KevP Posted October 4, 2017 Report Share Posted October 4, 2017 It's what I feared. OB cover up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobBobSuperBob Posted October 5, 2017 Report Share Posted October 5, 2017 3 hours ago, SX227 said: UPDATE: Complaint rejected. In less than 2 hours. This stinks. "Essentially as you have not witnessed the incident first hand and only via the DashCam footage, you are unable to pursue a complaint." I'd keep this quote handy for the next time a football fan is prosecuted based purely on video evidence - irrelevant where footage comes from CCTV, Dash Cam or whatever This is simple In law the Police Officer has committed an assault by striking person(s) with his baton Whether that assault is justified , or with reasonable excuse, and is reasonable force within the law is for that officer to justify / explain Doesnt sound as if they've ecpven bothered to identify him / her let alone seek an explanation What a ridiculous reply from the Police, of course , as a member of the public you can complain about an officers behaviour Suggest the Post or IPCC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YorkshireSection Posted October 5, 2017 Report Share Posted October 5, 2017 5 hours ago, SX227 said: UPDATE: Complaint rejected. In less than 2 hours. This stinks. "Essentially as you have not witnessed the incident first hand and only via the DashCam footage, you are unable to pursue a complaint." ******* bent the bastard lot of em. Whats the point in having dibble on here, I can think of only one reason. They may as well go back to gaffer taping up their numbers, not that theres any need when clear video footage isn't even enough to form an investigation. Is it any wonder why society has no faith in its police force. CPS would take this on if the shoe was on the other foot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carey 6 Posted October 5, 2017 Report Share Posted October 5, 2017 Shocking. Whilst they'll say they're taking the necessary action, does anybody believe this will be anything more than a "don't do that again" Stick it on the Millwall forum & hopefully one of them comes forward. *******. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaspberryRed Posted October 5, 2017 Report Share Posted October 5, 2017 So our Police Liason Officer has misled us/or unaware of correct procedure from the outset as it was never a complainant that was needed it was a witness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gamon Posted October 5, 2017 Report Share Posted October 5, 2017 Never trust a football copper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 5, 2017 Report Share Posted October 5, 2017 10 hours ago, SX227 said: UPDATE: Complaint rejected. In less than 2 hours. This stinks. "Essentially as you have not witnessed the incident first hand and only via the DashCam footage, you are unable to pursue a complaint." Therefore every prosecution due to video evidence ONLY, will be discarded in a couple of hours when it is ANY member of the public (and we can assume plenty of our prison population can now have an appeal)? I must admit I have never seen anyone prosecuted who have been caught red handed on camera with no actual eye witnesses........ Burglars must now love this rule, caught robbing a house or shop on CCTV but everyone are asleep. No actual eye witnesses therefore no crime committed?? What is the difference? Football Police - the biggest firm who incite trouble at Football matches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Betty Swallocks Posted October 5, 2017 Report Share Posted October 5, 2017 A police cover up, who’d have known. This and the Cardiff fiasco, no wonder no one’s got confidence in our local constabulary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted October 5, 2017 Report Share Posted October 5, 2017 I would suggest in addition to IPCC, analysing a list of lawyers who specialise in police corruption. One who worked on Hillsborough are worth looking at...Bindman's. Also- and this maybe an after the horse has bolted type q- are we absolutely sure, have we absolutely established the fact that it was an Avon & Somerset officer? Remember Devon & Cornwall have been seen at games before, as have other regional forces? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 5, 2017 Report Share Posted October 5, 2017 7 minutes ago, wood_red said: Therefore every prosecution due to video evidence ONLY, will be discarded in a couple of hours when it is ANY member of the public (and we can assume plenty of our prison population can now have an appeal)? I must admit I have never seen anyone prosecuted who have been caught red handed on camera with no actual eye witnesses........ Burglars must now love this rule, caught robbing a house or shop on CCTV but everyone are asleep. No actual eye witnesses therefore no crime committed?? What is the difference? Football Police - the biggest firm who incite trouble at Football matches. Just did a quick bit of research. The Police Reform Act 2002 at s.12 deals with complaints. There is a subsection for persons adversely affected but not on the receiving end (s.12(1)(b))... but s.12(4) discounts any complaints by persons adversely affected unless they were present or sufficiently nearby (s.12(4)(a)), or aggravated by being already known (s.12(4)(b). Seems they may be relying on this legislation to dismiss the complaint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedM Posted October 5, 2017 Report Share Posted October 5, 2017 I would have thought any CCTV or video footage even from a dash cam or phone would have been better than any eye witness statement. You can be mistaken with something you have witness, especially when there is a lot going on, or you can recall it incorrectly. But if it's there on film in black and white or colour it's factual I would think. Obviously there needs to be an indication of what lead up to an incident or what happened after to give some context. I personally have had some experience of using cctv to give to the Police as evidence. I have got cctv on my house as I have severe neighbour problems and my cctv has enabled the police to secure a conviction of harassment and assault on more than one occasion. For the assault my neighbour ran out of his house and launched a physical attack on my husband. We called the police and showed them the cctv and he immediately said that's common assault and the neighbour was arrested, later charged and convicted. We had to give a statement but it was the cctv evidence which was crucial as it proved it was unprovoked and husband didn't strike back etc. It also showed who was stood where and what was said. So it can be done. Obviously it was my cctv and we were the witnesses and victims in my case which seems different here in the footie footage. And on a separate matter I have also dealt with the IPCC who were excellent. An investigator travelled over from South Wales and interviewed us in our home. They were very professional and kept us updated, can't praise their professionalism enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigAl&Toby Posted October 5, 2017 Report Share Posted October 5, 2017 I was a witness to a fatal RTA this time last year. That resulted in me making a complaint to Wiltshire about how they handled my 999 call. Investigated internally and the report read like the biggest load of bollocks you've ever seen. Factual contradictions throughout. Nothing to answer for. I appealed as I felt that if 999 call had been managed differently then the old lady who died at the scene might have stood a chance. Response? Appeal will be assessed by the Independent Complaints and Appeals Adjudicator and I'd be updated every 28 days. That was back in February. Responses since? One solitary and out of the blue email from the initial investigating officer. Don't get me wrong. The Police have an unenviable job and one that I believe they do extremely well. What worries me though is how they deal with criticism or when things don't go well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin phantom Posted October 5, 2017 Admin Report Share Posted October 5, 2017 12 hours ago, SX227 said: UPDATE: Complaint rejected. In less than 2 hours. This stinks. "Essentially as you have not witnessed the incident first hand and only via the DashCam footage, you are unable to pursue a complaint." @SX227 The FSF will be VERY interested in hearing about this - there are similar cases around the country at the moment Send them an email with details of what you've done to here info@fsf.org.uk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
class_not_gas Posted October 5, 2017 Report Share Posted October 5, 2017 Cover up all the way . On this one matter alone I have absolutely no respect or trust in the police involved or dealing ( well lack of) this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busterrimes Posted October 5, 2017 Report Share Posted October 5, 2017 It does make me laugh that we used have all those Camera Action type programmes on TV showing how the dashboard cams got convictions but surprise surprise when it is one of there own it can't be used. Is it any wonder football fans don't trust the police. As far far as football is concerned it seems they can do whatever they wish with no consequences. This has proved it is not just the West Midlands old bill who need to be investigated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Constant Rabbit Posted October 5, 2017 Report Share Posted October 5, 2017 2 hours ago, phantom said: @SX227 The FSF will be VERY interested in hearing about this - there are similar cases around the country at the moment Send them an email with details of what you've done to here info@fsf.org.uk I have copied all the correspondence from the Police and sent it to a UK based forum member. As I am in Australia currently, the time difference makes things very slow. An OTIB chap will be sending it to fsf if he wants to make himself known. Perhaps the owner of the car who posted the footage will step up and complain - as it would seem obvious he was an 'eye witness' Sorry guys - I tried. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevP Posted October 5, 2017 Report Share Posted October 5, 2017 I have spoken to a former Senior Officer this morning about this and have shown him the thread and the footage. He was clear with me that he would have expected proper investigation by the Police and finds the response to SX227 puzzling. He said the footage shows an act of excessive force. The question he said needs answering as a minimum was "was this action warranted".? This is exactly what we want to know but can't get an answer. The " no further action because it's dash cam footage" is also somewhat odd. That CAN be used to investigate and deal with the Officers actions WITHOUT an actual eyewitness being needed. He gave me other options: 1. The question needs to be asked of Avon and Somersets Senior whether he/ she agrees with the decision taken. Also, who exactly made this decision.? Are Seniors even aware ? 2. Get on the IPCC website and get them involved. 3. Get on the Police and Crime Commission website. 4. Get onto Sue Mountstevens who is the Police and Crime Commissioner....I understand this is no secret hence I've mentioned her name. Thanks to SX227 for his input so far. I'm still waiting to hear from the Supporters Trust but will give it a few more days as they only recently had their meeting. Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Natchfever Posted October 5, 2017 Report Share Posted October 5, 2017 14 hours ago, SX227 said: UPDATE: Complaint rejected. In less than 2 hours. This stinks. "Essentially as you have not witnessed the incident first hand and only via the DashCam footage, you are unable to pursue a complaint." So its official.. The police are a corrupt organisation full of inadequate bullies. Message to Julie: Do not expect people to tolerate physical assaults from anyone if they cannot rely upon justice . With respect, you may as well exit this forum as frankly you represent an organisation with no credibility whatsoever. Hopefully the FSF will take this up and the fact that our local force dismissed it so hurriedly exposed for what it is. A f ucking disgrace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted October 5, 2017 Report Share Posted October 5, 2017 Simples send the link to the BristolPost, see how the 'organisation' talk their way out of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenchred Posted October 5, 2017 Report Share Posted October 5, 2017 Did anyone expect anything different from the biggest organised mob in the UK? Roles reversed and we would be treated like shit. Notice the "liaison officer" has backed off quicker than the Italian army! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted October 5, 2017 Report Share Posted October 5, 2017 Rather than making a complaint, report it as a crime? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cider head Posted October 5, 2017 Report Share Posted October 5, 2017 Ouch!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobBobSuperBob Posted October 5, 2017 Report Share Posted October 5, 2017 32 minutes ago, cider head said: Ouch!! The officer responsible is unbelievably a 'Tactical Advisor' ( A 'expert' allegedly in crowd control and acts as a supervisor directing the troops ) Easily indentified The point where he strikes the male who is trying to protect himself says it all - hitting out without thought or control - disgraceful ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archie andrews Posted October 5, 2017 Report Share Posted October 5, 2017 27 minutes ago, Carey 6 said: Shocking. Whilst they'll say they're taking the necessary action, does anybody believe this will be anything more than a "don't do that again" Stick it on the Millwall forum & hopefully one of them comes forward. *******. more chance of seeing elvis riding shergar down the old kent road.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevP Posted October 5, 2017 Report Share Posted October 5, 2017 19 minutes ago, BobBobSuperBob said: The officer responsible is unbelievably a 'Tactical Advisor' ( A 'expert' allegedly in crowd control and acts as a supervisor directing the troops ) His unit and ID is also on the badges on his clothing The point where he strikes the male who is trying to protect himself says it all - hitting out without thought or control - disgraceful ) Incredible. Anyway, there's plenty going on behind the scenes folks...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin phantom Posted October 5, 2017 Admin Report Share Posted October 5, 2017 Time is animal was held accountable for his shocking actions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dollymarie Posted October 5, 2017 Report Share Posted October 5, 2017 So can we try and contact Milwall fans somehow and get them to try and work out who it was, so a complaint can be made by them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Army 75 Posted October 5, 2017 Report Share Posted October 5, 2017 9 minutes ago, Dollymarie said: So can we try and contact Milwall fans somehow and get them to try and work out who it was, so a complaint can be made by them? Not being funny. But what has it got to do with you . Why do you feel the need to take over. Sorry if it sounds harsh . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dollymarie Posted October 5, 2017 Report Share Posted October 5, 2017 6 minutes ago, Red Army 75 said: Not being funny. But what has it got to you. Because the officer shouldn't have acted as they did, and so if SX227 can't take things forward for the reasons given, the person in the footage can? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Army 75 Posted October 5, 2017 Report Share Posted October 5, 2017 3 minutes ago, Dollymarie said: Because the officer shouldn't have acted as they did, and so if SX227 can't take things forward for the reasons given, the person in the footage can? But a couple of weeks ago you posted something different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.