Bristol City fans look for help in legal fight against West Midlands police force

[bcfc01]

2 hours ago, 1bristolcity said:

I don't need to look it up..the Station Police were called SNOWDROPS. 

Stop your bluffing.

 FWIW I wanted to be a Dog Handler from the off, that's why I joined,  that's why I went on to do extra training. To say that the Regiment or Police was a inferior vocation is a poor attempt on your part, especially when they were tasked in actually confronting trouble and not running. I guess that's why I support Police, they run towards trouble while others run away. 

 

 

 

Meathead.

[bristolcitysweden]

Why don't we just read the courts decision and consider the circumstances they have based their ruling on and then comment?

[bristolcitysweden]

You gyus obviously got more to drink than I. Very unfair.   

[Mr Popodopolous]

3 minutes ago, bristolcitysweden said:

Why don't we just read the courts decision and consider the circumstances they have based their ruling on and then comment?

Still a live case, isn't it?

[bristolcitysweden]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Still a live case, isn't it?

Why don't we just await the courts decision

and then read it and consider it

[bcfc01]

4 minutes ago, bristolcitysweden said:

You gyus obviously got more to drink than I. Very unfair.   

On it in about an hour - after work Friday Bash 

[Mr Popodopolous]

6 minutes ago, bristolcitysweden said:

Why don't we just await the courts decision

and then read it and consider it

I agree.

[bristolcitysweden]

My advice is that we should all wait for what the court base it's decision on. Then we can discuss.

[bristolcitysweden]

Apart from Jesus no one is Gods best child

[BTRFTG]

On 05/09/2019 at 10:58, BobBobSuperBob said:

Bottom line is they clearly had or have no power to detain fans and put them on a train

If the fans have committed offences then deal appropriately by arresting them and justifying so

They made up their own rules and law for the afternoon 

Laws and legislation , including powers given to the police are in place for all to abide to , and that includes the Police themselves

I had occasion to write about the 'ignorance' of the A&S woodentops in Greville Smythe last year but it would move things on if fans also appraised themselves of The Law, such if they believe they're being done wrong they can challenge officers on the spot. Those of you who know me will understand I've had more than 'a conversation or two' with senior officers at matches over the years, often under the threat of arrest, though on the basis of knowing The Law and one's rights have never been arrested. 

Contrary to the above The Police do have powers to temporarily detain and/or remove persons from a location even where said persons haven't commited (or have planned to commit) criminal acts provided The Police are able to demonstrate the purpose of their action is to prevent disorder, violence or criminal activity. Don't bother quoting 'Human Rights': do-gooders have already tried that and ECHR have ruled it wholly reasonable for authorities to act, on balance, to maintain public safety, including that of persons who may consider themselves to have been wronged. Moreover, the authorities have a duty of care to protect you, even where that is from oneself.

I've no knowledge of the facts in this case other than there were groups around that day intent on causing disorder (even if that was limited to drunken bravado in taunting and abusing rival fans and members of the public.) Occasionally, by association, one get's tainted by the actions of the F'wits hence why I've always found it best to keep as far away as possible from them outside the ground.

[BobBobSuperBob]

23 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

I had occasion to write about the 'ignorance' of the A&S woodentops in Greville Smythe last year but it would move things on if fans also appraised themselves of The Law, such if they believe they're being done wrong they can challenge officers on the spot. Those of you who know me will understand I've had more than 'a conversation or two' with senior officers at matches over the years, often under the threat of arrest, though on the basis of knowing The Law and one's rights have never been arrested. 

Contrary to the above The Police do have powers to temporarily detain and/or remove persons from a location even where said persons haven't commited (or have planned to commit) criminal acts provided The Police are able to demonstrate the purpose of their action is to prevent disorder, violence or criminal activity. Don't bother quoting 'Human Rights': do-gooders have already tried that and ECHR have ruled it wholly reasonable for authorities to act, on balance, to maintain public safety, including that of persons who may consider themselves to have been wronged. Moreover, the authorities have a duty of care to protect you, even where that is from oneself.

I've no knowledge of the facts in this case other than there were groups around that day intent on causing disorder (even if that was limited to drunken bravado in taunting and abusing rival fans and members of the public.) Occasionally, by association, one get's tainted by the actions of the F'wits hence why I've always found it best to keep as far away as possible from them outside the ground.

Under which legislation / powers 

Section 27  Violent Crime and Reduction Act 2006 ?

or are you referring to the 2001 London Kettling case ?

[BTRFTG]

30 minutes ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

Under which legislation / powers 

Section 27  Violent Crime and Reduction Act 2006 ?

or are you referring to the 2001 London Kettling case ?

They'll usually cite the 'public anxiety' section of The Public Order Act, which is pretty much a catch all for those not of a size or inclination to promote violence, or inciteful behaviour. Without having to demonstrate an offence has occured they may act to prevent further 'public anxiety'. My point being when an officer says :"You can't....." simply ask on what grounds they're making that judgement and if it's clearly incorrect (i.e. you're not being inciteful, violent or inducing public anxiety,) they usually quickly back down knowing they're on thin ice.

The less common one which does get interesting is where they claim they're protecting you from harm, which being judgemental isn't easy to prove or disprove. If by the virtue of their actions you come to no harm then they'll say their actions were justified. Usually, given they've acted in that way, there will be 'casualties' nearby they can evidence in support of their case.