans. At the risk of being embroiled in discussion, don’t kick off at a match = no trouble with the police. I don’t see any defence for mindless hooliganism and it shouldn’t be defended, nor should the police come under fire for trying to protect the ‘non-dickheads’ amongst us. It really would be a good idea for you to read the two links Malcolm has posted on this thread about what happened to a pub full of Stokies before a Man U away match a few years back. Police apologies and compensation of nearly £200K were welcome but don't really compensate the innocent fans involved for the loss of dignity and false imprisonment they suffered. If that case doesn't convince you of the errors in your statement - nothing will  |
|
|
|
Post by Squeekster on Apr 12, 2021 21:52:38 GMT
At the risk of being embroiled in discussion, don’t kick off at a match = no trouble with the police. I don’t see any defence for mindless hooliganism and it shouldn’t be defended, nor should the police come under fire for trying to protect the ‘non-dickheads’ amongst us. It really would be a good idea for you to read the two links Malcolm has posted on this thread about what happened to a pub full of Stokies before a Man U away match a few years back. Police apologies and compensation of nearly £200K were welcome but don't really compensate the innocent fans involved for the loss of dignity and false imprisonment they suffered. If that case doesn't convince you of the errors in your statement - nothing will Luton away the other season 100's if not close to a thousand rounded up refused entry to the railway station, lied to then frog marched from one station to another with a police presence that was tantamount to false imprisonment as we had no choice but what they laid down on us and for no other reason than we were football fans! I now have no time or respect for the police in this country at football matches because quite simply we are guilty until proven innocent when in all walks of normal life it's innocent till proven guilty! |
|
|
|
Post by iglugluk on Apr 12, 2021 23:04:07 GMT
Police being able to judge whether people can sing in public.. like some sort of fucked up UK version of Footloose
|
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Apr 13, 2021 6:59:40 GMT
Police being able to judge whether people can sing in public.. like some sort of fucked up UK version of Footloose Yes indeed, it is the matchday, on the ground, interpretation of the clauses about causing serious "annoyance", "unease" or "alarm", particularly the former two, which give cause to the greatest concern. The police already have very adequate powers to deal with genuine threats to public order or safety. |
|
|
|
Post by felonious on Apr 13, 2021 7:05:18 GMT
At the risk of being embroiled in discussion, don’t kick off at a match = no trouble with the police. I don’t see any defence for mindless hooliganism and it shouldn’t be defended, nor should the police come under fire for trying to protect the ‘non-dickheads’ amongst us. It really would be a good idea for you to read the two links Malcolm has posted on this thread about what happened to a pub full of Stokies before a Man U away match a few years back. Police apologies and compensation of nearly £200K were welcome but don't really compensate the innocent fans involved for the loss of dignity and false imprisonment they suffered. If that case doesn't convince you of the errors in your statement - nothing will I remember it well and you're absolutely correct Lakeland but I suppose if there's any defence for the police they're dealing with a club with a shedload of banning orders and a reputation to go with it. On the other side of that entirely innocent gathering most of our well behaved and law abiding supporters must have been at away matches where you feel let down by the behaviour of some supporters. From the article “serious distress, serious annoyance, serious inconvenience or serious loss of amenity”. Perhaps the FSA are correct and it's too wishy washy but surely people living out there have some rights to expect limited impact from football matches. Unfortunately the bill is probably aimed with Central London in mind with the constant disruption from marches and the more than occasional thuggery that goes with it. There are no easy answers I suspect but everyone is now seeing the price for the what goes on at continual protests, Extinction Rebellion, Kill the bill, etc |
|
|
|
Post by a on Apr 13, 2021 8:39:09 GMT
Neither I nor the FSA would defend mindless hooliganism. It's just not about that. It's about the way in which a power which is ill-defined, might be used in an unreasonable way against football fans. If you believe that couldn't happen, we'll have to agree to differ. Stoke fans have particular cause to know that. Some years ago, the infamous Section 27 was used in just that way to forcibly bus about 40 stokies back from a pub in Irlam before a game at Old Trafford. We had to go to law, which we were able to do because, thanks to Tony Scholes, our Club agreed to underwrite the legal costs if we lost with costs awarded against. But we won, and the fans got decent financial compensation from GMP. Sometime later we had another problem with our fans returning by rail from a game at Bolton being forcibly route-marched between stations in Manchester and not being allowed to leave the crocodile to have a meal or drink, meet friends etc. One poor bloke who lived in Nottingham was even forcibly put on the train to Stoke . As a result of that, the Deputy Chief Constable (to his credit) came down to Stoke to meet fans affected and personally apologised. Please do not believe that wide-ranging powers of this kind could never be used against law abiding football fans. Here are a couple of links. I must admit to being gobsmacked at the realisation that it happened more than 12 years ago I've been at this game too long! www.bbc.co.uk/news/10412281www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/dec/18/civilliberties-humanrightsJust for balance, do you think you could find examples of football fans fighting and causing problems? Yes, of course you could. Yes the police have been and continue to be heavy handed at times, however that is a tiny minority. Some of you lot genuinely need some perspective. Some of you are also assuming the worst will happen at every occasion, which it won’t. The bill hasn’t been designed with football fans in mind and you’ve allowed yourself to be convinced otherwise. |
|
|
|
Post by a on Apr 13, 2021 8:41:02 GMT
At the risk of being embroiled in discussion, don’t kick off at a match = no trouble with the police. I don’t see any defence for mindless hooliganism and it shouldn’t be defended, nor should the police come under fire for trying to protect the ‘non-dickheads’ amongst us. Edit: yes, Ive read the piece as well as a fairly detailed explanation of the proposal. It’s possible that football fans could be prosecuted for “annoyance” but as f you honestly believe that the police would arrest/report and the CPS/mags would convict a football fan for peacefully walking to/from a ground then you might as well stick on a tinfoil hat. Edit again: I mean no offence to you Malcolm or any other board member but I just think that this is almost certainly only going to affect the hooligan elements which should be held to account for their actions. If you’re just chanting/walking/socialising then I highly doubt youve anything to fear. I would love to live in your world. The police misused Coronavirus legislation repeatedly. This is just a recent example of the police misusing legislation. To think that they wouldn't misuse this legislation is an odd opinion to have and backing up that opinion with the "Mags would never convict" is even worse. What if they do convict? What if they dont, but you have spent thousands defending yourself. What then! In my world you’d have a duty solicitor that is free and independent...m I’m not getting into a discussion with you over this. I’ve seen your posts on your COVID conspiracy theories and it wouldn’t be worth my time sorry |
|
|
|
Post by a on Apr 13, 2021 8:42:47 GMT
At the risk of being embroiled in discussion, don’t kick off at a match = no trouble with the police. I don’t see any defence for mindless hooliganism and it shouldn’t be defended, nor should the police come under fire for trying to protect the ‘non-dickheads’ amongst us. Edit: yes, Ive read the piece as well as a fairly detailed explanation of the proposal. It’s possible that football fans could be prosecuted for “annoyance” but as f you honestly believe that the police would arrest/report and the CPS/mags would convict a football fan for peacefully walking to/from a ground then you might as well stick on a tinfoil hat. Edit again: I mean no offence to you Malcolm or any other board member but I just think that this is almost certainly only going to affect the hooligan elements which should be held to account for their actions. If you’re just chanting/walking/socialising then I highly doubt youve anything to fear. Oh Dear. What games have you been to over the past ** years? I don’t have a written record for you I’m afraid. However I’ve been able to use a search engine and read online news reports which offer some insight into cases from the past. It’s dead handy! |
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Apr 13, 2021 9:00:05 GMT
Just for balance, do you think you could find examples of football fans fighting and causing problems? Yes, of course you could. Yes the police have been and continue to be heavy handed at times, however that is a tiny minority. Some of you lot genuinely need some perspective. Some of you are also assuming the worst will happen at every occasion, which it won’t. The bill hasn’t been designed with football fans in mind and you’ve allowed yourself to be convinced otherwise. "You lot" is a rather dismissive reference to the FSA, but I can assure you that we do have perspective, and most certainly do not assume that "the worst will happen on every occasion" which would be an absurd assumption. Of course over the years, some football fans, including some Stoke fans have behaved badly, and when that happens ( fortunately much less often than it once did) the existing powers of the police and the courts are more than adequate to deal with it. The bill may not have been designed with football fans in mind - just as Section 27 wasn't - but that doesn't mean that its powers won't be used inappropriately on the ground in a football context, just as Section 27 and its successor has been. Your rather patronising comment that I have allowed myself to be convinced otherwise is without foundation. |
|
|
|
Post by a on Apr 13, 2021 9:22:22 GMT
Just for balance, do you think you could find examples of football fans fighting and causing problems? Yes, of course you could. Yes the police have been and continue to be heavy handed at times, however that is a tiny minority. Some of you lot genuinely need some perspective. Some of you are also assuming the worst will happen at every occasion, which it won’t. The bill hasn’t been designed with football fans in mind and you’ve allowed yourself to be convinced otherwise. "You lot" is a rather dismissive reference to the FSA, but I can assure you that we do have perspective, and most certainly do not assume that "the worst will happen on every occasion" which would be an absurd assumption. Of course over the years, some football fans, including some Stoke fans have behaved badly, and when that happens ( fortunately much less often than it once did) the existing powers of the police and the courts are more than adequate to deal with it. The bill may not have been designed with football fans in mind - just as Section 27 wasn't - but that doesn't mean that its powers won't be used inappropriately on the ground in a football context, just as Section 27 and its successor has been. Your rather patronising comment that I have allowed myself to be convinced otherwise is without foundation. Apologies Malcolm I wasn’t referring to the FSA. I genuinely support your organisation and the work it does. I was making a more generalised comment to the folk who think we live in North Korea. Again apologies for the confusion it really wasn’t aimed at you or the FSA. That being said, your reply half admits that the bill isn’t for football fans and it probably won’t be used against peaceful well-meaning fans. therefore it’s not really an issue. It’ll probably go ahead in spite of the disgraceful agitators from Bristol and im happy to welcome it. I’m in the category that the far left call “boot-lickers” 😂 |
|
|
|
Post by iglugluk on Apr 13, 2021 9:50:29 GMT
Just for balance, do you think you could find examples of football fans fighting and causing problems? Yes, of course you could. Yes the police have been and continue to be heavy handed at times, however that is a tiny minority. Some of you lot genuinely need some perspective. Some of you are also assuming the worst will happen at every occasion, which it won’t. The bill hasn’t been designed with football fans in mind and you’ve allowed yourself to be convinced otherwise. "You lot" is a rather dismissive reference to the FSA, but I can assure you that we do have perspective, and most certainly do not assume that "the worst will happen on every occasion" which would be an absurd assumption. Of course over the years, some football fans, including some Stoke fans have behaved badly, and when that happens ( fortunately much less often than it once did) the existing powers of the police and the courts are more than adequate to deal with it. The bill may not have been designed with football fans in mind - just as Section 27 wasn't - but that doesn't mean that its powers won't be used inappropriately on the ground in a football context, just as Section 27 and its successor has been. Your rather patronising comment that I have allowed myself to be convinced otherwise is without foundation. Absolutely correct. I would add that whilst most policing and criminal justice bills are brought into force to combat what are seen by policy makers as specific problems, it is, in my opinion relevant to consider what the worst abuse of the 'new' power allows in subsequent Police behaviour. We have numerous examples of problems relating to such 'slippage' that can be cited.. some already well documented and mentioned above and others more widely discussed i.e. Policing of situations involving people of colour. This is not a new problem and abuses by over zealous individuals/organisations have been seen and widely reported in the past. Reports which led to thewithdrawal of 'suss' being one such example. Unfortunately that law has been reintroduced and remains highly contentious. The Police have very adequate laws enabling population control as things currently stand and any support of further enhanced measures to enable crowd control are, in my opinion, unnecessary and politically motivated. |
|
|
|
Post by andystokey on Apr 13, 2021 10:11:08 GMT
"You lot" is a rather dismissive reference to the FSA, but I can assure you that we do have perspective, and most certainly do not assume that "the worst will happen on every occasion" which would be an absurd assumption. Of course over the years, some football fans, including some Stoke fans have behaved badly, and when that happens ( fortunately much less often than it once did) the existing powers of the police and the courts are more than adequate to deal with it. The bill may not have been designed with football fans in mind - just as Section 27 wasn't - but that doesn't mean that its powers won't be used inappropriately on the ground in a football context, just as Section 27 and its successor has been. Your rather patronising comment that I have allowed myself to be convinced otherwise is without foundation. Apologies Malcolm I wasn’t referring to the FSA. I genuinely support your organisation and the work it does. I was making a more generalised comment to the folk who think we live in North Korea. Again apologies for the confusion it really wasn’t aimed at you or the FSA. That being said, your reply half admits that the bill isn’t for football fans and it probably won’t be used against peaceful well-meaning fans. therefore it’s not really an issue. It’ll probably go ahead in spite of the disgraceful agitators from Bristol and im happy to welcome it. I’m in the category that the far left call “boot-lickers” 😂 If you honestly think that current laws aren't interpreted to suit the situation you are sadly naive and mistaken. If an officer decides to eject someone from the ground to suit the situation they now have a new tool in their armoury. They only have to say you are too loud, causing distress and you can be arrested both inside and outside of the ground. The current Public Order Act element alarm and distress law results in thousands of overturned and quashed arrests every year when constables use it against photographers, activists with animal rights stalls and frankly anyone walking down the street who happens to be doing anything that can be interpreted as alarm and distress to an unspecified individual. If you think this will not be routinely used in and around football grounds, bars and open public spaces around the U.K. then you have clearly not travelled with your football club and have a very limited experience. All police officers use any additional powers to affect the arrest at the time. It's then your individual responsibility thereafter to prove your innocence. The police don't care how it's interpreted because by then the situation has passed and there us very limited redress for wrongful arrest usually an apology or £600 if you can really be arsed to follow it up. |
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Apr 13, 2021 10:21:06 GMT
"You lot" is a rather dismissive reference to the FSA, but I can assure you that we do have perspective, and most certainly do not assume that "the worst will happen on every occasion" which would be an absurd assumption. Of course over the years, some football fans, including some Stoke fans have behaved badly, and when that happens ( fortunately much less often than it once did) the existing powers of the police and the courts are more than adequate to deal with it. The bill may not have been designed with football fans in mind - just as Section 27 wasn't - but that doesn't mean that its powers won't be used inappropriately on the ground in a football context, just as Section 27 and its successor has been. Your rather patronising comment that I have allowed myself to be convinced otherwise is without foundation. Apologies Malcolm I wasn’t referring to the FSA. I genuinely support your organisation and the work it does. I was making a more generalised comment to the folk who think we live in North Korea. Again apologies for the confusion it really wasn’t aimed at you or the FSA. That being said, your reply half admits that the bill isn’t for football fans and it probably won’t be used against peaceful well-meaning fans. therefore it’s not really an issue. It’ll probably go ahead in spite of the disgraceful agitators from Bristol and im happy to welcome it. I’m in the category that the far left call “boot-lickers” 😂 Many thanks for the clarification, and for your support for the FSA. I'm sure that the bill hasn't been introduced with football fans primarily in mind, but the worry is that local commanders may look at the very wide powers it gives them and use them in unreasonably in a football context, which is exactly what happened (and continues to occasionally happen) with Section 27. (As an individual, I am also very worried about how those powers might be used to prevent legitimate protest in a free society - but that is perhaps not for a football board). |
|
|
|
Post by a on Apr 13, 2021 10:42:40 GMT
Apologies Malcolm I wasn’t referring to the FSA. I genuinely support your organisation and the work it does. I was making a more generalised comment to the folk who think we live in North Korea. Again apologies for the confusion it really wasn’t aimed at you or the FSA. That being said, your reply half admits that the bill isn’t for football fans and it probably won’t be used against peaceful well-meaning fans. therefore it’s not really an issue. It’ll probably go ahead in spite of the disgraceful agitators from Bristol and im happy to welcome it. I’m in the category that the far left call “boot-lickers” 😂 If you honestly think that current laws aren't interpreted to suit the situation you are sadly naive and mistaken. If an officer decides to eject someone from the ground to suit the situation they now have a new tool in their armoury. They only have to say you are too loud, causing distress and you can be arrested both inside and outside of the ground. The current Public Order Act element alarm and distress law results in thousands of overturned and quashed arrests every year when constables use it against photographers, activists with animal rights stalls and frankly anyone walking down the street who happens to be doing anything that can be interpreted as alarm and distress to an unspecified individual. If you think this will not be routinely used in and around football grounds, bars and open public spaces around the U.K. then you have clearly not travelled with your football club and have a very limited experience. All police officers use any additional powers to affect the arrest at the time. It's then your individual responsibility thereafter to prove your innocence. The police don't care how it's interpreted because by then the situation has passed and there us very limited redress for wrongful arrest usually an apology or £600 if you can really be arsed to follow it up. Having been a response officer myself I’d like to think I’m well versed in the POA as well as enforcing the law. I also don’t think you’re qualified to state whether or not the police care. If you think the police have the time or inclination to routinely arrest people because they feel like it then I’d suggest it is you who is misguided. I’ll leave it at that. |
|
|
|
Post by mrcholmondleywarner on Apr 13, 2021 10:53:17 GMT
Malcolm, After the disgusting display of Policing at the last Luton Town away game we attended this is indeed very worrying. |
|
. As a result of that, the Deputy Chief Constable (to his credit) came down to Stoke to meet fans affected and personally apologised. Please do not believe that wide-ranging powers of this kind could never be used against law abiding football fans. 
