cheshire_red Posted December 8, 2004 Report Share Posted December 8, 2004 Superb piece by DaveL. What the West Midlands Police really think about Bristol City Supporters!! LINK: http://www.bristolcitynet.co.uk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhatWill Posted December 8, 2004 Report Share Posted December 8, 2004 Some of those comments regarding our fans are outrageous. Who the hell does this copper think he is?? I'm honestly not sure if I want to visit the Bescott ever again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest scroobscurtis Posted December 8, 2004 Report Share Posted December 8, 2004 Chief superintendent Jukes is obviously a joke - who the hell does he think he is ? God forbid we have to visit the Bescot next season if we do I think we should show some camaderie and be there in numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheshire_red Posted December 8, 2004 Author Report Share Posted December 8, 2004 Some of those comments regarding our fans are outrageous. Who the hell does this copper think he is?? I'm honestly not sure if I want to visit the Bescott ever again. ← I said yesterday we had something that would make all your bloods boil. We have been sitting on it for sometime knowing we could not use it until the cases had been settled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malaggro Posted December 8, 2004 Report Share Posted December 8, 2004 Sadly the comments made by Jukes are typical of police forces nowadays. Through enough mud and they hope that some will stick. It would be nice for our club now to make an official statement welcoming the decision not to proceed with this ludicrous case. Some support for innocent fans wronged by a badly run and over-the-top force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rumbellow Posted December 8, 2004 Report Share Posted December 8, 2004 Probably already said by somebody, But, Under the law of disclosure the police would have to hand over all of the video evidence in order for the defence to make their case. If they have done this, I would expect that this would ideal to use in any complaint to the police or civil claim. If the cases were dropped before any disclosure was made ie;video handed over to the defence, Then somebodies solicitor must try to get hold of these, As a priority. Also I think I am right in saying the ground commander on the day has a vicarious responsibilty for the actions of all of his men, So he can be probably be sued as an individual. I hope you boys don't let this rest, I remember the way the WMP treated us in the 1980's play off replay, Deliberately making us walk through deep puddles going in and out of the ground and pissing their selves laughing at us provoking trouble, Culminating in a Bristol Police officer to complain about their actions, I know the officer he was ex marine (so he had seen life a bit). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCFCNW Posted December 8, 2004 Report Share Posted December 8, 2004 "You will be aware that Bristol City currently have 35 supporters who are subject to Banning Orders issued by the courts, and last year your supporters accounted for 68 arrests either during or connected with football matches. Clearly this shows a small minority of your supporters are prepared to behave in a way that does not reflect well on the good name of Bristol City F.C. It also emphasises a need for continued vigilance and a united condemnation of this type of behaviour." Assuming that you have quoted CS Jewkes (Jukes?) of the WMP correctly, I was wondering what relevance the banning orders imposed on 35 City supporters or the arrests (note: no mention of convictions) of 68 City supporters last year has to do with the events at Bescott this year. I for one would be pretty annoyed to learn that my arrest was due, either partly or wholey, to the behaviour of others the previous year. There is a word for this, prejudice, and the way I see it, CS Jewkes has pretty much held his hand up and admitted it. He didn't need to make any reference to previous incidents involving City fans, but in choosing to do so has indicated that he sees these incidents as relevant. This is unacceptable. This is the kind of implied 'common-purpose' response that was given by the SA apartheid-era police when justifying acts of indiscriminate violence and human rights abuses. To think that similar policing practices are thriving in the WMP force in 2004 is concerning, to say the least. I truly hope that this matter does not end here because somebody needs to held accountable. A few 'bad eggs' (in the police force) make life a whole lot more difficult for the decent majority. It's like the 'Abu Ghraib' abuses earlier this year in Iraq. Explanations need to be given and apologies issued, though I wouldn't hold my breath waiting. ...Incidentally, I presume that these ten arrests (with no subsequent conviction) will be added to the 2004 'arrest tally' as further evidence (should it be required) of the tyrrany of the City supporter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bristolbred Posted December 8, 2004 Report Share Posted December 8, 2004 The ### Centre has seen a copy of an email sent by Chief Superintendent Jokes, of Walsall Police Station in response to a request for information from Bristol City FC. Mr Jokes does not discuss individual cases, but his detailed reply does go some way to explaining the actions of the police on that day. This is what he has to say about the arrests outside the ground: "We are not used to the smell and Strength of Cider, so many of my officers were taken unaware about its affects!" "The batteries in our only hooligan video survalence camera ran out, even though the officer in charge was told to only use Duracell batteries, and not those cheap ones from the corner shop!" "In future, i will only allow police officers who display their officer number to police football matches, and these officers will be supervised by those in the WMP who are able to read and write!!" Thank you for talking to us, Chief Superintendent Jokes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bristolbred Posted December 8, 2004 Report Share Posted December 8, 2004 "You will be aware that Bristol City currently have 35 supporters who are subject to Banning Orders issued by the courts." ← And i take it that Walsall have..................................... NONE!, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy g Posted December 8, 2004 Report Share Posted December 8, 2004 Sadly, I'd be surprised if there is any apology. All we can hope is that the thugs in uniform will think twice about doing this again so as to save themselves some negative publicity. Unfortunately that will require them to THINK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Mosquito Posted December 8, 2004 Report Share Posted December 8, 2004 Probably already said by somebody, But, Under the law of disclosure the police would have to hand over all of the video evidence in order for the defence to make their case. If they have done this, I would expect that this would ideal to use in any complaint to the police or civil claim. If the cases were dropped before any disclosure was made ie;video handed over to the defence, Then somebodies solicitor must try to get hold of these, As a priority. Also I think I am right in saying the ground commander on the day has a vicarious responsibilty for the actions of all of his men, So he can be probably be sued as an individual. I hope you boys don't let this rest, I remember the way the WMP treated us in the 1980's play off replay, Deliberately making us walk through deep puddles going in and out of the ground and pissing their selves laughing at us provoking trouble, Culminating in a Bristol Police officer to complain about their actions, I know the officer he was ex marine (so he had seen life a bit). ← ......well written and good shout rumbellow. West Midlands Police Gestapo Kommandant Jukes was obviously hoping for a few medals to be pinned on his chest by his German descended imposter Queen His plot against the BCFC Walsall 10 has been foiled, Walsall 10 v Regina awaits methinks and compensation for wrongful arrest of the Walsall 10 and assault and maltreatment of minors. The minors being the little girl being grabbed by the throat as she tried to rescue her dad from the Gestapo and the little boy kept without food and water and left to wander outside West Midlands Gestapo HQ at Bloxwich Walsall while his dad underwent lengthy interogation for the 'crime' of trying to enter a football ground after a pint. :@ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy g Posted December 8, 2004 Report Share Posted December 8, 2004 This sort of video is sometimes 'accidentally' wiped or lost. Surely not this time though ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nogbad the Bad Posted December 8, 2004 Report Share Posted December 8, 2004 "You will be aware that Bristol City currently have 35 supporters who are subject to Banning Orders issued by the courts, and last year your supporters accounted for 68 arrests either during or connected with football matches. Clearly this shows a small minority of your supporters are prepared to behave in a way that does not reflect well on the good name of Bristol City F.C. It also emphasises a need for continued vigilance and a united condemnation of this type of behaviour." Assuming that you have quoted CS Jewkes (Jukes?) of the WMP correctly, I was wondering what relevance the banning orders imposed on 35 City supporters or the arrests (note: no mention of convictions) of 68 City supporters last year has to do with the events at Bescott this year. I for one would be pretty annoyed to learn that my arrest was due, either partly or wholey, to the behaviour of others the previous year. There is a word for this, prejudice, and the way I see it, CS Jewkes has pretty much held his hand up and admitted it. He didn't need to make any reference to previous incidents involving City fans, but in choosing to do so has indicated that he sees these incidents as relevant. This is unacceptable. This is the kind of implied 'common-purpose' response that was given by the SA apartheid-era police when justifying acts of indiscriminate violence and human rights abuses. To think that similar policing practices are thriving in the WMP force in 2004 is concerning, to say the least. I truly hope that this matter does not end here because somebody needs to held accountable. A few 'bad eggs' (in the police force) make life a whole lot more difficult for the decent majority. It's like the 'Abu Ghraib' abuses earlier this year in Iraq. Explanations need to be given and apologies issued, though I wouldn't hold my breath waiting. ...Incidentally, I presume that these ten arrests (with no subsequent conviction) will be added to the 2004 'arrest tally' as further evidence (should it be required) of the tyrrany of the City supporter. ← Absolutely right BCFCNW, it is the arrests over the season that are tallied and receive headline (bad) publicity at the end of the year, not the convictions. The whole thing is self-perpetuating, the arrest total is again comparatively bad - some clubs who lack our large following barely get 10 arrests over a whole season - and that in itself is liable to mean stronger than average policing against City fans leading, inevitably, to a repeated high total. And so it goes on.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bristolbred Posted December 8, 2004 Report Share Posted December 8, 2004 Unfortunately that will require them to THINK. ← We can't sleep in the East Midlands tonight, due to the noise being created over in the West Midlands!!, Apparently, the noise is coming from the WMP, as their officers are trying to think at the same time!!, CTID!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edson Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 ...Incidentally, I presume that these ten arrests (with no subsequent conviction) will be added to the 2004 'arrest tally' as further evidence (should it be required) of the tyrrany of the City supporter. ← An excellent point. I have now e-mailed the West Midlands Police, asking them to supply me with the number of successful convictions from the 68 arrests made, cited by CS Jewkes in his letter to Colin Sexstone. Whether they reply is another matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LeicesterRed Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 An excellent point. I have now e-mailed the West Midlands Police, asking them to supply me with the number of successful convictions from the 68 arrests made, cited by CS Jewkes in his letter to Colin Sexstone. Whether they reply is another matter. ← You`ll have 2 hopes on this one Edson. Bob and no!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edson Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 You`ll have 2 hopes on this one Edson. Bob and no!! ← As I suspected. Presumably, it's publicly available information. Is there any way of finding the answer for myself, should the WMP fail to come forward with the information? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chivs Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 As I suspected. Presumably, it's publicly available information. Is there any way of finding the answer for myself, should the WMP fail to come forward with the information? ← You could go in deep as a "sleeper". Join the WMP today and then get access to their computers. To pass the interview, just learn the following statement: "I am a Police Officer, I exist to serve the public. You're nicked sonny for drawing attention to yourself." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bristolbred Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 drawing attention ← I don't think that the WMP could draw anything!!, Especially as the West Mercia Police have knicked all their crayons!!, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCFCNW Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 "It [the arrest of 68 City fans over the last season] also emphasises a need for continued vigilance" Does it? This is such a flimsy argument, and by saying 'emphasises the need' suggests that we City supporters (as individuals) have a higher than average chance of being criminals and thus deserve special attention. Well I for one am able to think and act for myself and do not need your special attention, thankyou. From a back-of-an-envelope calculation, and assuming about 400k people supported City last season, this equates to an arrest rate (note: arrests, not convictions) of 0.017%. Put more simply, 1 City supporter per ~6000 was arrested. Now I'm sure that to your average Daily Mail reader, these horrifying stats are further evidence of the disintegration of our community's moral fibre and of a need for tougher policing of such 'undesirables' (that's us). However, to me, these figures are actually quite encouraging. When you consider that these figures presumably include arrest without charge/conviction and, if I'm not mistaken, activities such as car crime in the surrounding area, we are collectively quite a well behaved bunch. It would be interesting to see how these stats match up to other public gatherings, such as your average Friday night city-centre pub pilgrimage. In summary, I think what CS Jewkes was trying to say was 'The arrest of 68 City fans last season provides convenient circumstantial evidence for a need for continued discrimination'. Anyway, apologies for banging on about this. I think I'm metamorphasising into Red Goblin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edson Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 "It [the arrest of 68 City fans over the last season] also emphasises a need for continued vigilance" Does it? This is such a flimsy argument, and by saying 'emphasises the need' suggests that we City supporters (as individuals) have a higher than average chance of being criminals and thus deserve special attention. Well I for one am able to think and act for myself and do not need your special attention, thankyou. From a back-of-an-envelope calculation, and assuming about 400k people supported City last season, this equates to an arrest rate (note: arrests, not convictions) of 0.017%. Put more simply, 1 City supporter per ~6000 was arrested. Now I'm sure that to your average Daily Mail reader, these horrifying stats are further evidence of the disintegration of our community's moral fibre and of a need for tougher policing of such 'undesirables' (that's us). However, to me, these figures are actually quite encouraging. When you consider that these figures presumably include arrest without charge/conviction and, if I'm not mistaken, activities such as car crime in the surrounding area, we are collectively quite a well behaved bunch. It would be interesting to see how these stats match up to other public gatherings, such as your average Friday night city-centre pub pilgrimage. In summary, I think what CS Jewkes was trying to say was 'The arrest of 68 City fans last season provides convenient circumstantial evidence for a need for continued discrimination'. Anyway, apologies for banging on about this. I think I'm metamorphasising into Red Goblin. ← Completely agree. As I said on another post, with reference to CS Jewkes' letter to Colin Sexstone, perhaps a suitbale reply to his statement would be: You will be aware that the West Midlands Police Force currently have a number of officers in their charge who are seemingly guilty of wrongful arrests and abuse of powers, and these individuals accounted for a number of arrests either during or connected with football matches . Clearly this shows a small minority of your officers are prepared to behave in a way that does not reflect well on the good name of the West Midlands Police. It also emphasises a need for continued vigilance and a united condemnation of this type of behaviour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LeicesterRed Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 As I suspected. Presumably, it's publicly available information. Is there any way of finding the answer for myself, should the WMP fail to come forward with the information? ← There is information kept on football arrests. I think basically this is used nationally to try and decide on the policing requirements and the possibility of the moronic element attending fixtures. I don`t think you`ll ever be able to find out an accurate figure for successful prosecutions. The bottom line is the CPS dropped these cases as there was little chance of a successful prosecution. Like all Government bodies today, they are judged on figures.That`s what all this business is about, sadly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCFCNW Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 There is information kept on football arrests. I think basically this is used nationally to try and decide on the policing requirements and the possibility of the moronic element attending fixtures. I don`t think you`ll ever be able to find out an accurate figure for successful prosecutions. The bottom line is the CPS dropped these cases as there was little chance of a successful prosecution. Like all Government bodies today, they are judged on figures.That`s what all this business is about, sadly. ← But are the Police not judged on figures too? I mean, is there not some kind of convictions:arrests ratio available for different forces? If this was the case then there would be a disincentive to arrest people on such flimsy evidence. The Police are always banging on about how much paper work they have to do....well it's not surprising if they carry on like these muppets in the West Midlands. It makes me wonder whether funding for Policing is proportial to the number of arrests made per force, regardless of the outcome (i.e. charges dropped, acquitted). And why is there no accountability? The fact that there will apparently be no repercusions for the officers involved (at least publicly anyway) is tantamount to the Walsall 10 being told that they are still believed by the WMP to be guilty, only they don't have the means to make a conviction stick. If I were a West-Midlands council tax payer, I would want answers, apologies and a tax-rebate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest M4_J12 Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 But are the Police not judged on figures too? I mean, is there not some kind of convictions:arrests ratio available for different forces? If this was the case then there would be a disincentive to arrest people on such flimsy evidence. The Police are always banging on about how much paper work they have to do....well it's not surprising if they carry on like these muppets in the West Midlands. It makes me wonder whether funding for Policing is proportial to the number of arrests made per force, regardless of the outcome (i.e. charges dropped, acquitted). And why is there no accountability? The fact that there will apparently be no repercusions for the officers involved (at least publicly anyway) is tantamount to the Walsall 10 being told that they are still believed by the WMP to be guilty, only they don't have the means to make a conviction stick. If I were a West-Midlands council tax payer, I would want answers, apologies and a tax-rebate. ← Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest M4_J12 Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 ← I've heard enough about all this. I can feel an e-mail to the Home Secretary / Home Office coming on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nogbad the Bad Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 An excellent point. I have now e-mailed the West Midlands Police, asking them to supply me with the number of successful convictions from the 68 arrests made, cited by CS Jewkes in his letter to Colin Sexstone. Whether they reply is another matter. ← If you ever do receive a figure bear in mind that of the Walsall 10, 4 were indeed convicted after pleading guilty. This is despite the fact that lawyers for the other 6 have since said that if the 4 had stood their ground the charges against them would most likely have been dropped as well. With this in mind, even the conviction count would not tell the whole story as it seems some innocent fans accept a fine to avoid the inconvenience of repeated trips to faraway courts, especially if the charge is relatively minor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCFCNW Posted December 10, 2004 Report Share Posted December 10, 2004 "You will be aware that Bristol City currently have 35 supporters who are subject to Banning Orders issued by the courts, and last year your supporters accounted for 68 arrests either during or connected with football matches. Clearly this shows a small minority of your supporters are prepared to behave in a way that does not reflect well on the good name of Bristol City F.C. It also emphasises a need for continued vigilance and a united condemnation of this type of behaviour." If he (DC Jewkes) were to speak about Blacks, Gypsies, Jews or Homosexuals in such a 'blanket' manner, he'd rightly be accused of racism, anti-semitism, homophobia etc etc. Why is he allowed to get away with it when talking about BCFC supporters? How can he justify infringing my or anyone elses civil rights on the basis of what somebody else allegedly did last year? Where is the connection? Are the rest of us in some way being held accountable? Do they regard these random arrests as 'unfinished business'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.