|
Post by Eggybread on Aug 20, 2018 10:35:42 GMT
Yes I can but if you read it yourself then you will know too. ![8-)](//storage.proboards.com/800541/images/ibnJJzaA6ZhfTOIekEAf.gif) I have read it and I don't think anything was broken. Please elucidate so I can try and see your point of view. estrangedsonoffaye Has just posted a few of them just above your post.Keep up man.The times they are a changing. ![:D](//storage.proboards.com/800541/images/kwfoKwtHI0jglJZ4qZf6.gif)
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on Aug 20, 2018 10:40:55 GMT
Do you care to elucidate on which of the many guidelines you feel were broken anf how so? 2.5.13: "Such action on the part of the officer may have a profound impact on crowd dynamics....The spraying of incapacitants in these circumstances may, particularly in the case of CS cause panic or even hysteria in crowded public areas may cause significant cross contamination and another use of force may be more appropriate. The decision to use CS against a person in these circumstances must be capable of subsequent justification and the closest scrutiny. 2.6.2 (It's hard to discern distance, but the officer at the top of the screen certainly seems to make a move much closer than others) The spray should not be used at a distance of less than 1 metre unless the nature of the risk to the officer is such that this cannot be avoided, in such cases officers must be prepared not only to justify use but also their decision to use at a distance that may cause damage to eyes due to the discharge pressure of the liquid. 2.8.1 After spraying, the officer should provide verbal reassurance as to the temporary effects and instruct the the subject to breathe normally (I don't imagine this happened) 2.8.2 (much the same as above) Subjects should be moved to an uncontaminated area where they can exposed to cool fresh air....etc 2.8.4 Close monitoring of subjects sprayed, especially those that show no sign of recovery or have difficulty breathing after 5 minutes. I have no doubt, there were some/a lot of dickheads in that crowd, and were likely the party initially responsible for some antagonism...but there are serious issues about using CS in confined areas as listed above, if a complaint is presented then there will have to a water tight justification for doing so. From what you can see in the video, there is a fair distance between the police and fans before spraying occurs, which then narrows upon spraying....is that distance sufficient justification? I'm assuming the police used Pava spray not CS. Pava and CS behave very differently with Pava it can be far more localised with much less chance of collateral contamination. I'm not justifying their use of it I'm just saying you seem to be basing your argument on guidelines for the use of CS in crowded places as opposed to Pava.
|
|
|
Post by Pretty Little Boother on Aug 20, 2018 10:42:02 GMT
Do you care to elucidate on which of the many guidelines you feel were broken anf how so? 2.5.12 2.5.13 2.6.1 2.8.1 2.8.2 2.8.4 Basically they're saying that there is no procedure for a team-spraying and that it needs to be up to the discretion of the individual officer. That's not the case, either it was a co-ordinated effort, or the rest of them jumped in like sheep. Secondly is how the document stresses that alternative options to spraying should be sought at public order events, as it can exacerbate the situation by causing hysteria. Funny how 99% of the time, fans don't get CS/PAVA sprayed? Regardless of your opinion on the dickheaded nature of the fans' behaviour, the fact is that this behaviour happens at every single away game, and I don't believe it is exclusive to Stoke. Maybe one alternative approach could have been to not imprison fans in the ground? Thirdly it also says that it can only be used if a suspect is being violent or threatening violence. That's obviously more subjective but from the evidence we can see, despite the shouting and bouncing, nobody is trying to get at the Police. Nobody is throwing anything, missiles nor punches. Lastly, and I'm not sure what happened in the aftermath, the document explicitly highlights the utmost importance of care after spraying. It says whoever is sprayed should be kept and an appropriate recovery ensured. Did this happen? And as an addendum, I still haven't seen any police apologists explain to me why I heard, first hand, with my own ears, a policeman say "I sprayed them for no reason". It may not count as a watertight confession in a court, but bloody hell if that's not accepting it was inappropriate I don't know what is.
|
|
|
Post by Miles Offside on Aug 20, 2018 10:42:15 GMT
As with everything in life these days there seems to be an extreme reaction on both sides. It's either the police are brutalist scumbags who have indiscriminately sprayed salt of the earth fans with a potentially deadly chemical agent after minimal provocation. They wanted to do this in advance and used the slightest provocation to turn on the fans. Or the fans were absolute scumbags who should all be identified and banned from Stoke matches for life. The truth as always is somewhere in the middle. The ultimate responsibility for this lies with the fans. If a significant minority hasn't decided to give it the big un to the police and tried to kick the door open despite it being clear that they weren't going to be allowed out. They behaved criminally and therefore should expect a response from law enforcement to keep the peace and apprehend those responsible. It doesn't matter that you want a fag and Stoke have conceded on the stroke of half time. There's no excuse for trying to intimidate the police into letting you out for a fag. You have to expect a response to that kind of behaviour. However, the police have protocols to follow and CS gas is potentially dangerous and shouldn't really be sprayed indiscriminately. Were there other tactics they could have used? Almost certainly. Well said.
|
|
|
Post by Eggybread on Aug 20, 2018 10:44:01 GMT
2.5.13: "Such action on the part of the officer may have a profound impact on crowd dynamics....The spraying of incapacitants in these circumstances may, particularly in the case of CS cause panic or even hysteria in crowded public areas may cause significant cross contamination and another use of force may be more appropriate. The decision to use CS against a person in these circumstances must be capable of subsequent justification and the closest scrutiny. 2.6.2 (It's hard to discern distance, but the officer at the top of the screen certainly seems to make a move much closer than others) The spray should not be used at a distance of less than 1 metre unless the nature of the risk to the officer is such that this cannot be avoided, in such cases officers must be prepared not only to justify use but also their decision to use at a distance that may cause damage to eyes due to the discharge pressure of the liquid. 2.8.1 After spraying, the officer should provide verbal reassurance as to the temporary effects and instruct the the subject to breathe normally (I don't imagine this happened) 2.8.2 (much the same as above) Subjects should be moved to an uncontaminated area where they can exposed to cool fresh air....etc 2.8.4 Close monitoring of subjects sprayed, especially those that show no sign of recovery or have difficulty breathing after 5 minutes. I have no doubt, there were some/a lot of dickheads in that crowd, and were likely the party initially responsible for some antagonism...but there are serious issues about using CS in confined areas as listed above, if a complaint is presented then there will have to a water tight justification for doing so. From what you can see in the video, there is a fair distance between the police and fans before spraying occurs, which then narrows upon spraying....is that distance sufficient justification? I'm assuming the police used Pava spray not CS. Pava and CS behave very differently with Pava it can be far more localised with much less chance of collateral contamination. I'm not justifying their use of it I'm just saying you seem to be basing your argument on guidelines for the use of CS in crowded places as opposed to Pava. The PAVA spray is a hell of a lot more potent than CS. Most of what you need to know is here mate. www.npcc.police.uk/documents/FoI%20publication/Disclosure%20Logs/Uniformed%20Operations%20FOI/2013/003%2013%20Att%2014%20of%2015%20Guidance%20on%20the%20use%20of%20Incapacitant%20Spray.pdf
|
|
|
Post by StokeTudoGuy on Aug 20, 2018 10:44:33 GMT
Do you care to elucidate on which of the many guidelines you feel were broken anf how so? 2.5.13: "Such action on the part of the officer may have a profound impact on crowd dynamics....The spraying of incapacitants in these circumstances may, particularly in the case of CS cause panic or even hysteria in crowded public areas may cause significant cross contamination and another use of force may be more appropriate. The decision to use CS against a person in these circumstances must be capable of subsequent justification and the closest scrutiny. 2.6.2 (It's hard to discern distance, but the officer at the top of the screen certainly seems to make a move much closer than others) The spray should not be used at a distance of less than 1 metre unless the nature of the risk to the officer is such that this cannot be avoided, in such cases officers must be prepared not only to justify use but also their decision to use at a distance that may cause damage to eyes due to the discharge pressure of the liquid. 2.8.1 After spraying, the officer should provide verbal reassurance as to the temporary effects and instruct the the subject to breathe normally (I don't imagine this happened) 2.8.2 (much the same as above) Subjects should be moved to an uncontaminated area where they can exposed to cool fresh air....etc 2.8.4 Close monitoring of subjects sprayed, especially those that show no sign of recovery or have difficulty breathing after 5 minutes. I have no doubt, there were some/a lot of dickheads in that crowd, and were likely the party initially responsible for some antagonism...but there are serious issues about using CS in confined areas as listed above, if a complaint is presented then there will have to a water tight justification for doing so. From what you can see in the video, there is a fair distance between the police and fans before spraying occurs, which then narrows upon spraying....is that distance sufficient justification? Your first point is specific to CS, the same guidelines say that PAVA is mre useable in such a situation. The Police in Lancashire use PAVA. Your second point, that video isnt tje best reference to try and judge one meter. It also states simply that the officer "must be prepared not only to justify use but also their decision to use at a distance that may cause damage to eyes due to the discharge pressure of the liquid." Lets wait and see if they are prepared to during the investigation before assuming guilt. 3,4 and 5, most affected people ran away so do you suggest the Police split up and start running through other people to get thise individuals so they can have a calm discussion right at thag point. The reality is that those actions werent wholly approriate right at that moment. Again, they didnt use CS, there is a clear distinction between PAVA and CS. There is also CERTAINLY no clear evidence that the distance narrows. The Police move forward tactically after spraying but it isnt entirely clear on the video what the crowd does. It appears to me as though the crowd quickly move away perhaps increasing the distance? But the video is far too poor to draw a proper conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Aug 20, 2018 10:46:11 GMT
2.5.13: "Such action on the part of the officer may have a profound impact on crowd dynamics....The spraying of incapacitants in these circumstances may, particularly in the case of CS cause panic or even hysteria in crowded public areas may cause significant cross contamination and another use of force may be more appropriate. The decision to use CS against a person in these circumstances must be capable of subsequent justification and the closest scrutiny. 2.6.2 (It's hard to discern distance, but the officer at the top of the screen certainly seems to make a move much closer than others) The spray should not be used at a distance of less than 1 metre unless the nature of the risk to the officer is such that this cannot be avoided, in such cases officers must be prepared not only to justify use but also their decision to use at a distance that may cause damage to eyes due to the discharge pressure of the liquid. 2.8.1 After spraying, the officer should provide verbal reassurance as to the temporary effects and instruct the the subject to breathe normally (I don't imagine this happened) 2.8.2 (much the same as above) Subjects should be moved to an uncontaminated area where they can exposed to cool fresh air....etc 2.8.4 Close monitoring of subjects sprayed, especially those that show no sign of recovery or have difficulty breathing after 5 minutes. I have no doubt, there were some/a lot of dickheads in that crowd, and were likely the party initially responsible for some antagonism...but there are serious issues about using CS in confined areas as listed above, if a complaint is presented then there will have to a water tight justification for doing so. From what you can see in the video, there is a fair distance between the police and fans before spraying occurs, which then narrows upon spraying....is that distance sufficient justification? I'm assuming the police used Pava spray not CS. Pava and CS behave very differently with Pava it can be far more localised with much less chance of collateral contamination. I'm not justifying their use of it I'm just saying you seem to be basing your argument on guidelines for the use of CS in crowded places as opposed to Pava. I've paraphrased part of it by only putting CS but the guidelines make no distinction between CS and PAVA, it's guidelines for both, the only explicit difference states that use of CS should be considered a lot more carefully when used. So if it is PAVA, the same guidelines applies, particularly with the latter guidelines of aftercare.
|
|
|
Post by StokeTudoGuy on Aug 20, 2018 10:46:12 GMT
I have read it and I don't think anything was broken. Please elucidate so I can try and see your point of view. estrangedsonoffaye Has just posted a few of them just above your post.Keep up man.The times they are a changing. ![:D](//storage.proboards.com/800541/images/kwfoKwtHI0jglJZ4qZf6.gif) Do you let people speak for you in all walks of life? C'mon be your own man in these changing times.
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Aug 20, 2018 10:51:47 GMT
2.5.13: "Such action on the part of the officer may have a profound impact on crowd dynamics....The spraying of incapacitants in these circumstances may, particularly in the case of CS cause panic or even hysteria in crowded public areas may cause significant cross contamination and another use of force may be more appropriate. The decision to use CS against a person in these circumstances must be capable of subsequent justification and the closest scrutiny. 2.6.2 (It's hard to discern distance, but the officer at the top of the screen certainly seems to make a move much closer than others) The spray should not be used at a distance of less than 1 metre unless the nature of the risk to the officer is such that this cannot be avoided, in such cases officers must be prepared not only to justify use but also their decision to use at a distance that may cause damage to eyes due to the discharge pressure of the liquid. 2.8.1 After spraying, the officer should provide verbal reassurance as to the temporary effects and instruct the the subject to breathe normally (I don't imagine this happened) 2.8.2 (much the same as above) Subjects should be moved to an uncontaminated area where they can exposed to cool fresh air....etc 2.8.4 Close monitoring of subjects sprayed, especially those that show no sign of recovery or have difficulty breathing after 5 minutes. I have no doubt, there were some/a lot of dickheads in that crowd, and were likely the party initially responsible for some antagonism...but there are serious issues about using CS in confined areas as listed above, if a complaint is presented then there will have to a water tight justification for doing so. From what you can see in the video, there is a fair distance between the police and fans before spraying occurs, which then narrows upon spraying....is that distance sufficient justification? Your first point is specific to CS, the same guidelines say that PAVA is mre useable in such a situation. The Police in Lancashire use PAVA. Your second point, that video isnt tje best reference to try and judge one meter. It also states simply that the officer "must be prepared not only to justify use but also their decision to use at a distance that may cause damage to eyes due to the discharge pressure of the liquid." Lets wait and see if they are prepared to during the investigation before assuming guilt. 3,4 and 5, most affected people ran away so do you suggest the Police split up and start running through other people to get thise individuals so they can have a calm discussion right at thag point. The reality is that those actions werent wholly approriate right at that moment. Again, they didnt use CS, there is a clear distinction between PAVA and CS. There is also CERTAINLY no clear evidence that the distance narrows. The Police move forward tactically after spraying but it isnt entirely clear on the video what the crowd does. It appears to me as though the crowd quickly move away perhaps increasing the distance? But the video is far too poor to draw a proper conclusion. They don't say it's more "useable" at all, they say CS should have more consideration, but that's not a statement saying that PAVA can be used willy-nilly. The guidelines apply to both spray. Additionally, 2.5.12, "there are no group tactical options for its use at public order events and its use is therefore at the discretion of individual officers in accordance with overriding principle of reasonableness and necessity. To me, it looks a fairly co-ordinated group usage. As for people running away, this induces panic and hysteria, which is exactly why I think the use of it against a large group is stupid and unsafe. I deal with capsaicinoids on a daily basis with my work, and they are no joke. The make you panic, you can't see can't breathe and can't think. If the police are unable to provide aftercare safely, then surely this has to be considered before use. As stated in the guidelines.
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on Aug 20, 2018 10:57:24 GMT
I'm assuming the police used Pava spray not CS. Pava and CS behave very differently with Pava it can be far more localised with much less chance of collateral contamination. I'm not justifying their use of it I'm just saying you seem to be basing your argument on guidelines for the use of CS in crowded places as opposed to Pava. I've paraphrased part of it by only putting CS but the guidelines make no distinction between CS and PAVA, it's guidelines for both, the only explicit difference states that use of CS should be considered a lot more carefully when used. So if it is PAVA, the same guidelines applies, particularly with the latter guidelines of aftercare. I realised that but if you read the Governments report on the comparison between CS and Pava there is a clear distinction between them and the lack of collateral contamination in crowded areas with Pava compared to CS. I would suggest the aftercare issue is a bit of a red herring as well as it looked from that very brief video like they all legged it. Difficult then to give effective aftercare.
|
|
|
Post by StokeTudoGuy on Aug 20, 2018 10:57:43 GMT
Do you care to elucidate on which of the many guidelines you feel were broken anf how so? 2.5.12 2.5.13 2.6.1 2.8.1 2.8.2 2.8.4 Basically they're saying that there is no procedure for a team-spraying and that it needs to be up to the discretion of the individual officer. That's not the case, either it was a co-ordinated effort, or the rest of them jumped in like sheep. Secondly is how the document stresses that alternative options to spraying should be sought at public order events, as it can exacerbate the situation by causing hysteria. Funny how 99% of the time, fans don't get CS/PAVA sprayed? Regardless of your opinion on the dickheaded nature of the fans' behaviour, the fact is that this behaviour happens at every single away game, and I don't believe it is exclusive to Stoke. Maybe one alternative approach could have been to not imprison fans in the ground? Thirdly it also says that it can only be used if a suspect is being violent or threatening violence. That's obviously more subjective but from the evidence we can see, despite the shouting and bouncing, nobody is trying to get at the Police. Nobody is throwing anything, missiles nor punches. Lastly, and I'm not sure what happened in the aftermath, the document explicitly highlights the utmost importance of care after spraying. It says whoever is sprayed should be kept and an appropriate recovery ensured. Did this happen? And as an addendum, I still haven't seen any police apologists explain to me why I heard, first hand, with my own ears, a policeman say "I sprayed them for no reason". It may not count as a watertight confession in a court, but bloody hell if that's not accepting it was inappropriate I don't know what is. The problem with quoting this specific document is that it goes hand in hand with other documents, one specifically reffers to guidence on "impact factors" which can change the whole reaction. Perceived aggression from a crowd is a totally different level of impact from perceived agression from an individual. You talk of the evidence we see. I. Reality when you cut out the scrambling and meaningless parts of the video.. We get a couple seconds of a situation with basically nothing that leads up to it. "an addendum, I still haven't seen any police apologists explain to me why I heard, first hand, with my own ears, a policeman say "I sprayed them for no reason". It may not count as a watertight confession in a court, but bloody hell if that's not accepting it was inappropriate I don't know what is." And I wouldnt hold your breath to have an intelligant debate about that. Firstly we have only your report to form an assumption of fact. Im not saying you are a liar. If what you think happened with that officer is absolutely unequivocally what did happen... And honestly only that Police officer knows for sure. Then yes it's deplorable and one would hoe his statement and explanation will be found wanting. But let's be realistic, nobody here can explain to you why you heard someone say something that they themselves were not privvy to and it's bonkers to sit and wait for someone to even try.
|
|
|
Post by StokeTudoGuy on Aug 20, 2018 10:58:53 GMT
But also has much much less fallout and is much more applicable for use in such a situation.
|
|
|
Post by StokeTudoGuy on Aug 20, 2018 11:08:21 GMT
I'm assuming the police used Pava spray not CS. Pava and CS behave very differently with Pava it can be far more localised with much less chance of collateral contamination. I'm not justifying their use of it I'm just saying you seem to be basing your argument on guidelines for the use of CS in crowded places as opposed to Pava. I've paraphrased part of it by only putting CS but the guidelines make no distinction between CS and PAVA, it's guidelines for both, the only explicit difference states that use of CS should be considered a lot more carefully when used. So if it is PAVA, the same guidelines applies, particularly with the latter guidelines of aftercare. Other than the ENTIRE preface of the document that EXPLICITLY draws a distinct line between CS and PAVA by explaining them seperately in their own CS 2.1-2.2.2, PAVA 2.3.1-2.4.2 2.5.13 draws another disinction between CS and PAVA and specifically their suitability for use in a crowd situation. In the nicest possible way, I think you need to read the document again.
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Aug 20, 2018 11:16:49 GMT
I've paraphrased part of it by only putting CS but the guidelines make no distinction between CS and PAVA, it's guidelines for both, the only explicit difference states that use of CS should be considered a lot more carefully when used. So if it is PAVA, the same guidelines applies, particularly with the latter guidelines of aftercare. Other than the ENTIRE preface of the document that EXPLICITLY draws a distinct line between CS and PAVA by explaining them seperately in their own CS 2.1-2.2.2, PAVA 2.3.1-2.4.2 2.5.13 draws another disinction between CS and PAVA and specifically their suitability for use in a crowd situation. In the nicest possible way, I think you need to read the document again. It explains them both separately granted, explaining the formulations, maximum effective distance and differential effects, but the USAGE guidelines are not stratified between the two, other than the one comment about their suitability in a crowd situation in which it states verbatim "primarily CS, although PAVA in a limited way may cause SIGNIFICANT cross contamination" so it's not saying use PAVA against groups as you please, it's saying it's less likely to cause cross contamination, but it still can, and it can still be severe. Of course the preface draws a distinction, but no one is saying oh the PAVA was 0.4% not 0.3% the argument is against the usage of the spray. Section 2.6 doesn't even use CS or PAVA in the text, so it clearly applies to both.
|
|
|
Post by StokeTudoGuy on Aug 20, 2018 11:18:33 GMT
Your first point is specific to CS, the same guidelines say that PAVA is mre useable in such a situation. The Police in Lancashire use PAVA. Your second point, that video isnt tje best reference to try and judge one meter. It also states simply that the officer "must be prepared not only to justify use but also their decision to use at a distance that may cause damage to eyes due to the discharge pressure of the liquid." Lets wait and see if they are prepared to during the investigation before assuming guilt. 3,4 and 5, most affected people ran away so do you suggest the Police split up and start running through other people to get thise individuals so they can have a calm discussion right at thag point. The reality is that those actions werent wholly approriate right at that moment. Again, they didnt use CS, there is a clear distinction between PAVA and CS. There is also CERTAINLY no clear evidence that the distance narrows. The Police move forward tactically after spraying but it isnt entirely clear on the video what the crowd does. It appears to me as though the crowd quickly move away perhaps increasing the distance? But the video is far too poor to draw a proper conclusion. They don't say it's more "useable" at all, they say CS should have more consideration, but that's not a statement saying that PAVA can be used willy-nilly. The guidelines apply to both spray. Additionally, 2.5.12, "there are no group tactical options for its use at public order events and its use is therefore at the discretion of individual officers in accordance with overriding principle of reasonableness and necessity. To me, it looks a fairly co-ordinated group usage. As for people running away, this induces panic and hysteria, which is exactly why I think the use of it against a large group is stupid and unsafe. I deal with capsaicinoids on a daily basis with my work, and they are no joke. The make you panic, you can't see can't breathe and can't think. If the police are unable to provide aftercare safely, then surely this has to be considered before use. As stated in the guidelines. First point, fair. Bad wording by me, though I wasnt suggesting it is used willy nilly. I was suggesting that thought has been put in on the part of the Police into the tools available to their officers. 2.5.12 - I read as their being no defence for an officer to say they used it because the guy next to them did or simply because they were told to... And this is how I think it should be. Ultimately each officer that decided to use the spray and it isnt all of them, will be required under the guidence to expain their own reasoning for doing so. Again I think thats a good thing. Capsaicinoids are no joke, I agree. I have been sprayed with PAVA before and it was pretty much what you described, though I could still think. But again these guidance notes go hand in hand with guidance on impact factors which can change the entire methodology even ignoring the fact that these situations are happening dynamically.
|
|
|
Post by flea79 on Aug 20, 2018 11:19:38 GMT
long and short is that we had 10-20 lads who were intent on causing some aggro unfortunately this spilled into the police coming in mob handed but antagonised the rest of the concourse
as per the usual the lads who caused the issue legged it and left people at the front who had nothing do with the initial incident
then the use of spray was an attack that was planned by the coppers as they were having a boring day
the normal coppers on the street were great with us all day and chatted to us like we were normal people for once, just this bunch of trigger happy tossers couldn't wait to have a go, the truncheons and shields were more than enough deterrent to get rid of the original offenders anything else was ridiculous
|
|
|
Post by Block 22 on Aug 20, 2018 11:24:14 GMT
long and short is that we had 10-20 lads who were intent on causing some aggro unfortunately this spilled into the police coming in mob handed but antagonised the rest of the concourse as per the usual the lads who caused the issue legged it and left people at the front who had nothing do with the initial incident then the use of spray was an attack that was planned by the coppers as they were having a boring day the normal coppers on the street were great with us all day and chatted to us like we were normal people for once, just this bunch of trigger happy tossers couldn't wait to have a go, the truncheons and shields were more than enough deterrent to get rid of the original offenders anything else was ridiculous Funnily enough one of the idiots in that video who sprayed the fans was on our coach afterwards kissing lots of stoke fans arses. A well over the top compensation for a guilty conscience.
|
|
|
Post by JurgenVandeurzen on Aug 20, 2018 11:27:29 GMT
Some of the arseholes I've seen following our club in my time, I'd spray the bastards myself.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Aug 20, 2018 11:28:44 GMT
Seems to me the incident explains itself. People dispersed and any potential threat was pretty much immediately extinguished. Seems like people are mostly pissed off that the tactic was so successful.Reality; for all this bluster and complaining about too much force, potential deadly results etc. etc. I havent seen or heard any evidence of a single serious or noteable injury, not even a single picture of a kid with red eyes. Was mass disorder and physcal violence on the cards? Possibly, but I'm not sure. People were pretty amped up and even from the video there is one smaller bald guy at the front baiting back and forth at the Police. If a group of people suddenly started acting like that at the local Asda then I think many reasonable people would think it was a matter of public order for the Police to manage. The Police work that stadium on a hell of a lot of occasions and this isnt common, which kind of shits on this underlying thought that the Police turn up to fuck people up for a bit of a laugh, it also says to me that something was different from the norm and they judged the situation based on that fact. The best I can say is that mass disorder and physical violence was at least a possibility or a perceived possibility, yet after the tactics were used it didn't really pan out to a higher escalation than the one the Police chose to control did it? Whether you like or not the method of control the Police tactically chose to make, I don't think the effectiveness of the tactic can be denied. I think I speak for myself and 90% of people on here when I say that if there actually was a cause for concern they would have no issue with severe action being taken. You statement suggests they were right in taking action for something that may never have happened. I can pretty much guarantee that there will be a number of clubs away followings that behave at lot worse than that at Deepdale this season. Based on facts and not assumptions, there weren’t brawls breaking out, the fans showed no physical signs of aggression towards the police, no punches were thrown, no one was hurt. A few doors were kicked, a bit of beer was thrown, a few songs were being sung and a few of the fans were giving the police a few chants and taunts. Isn’t this what happens at 9 out of 10 away games across the country? There was absolutely no justification at all to use the spray. The police were arrogant from minute 1 and obviously ill informed about a reputation that no longer exists amongst our support. They took the aggressive, arrogant, bully-like, high ground, stance from minute 1 when they had no reason to. Their treatment of our fans was evidence of this. They made easy-diffusable situations into dangerous ones. A few points arise. First it is much to the credit of the Lancs police that they are holding a review and that they have invited the FSF to attend. In past times this would never have happened. I can’t go myself but our caseworker who is going is very experienced in such matters. I will know more after that meeting. Subject to what emerges there my preliminary view having read the guidelines is that it is very doubtful whether the use of PAVA was appropriate in that situation. However I do not agree that “kicking doors” and throwing beer should be dismissed as lightly as you appear to. As a fans representative I can’t defend attempting to break down a door to get out to have a smoke, even if you think that should have been allowed. Neither can I defend throwing beer over fellow fans or making the concourse an environment into which some fans and families feel afraid to enter. You mention “ our reputation which no longer exists”. As I said near the beginning of the thread I think there is some truth in this. But I also think the danger is that things like fans trying to break down an exit door at half time and excessively raucous concourse behaviour may rapidly reestablish that reputation and we will be policed and stewarded accordingly.
|
|
|
Post by senojbor on Aug 20, 2018 11:28:56 GMT
This is the last thing we need.
|
|
|
Post by Eggybread on Aug 20, 2018 11:30:53 GMT
estrangedsonoffaye Has just posted a few of them just above your post.Keep up man.The times they are a changing. ![:D](//storage.proboards.com/800541/images/kwfoKwtHI0jglJZ4qZf6.gif) Do you let people speak for you in all walks of life? C'mon be your own man in these changing times. ![:D](//storage.proboards.com/800541/images/kwfoKwtHI0jglJZ4qZf6.gif) Im at work so time is crucial. ![::)](//storage.proboards.com/800541/images/cj7bsBj2jOTuEAUVaPt5.gif)
|
|
|
Post by Block 22 on Aug 20, 2018 11:31:58 GMT
As with everything in life these days there seems to be an extreme reaction on both sides. It's either the police are brutalist scumbags who have indiscriminately sprayed salt of the earth fans with a potentially deadly chemical agent after minimal provocation. They wanted to do this in advance and used the slightest provocation to turn on the fans. Or the fans were absolute scumbags who should all be identified and banned from Stoke matches for life. The truth as always is somewhere in the middle. The ultimate responsibility for this lies with the fans. If a significant minority hasn't decided to give it the big un to the police and tried to kick the door open despite it being clear that they weren't going to be allowed out. They behaved criminally and therefore should expect a response from law enforcement to keep the peace and apprehend those responsible. It doesn't matter that you want a fag and Stoke have conceded on the stroke of half time. There's no excuse for trying to intimidate the police into letting you out for a fag. You have to expect a response to that kind of behaviour. However, the police have protocols to follow and CS gas is potentially dangerous and shouldn't really be sprayed indiscriminately. Were there other tactics they *should* have used? Almost certainly.Well said. Thats the only thing that matters. You’ve also made an assumption that they tried to intimidate the police. How do you know that? If the earlier antics in the day (my experience) were anything to go by with their arrogance then it may well have been them who formed their shit barricade first.
|
|
|
Post by StokeTudoGuy on Aug 20, 2018 11:36:53 GMT
Do you let people speak for you in all walks of life? C'mon be your own man in these changing times. ![:D](//storage.proboards.com/800541/images/kwfoKwtHI0jglJZ4qZf6.gif) Im at work so time is crucial. ![::)](//storage.proboards.com/800541/images/cj7bsBj2jOTuEAUVaPt5.gif) 👍 fair enough. Im off looking after the kids, so this discussion is far more crucial and interesting for me today. 😂
|
|
|
Post by burystokie on Aug 20, 2018 11:53:40 GMT
There are people posting on this thread who clearly know more about this topic than I do, and I'm certainly not going to go into technical details of regulations or PAVA vs CS etc. I'm also heartened to hear that the FSF will be involved with the police review.
That said, I cannot believe I'm reading about people running away as if that partially absolves the police of their responsibility to deal with the aftermath of their action.
Supposedly highly trained professionals have carried out what appears to have been a coordinated, and therefore pre-planned, action that it could easily be predicted would cause a panicked, possibly violent response, and they did this in the enclosed, crowded environment of a football stadium concourse? That is so incredibly irresponsible and dangerous that I can't believe I'm seeing it being defended. The tone of the tweet on the first page of this thread, not to mention the review itself, suggests that Lancashire Police themselves know full well it is indefensible.
The people kicking the door were dickheads, obviously. However, I thought we'd got well beyond the point where it was acceptable to endanger and punish football supporters for the actions of a moronic minority. It saddens me to learn how wrong I was.
|
|
|
Post by johnnysoul60 on Aug 20, 2018 12:09:45 GMT
The whole sorry incident could and indeed should have been avoided. A lot of the Stoke fans Saturday had been drinking in Blackpool and Preston for most of the day.As we arrived to the ground two double Decker buses full of stoke fans were being escorted to the ground.It was obvious these fans had been drinking. At half time the powers that be thought it would be (safer)if all the fans were kept inside the stadium.The toilets were rammed to the hilt of smokers.This alone was not policed at all and I feel sorry for anyone who doesn't smoke or who had a child with them it was totally unacceptable. All the police had to do was open the doors and let people smoke because rightly or wrongly people are going to smoke at half time.To protect the non smokers (I smoke) they should have let people out and eased the congestion. I know people are going to say cant you do without a cigarette etc.but the fact is some people cannot and that combined with alcohol people will smoke. It was a cauldron in there and the police and stewards did nothing to alleviate the situation, the law of commonsense again was overlooked and the outcome was the spraying. Common sense like this has sadly had its day in this world but that is exactly the way to deal with it , create some space and the police can just watch from a distance . I'm waiting the day when all organisations have to have an anti-common sense policy just to justify all the ones they do have that they wouldnt need if they applied common sense .
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Aug 20, 2018 12:10:05 GMT
Isn't the takeaway from this that if you behave like a knobhead some other knobhead might retaliate? The police shouldn't have acted like they did but then our "fans" in that video were an embarrassment.
If you don't want to get pepper sprayed don't behave like a knobhead and if you see knobheads behaving like knobheads walk away. For some strange reason if you do this chances are you will go through life without being pepper sprayed.
What really gets me is the bleating. Poor me not given licence to get pissed up and behave like a complete tool. If you can't take your drink at least take your pepper spray. Oh and please stop following Stoke. You're not wanted.
|
|
|
Post by skemstokie on Aug 20, 2018 12:16:22 GMT
I have been "supporting" Stoke for close on 60 years and have never been punched or attacked by anyone,never been treated by the police and stewards in anything other than a polite and helpful manner,is it the fact that i comply with the rules and regulation,i do not drink to excess hurl abuse (or beer) at people and behave in a decent manner am i just lucky? Maybe you are just lucky, or maybe you treat others with respect and courtesy.....it goes a long way and is certainly something the knuckle dragging chavs could do with learning. I work on the principle treat others as you would wish to be treated,rules are rules and there for the good of all,if you don`t like the rules stay at home with your own rules
|
|
|
Post by stantheman on Aug 20, 2018 12:40:36 GMT
Thats the only thing that matters. You’ve also made an assumption that they tried to intimidate the police. How do you know that? If the earlier antics in the day (my experience) were anything to go by with their arrogance then it may well have been them who formed their shit barricade first. If a copper stands in front of me with a baton in one hand and a can of pepper spray in the other, I would think to myself; a) If I stand, facing the coppers, gesticulating/shouting/bouncing up and down/swearing at them, it may be construed that I am intimidating them. They may well lose patience and do something about it. b) I could turn around and walk away before it all gets nasty. It's a pity a few more of our lot didn't take the latter option. I was there on Saturday and saw that the idiots lined up in front of the police were after one thing, and one thing only - trouble. And that's exactly what they got
|
|
|
Post by Eggybread on Aug 20, 2018 12:43:24 GMT
Maybe you are just lucky, or maybe you treat others with respect and courtesy.....it goes a long way and is certainly something the knuckle dragging chavs could do with learning. I work on the principle treat others as you would wish to be treated,rules are rules and there for the good of all,if you don`t like the rules stay at home with your own rules "rules are rules and there for the good of all" Me and you would be no fun whatsoever.What a wide sweeping statement,you have either been in the army or are a copper to come out with a statement like that.
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Aug 20, 2018 12:45:21 GMT
There are people posting on this thread who clearly know more about this topic than I do, and I'm certainly not going to go into technical details of regulations or PAVA vs CS etc. I'm also heartened to hear that the FSF will be involved with the police review. That said, I cannot believe I'm reading about people running away as if that partially absolves the police of their responsibility to deal with the aftermath of their action. Supposedly highly trained professionals have carried out what appears to have been a coordinated, and therefore pre-planned, action that it could easily be predicted would cause a panicked, possibly violent response, and they did this in the enclosed, crowded environment of a football stadium concourse? That is so incredibly irresponsible and dangerous that I can't believe I'm seeing it being defended. The tone of the tweet on the first page of this thread, not to mention the review itself, suggests that Lancashire Police themselves know full well it is indefensible. The people kicking the door were dickheads, obviously. However, I thought we'd got well beyond the point where it was acceptable to endanger and punish football supporters for the actions of a moronic minority. It saddens me to learn how wrong I was. This is the clincher for me, this was in a concourse with a very dense collections of fans. Group spraying is questionable even outdoors due to wind etc so I can't see why spraying it indoors is any better because someone being a dickhead can be 3 feet away from someone minding their own business. Police, if willing to use spray, must be willing to deal with the consequences. If you're being sprayed with a pepper spray, you're not going to stay still and you're going to look for help. Police know this occurs, that's why it's in the guidelines. The inability to provide aftercare must be taken into account. It's no different from hitting someone with a night-stick, them limping off and then being left to their wounds. That would be unacceptable, and this should be also.
|
|