Jump to content
IGNORED

Trouble vs Wall!!!!!!!!??????


adamski

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Loon plage said:

Suggest you re read my post. I said the brave man clumping the Millwall fan was a pig whether he was in uniform or not.

My "attitude" comes from what is now crystal clear. So far as the treatment of football fans are concerned the police is a corrupt organisation.

You got a nerve....you obviously have a political standpoint that has nothing to do with this incident, it's just an excuse for you and I am ashamed to say others on here to have a go at the cops. Of course they are not perfect, no one is , you will get the odd one that is having a bad day at the office, but what's your excuse? 

Don't worry Julie he won't go anywhere near any potential trouble, that kind never will, but he might be the first to condemn the so called Horse Punchers and speel on and and on and on and on about that.

Thank God some have the balls to put themselves into protecting the public, you and yours are doing all right, 'they' have the problem.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 1bristolcity said:

Of course he might have a temper, what a pathetic comment, the officer might have a shorter fuse than others, so what? It 's the sum of the whole that matters, that Police Cordon was well managed, if we are to be nit picking hand wringing liberals about  this I really fear for our safety, too much 'frightened to police' as it is, of course the alternative rather than a baton might be a bullet.   

I bet you and I probably share a lot of similar views on discipline, respect for authority and allowing police to police. When I say scrutinised, I don't mean witch hunt or even taking the starting position of he must show why it was justified... but where force is used I do believe it is appropriate to review to see if there are lessons to be learned.

It's done where lethal force is used as far as I know. I simply think 'lethal' is a consequence and not really relevant. Take hitting 2 people with a baton with the same force; one man gets a headache for a few days, the next has osteoporosis or thin skull and suffers serious injuries. Why review one and not the other? 

That said, there are some comments and attitudes towards the police that I seriously do not share.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, JulieH said:

Your definition of crystal clear corruption and mine are clearly at odds with each other.

i am happy to invite you to ride along with the football officers from Bristol on a game to be arranged so that you can see policing of football for yourself. 

I see policing at football matches with more pleasant company thanks all the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, 1bristolcity said:

You got a nerve....you obviously have a political standpoint that has nothing to do with this incident, it's just an excuse for you and I am ashamed to say others on here to have a go at the cops. Of course they are not perfect, no one is , you will get the odd one that is having a bad day at the office, but what's your excuse? 

Don't worry Julie he won't go anywhere near any potential trouble, that kind never will, but he might be the first to condemn the so called Horse Punchers and speel on and and on and on and on about that.

Thank God some have the balls to put themselves into protecting the public, you and yours are doing all right, 'they' have the problem.  

 

You belter haha  You nearly had me believing you were serious for a while. Good work missus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, eastonboy said:

In the circumstances, I think calling the thug a pig was quite reserved, I think that Julie needs to get a thicker skin if she is offended on behalf of someone else if she finds the word describing the one officer a Pig.

This. The blokes actually a jumped up**** who thinks he can do what he likes in a uniform. The fact that no action is being taken just shows how corrupt the system is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JulieH said:

I have been involved in this thread right from page 1, responded to all of the enquiries and requests and have been open about what I was informed everyone had to do with regards to this incident.

at no point have I felt the need to use personal insults or vile comments such as .this

we live in a democracy where everyone has a right to enquire as why things have happened which I have facilitated.

Neither i or the pc in the videos are pigs. Pigs are farm animals with 4 legs and a curly tail and taste nice in a roll. We are human beings who live , breathe, have families just like you do.

There was no need for that insult within the context of this thread

thankfully the majority of Bristol City fans on this forum have not shown the same attitude to police in this incident as you have

i have always been open , the reason I am here answering questions is at the request of the fans , if that is no longer the case then i can easily leave the forum and just continue to attend monthly fans meeting in the supporters bar on the first weds of each month. 

 

Good to see you caught the bait, Id guessed you would.

Its a shame that an officer of the law takes more time out to defend the use of the word pig than track the officer down and show the video footage to his superior.

As for the term Pig, well take the uniform off and the bloke is still a pig, anyone regardless of their occupation who acts in that manor is a pig, Im rather upset it was so easy to draw you in.

Prove us wrong and show his superior the footage, the public to which you are a servant to wants the bloke to receive the disciplinary action that he deserves, Im sure you do to? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BCFC Grim said:

This. The blokes actually a jumped up**** who thinks he can do what he likes in a uniform. The fact that no action is being taken just shows how corrupt the system is.

Actually, I really don't believe this or the other, similar comments concerning Police corruption and the like solve anything.

To the best of my knowledge, none of the posters on this thread know the policeman in question personally, so to describe (in derogatory and negative terms) his personality and thought process when he is wearing a police uniform is somewhat overstepping the mark and assuming you know something that you clearly don't.  

As for calling him a pig, Well, really! Why not get ACAB tattooed on your fingers or go the whole hog, no pun intended, and call him a fascist pig?

No. The problem in my opinion is not that the policeman may or not be a 'thug' or similar; indeed, he may well be.

The problem is that the incident has not been investigated further and nor would it seem that the policeman has even been interviewed by his superiors: had they done so, it may have been established that, e.g. he was exhausted after repeated long shifts, was suffering from stress or just panicked and, upon reflection, is not cut out for such pressurised front line duties. There is nothing inherently wrong in that, but surely the incident ought to have been investigated further, whereas to simply 'close the file - no furthe action necessary' can only heighten the distrust of the Police already felt by many football fans. 

For me, the problem is not one of Police corruption, but rather what seems to be just a laissez-faire attitude - Oh, they are only football fans and they deserve a good hiding every now and again to keep them in check.

Have you ever seen the 'scrums' at the Christmas sales in the large department stores? People pushing and trampling over each other to grab that LED TV reduced by £100. Can you just imagine the outrage and scandal if a policemen on crowd duty drew his truncheon to assault one of those customers.

Two different types of customers, though, and therein lies the problem. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CPS always work on there being a realistic prospect of conviction before they authorise charge. 

I've been known to give charging authority in the past and I've certainly had more than more than my fair share of convictions and charges.

Taking that evidence on its own, I'm not surprised that no further action has been taken. If it were my case I wouldn't be overly confident of charge. 

Is it over zealous? Probably.

Is it justifiable? Maybe. 

And that's the problem. Missing a complainant means we're missing a whole strand of evidence that's just as important as that footage itself. There's no one who can refute any claims that officer may make about his actions being justified. 

I'm not saying I agree with his actions, can't say I'd have done the same myself, but I'm just trying to explain that we shouldn't be shouting 'police corruption' or cover up at the fact that there's been no further action. The NFA, on the face of it seems wholly in keeping with my expectations in terms of level of evidence required to charge. 

The sad fact is that each and every day lots of people get away with things they're guilty of (I'm not suggesting the officer in question is guilty of anything by the way), you've just got to accept that our laws are designed to protect the innocent man. It's frustrating sometimes, but you've just got to learn to move on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, YorkshireSection said:

Good to see you caught the bait, Id guessed you would.

Its a shame that an officer of the law takes more time out to defend the use of the word pig than track the officer down and show the video footage to his superior.

As for the term Pig, well take the uniform off and the bloke is still a pig, anyone regardless of their occupation who acts in that manor is a pig, Im rather upset it was so easy to draw you in.

Prove us wrong and show his superior the footage, the public to which you are a servant to wants the bloke to receive the disciplinary action that he deserves, Im sure you do to? 

As clearly stated in the update from professional standards the footage has already been shown to a superior officer.

i still don’t agree with the use of the word pig no matter what context you may put on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, eastonboy said:

In the circumstances, I think calling the thug a pig was quite reserved, I think that Julie needs to get a thicker skin if she is offended on behalf of someone else if she finds the word describing the one officer a Pig.

Doubt if she was offended by proxy, it's the anti police attitude on here that personally I find obnoxious, looks like the old ways are still alive and kicking. When will football fans ever act as responsible humans? That is the reason the clubs are forced to spend a fortune on protecting the average supporter who just wants to go to a game of football. There is a huge disregard to the Police, and that was played out in that clip, hard to shift the blame on the Police, just keeping folk safe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Fordy62 said:

CPS always work on there being a realistic prospect of conviction before they authorise charge. 

I've been known to give charging authority in the past and I've certainly had more than more than my fair share of convictions and charges.

Taking that evidence on its own, I'm not surprised that no further action has been taken. If it were my case I wouldn't be overly confident of charge. 

Is it over zealous? Probably.

Is it justifiable? Maybe. 

And that's the problem. Missing a complainant means we're missing a whole strand of evidence that's just as important as that footage itself. There's no one who can refute any claims that officer may make about his actions being justified. 

I'm not saying I agree with his actions, can't say I'd have done the same myself, but I'm just trying to explain that we shouldn't be shouting 'police corruption' or cover up at the fact that there's been no further action. The NFA, on the face of it seems wholly in keeping with my expectations in terms of level of evidence required to charge. 

The sad fact is that each and every day lots of people get away with things they're guilty of (I'm not suggesting the officer in question is guilty of anything by the way), you've just got to accept that our laws are designed to protect the innocent man. It's frustrating sometimes, but you've just got to learn to move on. 

I understand what you are saying Fordy and, to a large extent, I agree with you.

As I said (or tried/wanted to say) in my earlier post, it is not the failure to charge the policemen in question that poses the problem, simply that the incident appears not to have been investigated sufficiently, but simply dropped.

As you state quite understandably, you are not saying the policeman was guilty, but why not investigate the incident and then say, if appropriate, following our internal investigations and having interviewed the policeman in question, we can see no grounds to investigate this matter further.

At least such a response might give the impression the complaint was taken seriously. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fordy62 said:

CPS always work on there being a realistic prospect of conviction before they authorise charge. 

I've been known to give charging authority in the past and I've certainly had more than more than my fair share of convictions and charges.

Taking that evidence on its own, I'm not surprised that no further action has been taken. If it were my case I wouldn't be overly confident of charge. 

Is it over zealous? Probably.

Is it justifiable? Maybe. 

And that's the problem. Missing a complainant means we're missing a whole strand of evidence that's just as important as that footage itself. There's no one who can refute any claims that officer may make about his actions being justified. 

I'm not saying I agree with his actions, can't say I'd have done the same myself, but I'm just trying to explain that we shouldn't be shouting 'police corruption' or cover up at the fact that there's been no further action. The NFA, on the face of it seems wholly in keeping with my expectations in terms of level of evidence required to charge. 

The sad fact is that each and every day lots of people get away with things they're guilty of (I'm not suggesting the officer in question is guilty of anything by the way), you've just got to accept that our laws are designed to protect the innocent man. It's frustrating sometimes, but you've just got to learn to move on. 

While I hear what you say, and the stuff about secondary complainants is pretty interesting, surely there is a different- or should be a vastly different threshold of evidence required for a CPS based criminal case and misconduct of this nature?

(Whether this would lead to a criminal case I would highly doubt- would suggest a hefty charge disciplinary wise, but no CPS action). Rather surprised at how lightly this case appears to have been dismissed though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JulieH said:

As clearly stated in the update from professional standards the footage has already been shown to a superior officer.

i still don’t agree with the use of the word pig no matter what context you may put on it.

As clearly stated in my post, I said HIS superior officer as in direct.

Would it hurt you to find out who he was and act accordingly, or would you be chastised by your fellow worksmen/women, perhaps this is more important than seeing justice done, after all is this not the kind of incident that your being on this forum is exactly for?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think quite a few people are missing the point that this guy was the designated tactical officer

In other words, the guy in charge of keeping people safe.

What example is it to junior officers when they see the guy supposedly setting an example, running around like a headless chicken and then clumping someone in the head for no apparent reason.

Look at the video again - the person IN CHARGE of the situation was actually escalating it by appearing, well to be frank, shitting himself.

No-one here is asking for a firing squad.

Instead why not ask "is it appropriate, based on actual video footage, to have this man in charge of crowd control and junior officers"?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sorry to say that I think that @JulieH may as well leave this forum, but not because I think she is doing anything wrong.

From day one I was concerned about her position here, although it's a good idea in principal, there was always the possibility that she would find herself in an invidious position like this one.

I can only speculate on the kind of grief she may be subject to on the other side of the fence, but she seems to be stuck in the middle with one hand tied behind her back, being shot at by both sides.

It's a shame, and although I am sure Julie believes in her role, one wonders whether that is true of those who created it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Full nelson said:

What I don’t understand about football hooligans is that they usually outnumber the police on many occasions but yet fail to break police lines?! Do they really want a fight or are they quite happy to shout behind the police and are all mouth. 

As you will have found at school there are two kinds: one who wants a fight and one who hides behind him shouting and making "come on then" gestures.

If you found yourself walking into a crowd of them you should hope that they are the ones who hide behind and shout.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Full nelson said:

What I don’t understand about football hooligans is that they usually outnumber the police on many occasions but yet fail to break police lines?! Do they really want a fight or are they quite happy to shout behind the police and are all mouth. 

Generally speaking the latter. Primarily due to the presence of caneras and severe sentencing. Just remember that in this instance only one officer felt the need to draw a baton let alone us it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Port Said Red said:

I am sorry to say that I think that @JulieH may as well leave this forum, but not because I think she is doing anything wrong.

From day one I was concerned about her position here, although it's a good idea in principal, there was always the possibility that she would find herself in an invidious position like this one.

I can only speculate on the kind of grief she may be subject to on the other side of the fence, but she seems to be stuck in the middle with one hand tied behind her back, being shot at by both sides.

It's a shame, and although I am sure Julie believes in her role, one wonders whether that is true of those who created it.

I'm no fan of (certain) police involvement at football (this incident shows why), but in this case JH is damned if she does damned if she doesn't. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, JulieH said:

I have been involved in this thread right from page 1, responded to all of the enquiries and requests and have been open about what I was informed everyone had to do with regards to this incident.

at no point have I felt the need to use personal insults or vile comments such as .this

we live in a democracy where everyone has a right to as why things have happened which I have facilitated.

Neither i or the pc in the videos are pigs. Pigs are farm animals with 4 legs and a curly tail and taste nice in a roll. We are human beings who live , breathe, have families just like you do.

There was no need for that insult within the context of this thread

thankfully the majority of Bristol City fans on this forum have not shown the same attitude to police in this incident as you have

i have always been open , the reason I am here answering questions is at the request of the fans , if that is no longer the case then i can easily leave the forum and just continue to attend monthly fans meeting in the supporters bar on the first weds of each month. 

 

Now you have shown your true colours on the forum, this is the best idea you have had.

No doubt the official line will be... a witch hunt against the Police and you were hounded off the forum... but hey we expect that!

So when can we expect your departure? Any chance you could take those with you who are always on their high horses....

:sub::sub::sub::sub:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...