Evans1883
New Member
not at all.the police do not have the powers to do anything and not expect reaction
not at all.the police do not have the powers to do anything and not expect reactionRegardless of whether identification numbers should be worn, the correct manner to address this is not through a violent brawl. If his ban has indeed been lifted then it's a disgrace.
You are of course all correct and I apologise. I may also be being slightly hypocritical as I myself recently received a ban. I was eating in McDonald's one time, when I became outspoken towards the owners. Being a patriotic bloke and a member of green peace, I started shouting about globalisation and the destruction of rainforests. Eventually a man in a clown costume came over and asked me to leave, however I pointed out that his name badge displayed 'Ronald' rather than his real name. A brawl ensued which resulted in the loss of my nuggets, fillet o fish and happy meal toy, and I was ultimately kicked out, banned for life and issued a court date. The judge found in favour of me though, stating that instead of 'Ronald' his real name badge of 'Bruce Smith' should have been worn, and my ban has now been lifted.
Interesting how the only 2 people who found the above funny were ccfc4life and dongonzalos..................
I've just been reading through the comments on here, experiencing a mixture of amusement, uninterest and disbelief. I will now try and address some points.
1)
The police approached the man in the first place because he was loud-mouthed and deemed to be causing a disturbance. Whether you agree with that or not, police have a right to tell him to be quiet or to leave the ground in extreme cases. Failure to obey police instructions is an offence whether you agree with it or not. As I've previously pointed out, the man didn't care in the slightest that an identification number wasn't on show, he was just saying this to antagonize and detract from his original behaviour in the first place. Whether he was violent or not, he started the whole saga by refusing to follow a policemens orders. If it is indeed illegal for a policemen to not wear an identification number then this can be dealt with separately and after the event.
2)
I've just covered number 1 and number 2. Number 3 is laughable. If the man was acting in a way that police suspected him to be drunk and it turns out he was completely sober, that says more about his character more than anything. I expect fans not to run down 25 aisles just to throw punches and push people to the ground. To refer to the ban getting lifted as a 'disgrace' was simply in the nature of overturning a valid decision. It sets a precedent for the same behaviour to be used again and no punishment be taken.
3)
I don't see your point, but ascertain it was an attention-seeking comment. Seems to have worked.
4)
Whether you agree with it or not it was widely known about the banner situation so the man should have realised it would be confiscated.
5)
Concise and completely justified. Strangely not even your worst post.
6)
Sense.
I've just been reading through the comments on here, experiencing a mixture of amusement, uninterest and disbelief. I will now try and address some points.
1)
The police approached the man in the first place because he was loud-mouthed and deemed to be causing a disturbance. Whether you agree with that or not, police have a right to tell him to be quiet or to leave the ground in extreme cases. Failure to obey police instructions is an offence whether you agree with it or not. As I've previously pointed out, the man didn't care in the slightest that an identification number wasn't on show, he was just saying this to antagonize and detract from his original behaviour in the first place. Whether he was violent or not, he started the whole saga by refusing to follow a policemens orders. If it is indeed illegal for a policemen to not wear an identification number then this can be dealt with separately and after the event.
2)
I've just covered number 1 and number 2. Number 3 is laughable. If the man was acting in a way that police suspected him to be drunk and it turns out he was completely sober, that says more about his character more than anything. I expect fans not to run down 25 aisles just to throw punches and push people to the ground. To refer to the ban getting lifted as a 'disgrace' was simply in the nature of overturning a valid decision. It sets a precedent for the same behaviour to be used again and no punishment be taken.
3)
I don't see your point, but ascertain it was an attention-seeking comment. Seems to have worked.
4)
Whether you agree with it or not it was widely known about the banner situation so the man should have realised it would be confiscated.
5)
Concise and completely justified. Strangely not even your worst post.
6)
Sense.
I've just been reading through the comments on here, experiencing a mixture of amusement, uninterest and disbelief. I will now try and address some points.
1)
The police approached the man in the first place because he was loud-mouthed and deemed to be causing a disturbance. Whether you agree with that or not, police have a right to tell him to be quiet or to leave the ground in extreme cases. Failure to obey police instructions is an offence whether you agree with it or not. As I've previously pointed out, the man didn't care in the slightest that an identification number wasn't on show, he was just saying this to antagonize and detract from his original behaviour in the first place. Whether he was violent or not, he started the whole saga by refusing to follow a policemens orders. If it is indeed illegal for a policemen to not wear an identification number then this can be dealt with separately and after the event.
2)
I've just covered number 1 and number 2. Number 3 is laughable. If the man was acting in a way that police suspected him to be drunk and it turns out he was completely sober, that says more about his character more than anything. I expect fans not to run down 25 aisles just to throw punches and push people to the ground. To refer to the ban getting lifted as a 'disgrace' was simply in the nature of overturning a valid decision. It sets a precedent for the same behaviour to be used again and no punishment be taken.
3)
I don't see your point, but ascertain it was an attention-seeking comment. Seems to have worked.
4)
Whether you agree with it or not it was widely known about the banner situation so the man should have realised it would be confiscated.
5)
Concise and completely justified. Strangely not even your worst post.
6)
Sense.
Yeah poor Andrew Mitchell. Of course he hasnt lied at all
Normally agree with your posts Lord but you and Wyken appear to have had a Daily Mail overload in my humble opinion.
The officers who dealt with a serious accident a friend of mine was in a couple of months ago, and a family members burglary, certainly didnt seem lawless to me, but then why not tar all coppers with the same brush whilst criticising them for apparently doing the same to all football fans?
I do though agree on this occasion the sitautaion should and could have been dealt with a lot better.
Hill, I found point number 5 funny as well
Not sure if that meets your humour standard
If the police can stitch up Andrew Mitchell, they can stitch up anybody.
A lawless mob, all the lies about Charles de Menezes were ridiculously disfgusting attempts to deflect blame from themselves, though many were willing to believe the "party line" on that one.
Rightly, if unfortunately, people don't really trust the police at all anymore, but at least with Plebgate poeple maybe starting to realise in the middle-upper echelons of society what the working classes(and football fans) have had to put up with for decades or more.
I've just been reading through the comments on here, experiencing a mixture of amusement, uninterest and disbelief. I will now try and address some points.
1)
The police approached the man in the first place because he was loud-mouthed and deemed to be causing a disturbance. Whether you agree with that or not, police have a right to tell him to be quiet or to leave the ground in extreme cases. Failure to obey police instructions is an offence whether you agree with it or not. As I've previously pointed out, the man didn't care in the slightest that an identification number wasn't on show, he was just saying this to antagonize and detract from his original behaviour in the first place. Whether he was violent or not, he started the whole saga by refusing to follow a policemens orders. If it is indeed illegal for a policemen to not wear an identification number then this can be dealt with separately and after the event.
2)
I've just covered number 1 and number 2. Number 3 is laughable. If the man was acting in a way that police suspected him to be drunk and it turns out he was completely sober, that says more about his character more than anything. I expect fans not to run down 25 aisles just to throw punches and push people to the ground. To refer to the ban getting lifted as a 'disgrace' was simply in the nature of overturning a valid decision. It sets a precedent for the same behaviour to be used again and no punishment be taken.
3)
I don't see your point, but ascertain it was an attention-seeking comment. Seems to have worked.
4)
Whether you agree with it or not it was widely known about the banner situation so the man should have realised it would be confiscated.
5)
Concise and completely justified. Strangely not even your worst post.
6)
Sense.
From the video the ones who started the brawling were the officersRegardless of whether identification numbers should be worn, the correct manner to address this is not through a violent brawl. If his ban has indeed been lifted then it's a disgrace.
My Aunt still is a police officer. But this isn't about respect.
The point here is no police officers were assaulted by the man in question.
He was. :facepalm:
Have you even watched the video or was you even there?
What aload of nonsense you've wrote.
The fella wasnt been foul-mouthed at all. If you watch the video you can clearly see the fella sitting there, copper grabs his arm and pulls him up, literally 5 secs later tells him to sit down. This in my eyes is provocation... He also clearly asked the copper where was his number on his shoulder and the copper whispers something in his ear. The police used the drunk and disorderly excuse because they ASSUME all fans have a drink before the game.
Tensions were high that day and between the police and stewards caused the altercation. If you wanna carry on sticking up for the hooligans in uniforms then crack on. You either werent near the incident or you refuse to watch the video because the majority can see what happened.
Agreed you don't get banned for doing nothing which is why his ban was overturned, tell me what specific action that fan done which was worthy of a ban?Oh I was there alright. I was there to see the crowd cause a distraction to the players and see Clingan robbed of possession where Derby should have scored. I was also there to see Chris Dunn's 'Joe Murphy replacing' save. I watched the video at the time and who's to say what preceeded the moment someone pressed record? I'm not necessarily sticking up for the uniformed 'hooligans' but my stance is you don't get banned for doing nothing wrong. Last comment on this anyway as we evidently have different opinions that won't be changed and I usually stick to footballing topics - where I tend to agree with people I disagree with on this one.
I've just been reading through the comments on here, experiencing a mixture of amusement, uninterest and disbelief. I will now try and address some points.
1)
The police approached the man in the first place because he was loud-mouthed and deemed to be causing a disturbance. Whether you agree with that or not, police have a right to tell him to be quiet or to leave the ground in extreme cases. Failure to obey police instructions is an offence whether you agree with it or not. As I've previously pointed out, the man didn't care in the slightest that an identification number wasn't on show, he was just saying this to antagonize and detract from his original behaviour in the first place. Whether he was violent or not, he started the whole saga by refusing to follow a policemens orders. If it is indeed illegal for a policemen to not wear an identification number then this can be dealt with separately and after the event.
2)
I've just covered number 1 and number 2. Number 3 is laughable. If the man was acting in a way that police suspected him to be drunk and it turns out he was completely sober, that says more about his character more than anything. I expect fans not to run down 25 aisles just to throw punches and push people to the ground. To refer to the ban getting lifted as a 'disgrace' was simply in the nature of overturning a valid decision. It sets a precedent for the same behaviour to be used again and no punishment be taken.
3)
I don't see your point, but ascertain it was an attention-seeking comment. Seems to have worked.
4)
Whether you agree with it or not it was widely known about the banner situation so the man should have realised it would be confiscated.
5)
Concise and completely justified. Strangely not even your worst post.
6)
Sense.
Regardless of whether identification numbers should be worn, the correct manner to address this is not through a violent brawl. If his ban has indeed been lifted then it's a disgrace.
The RAF are worse they are all corrupt, I am with you I am going to mistrust all of the RAF and tar them with the same brush based on the actions of a stupid few.....
Three former British military officers have been arrested in the biggest-ever Armed Forces corruption probe.
Two key ex-RAF personnel, a former Army reservist and a British businessman are among those to be questioned over an investigation into money *laundering and corruption.
The probe centres on claims as much as £50million of British and American taxpayers’ money is thought to have been paid in exchange for engineering works at an Afghan airbase.
The RAF men arrested are ex-Group Captain Jonathan Derbyshire and former Squadron Leader Karim Coslett. Ex-Army reservist Lieutenant Colonel Andy Bruce was also arrested along with businessman Preston Andrews.
The four were questioned at police stations in Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, Cardiff and Berwick, Northumberland, before being released on police bail.
All three former servicemen played key roles in 2010 in securing Kandahar Airfield against Taliban attackers who regularly fire rockets and try to infiltrate the vast complex.
MoD police fraud detectives are investigating a company called Jetspark Construction Kandahar which did work at the base.
The engineering company was set up in Kandahar in early 2010 by British businessman Andrews, 50. Group Captain Derbyshire, 41, was then deputy head of security on the base. The two men live in Bury St Edmunds.
A security source told the Mirror: “This investigation is massive – probably the biggest the MoD fraud police have launched.”
Claims are being looked at that within months of Jetspark being set up, Derbyshire and Bruce had quit the Armed Forces and were working for the company. Both are listed as shareholders.
Last night the MoD said: “We are aware of these allegations. They are being investigated by the MoD Police.”
Jetspark were believed to be main contractors for moving badly-needed building rubble around the base at Kandahar. The rubble is used for raising buildings within the airfield above the devastating winter flood level.
By April 2010 the “Five Ponds Project” was devised, it is claimed. This was a plan to dig five reservoirs – some six times the size of a football pitch – to hold the flood water. The waste dirt or “sub-base”was then reportedly sold on to contractors on the base.
Investigators are looking at claims that the company was able to sell the dirt at a premium rate all over the base because builders were unable to dig it up themselves outside the wire because of the risk of attacks by Taliban fighters.
Preston Andrews said last night: “I’m helping police with their inquiries.”
Er, i was in the RAF for 9 years!
However these were officers, so not at all surprised!
I know you must be corrupt, as they are ex RAF and so are you.
I am, but not very good at it, still bloody broke all the time.
Should have became an officer, then you would have had the secret hand shake on deals like this.
Hope you get my point though, not all police are dodgy because a few twats are.
However the twats hit the media
Like football fans and hooligans.
Not saying that all police are dodgy, but enough cases of wrongdoing over the years in all areas to not think of them all as Dixon of Dock Green either.
Thatchers Thugs and Stormtroopers in the 80's, and far more protected by the media than attacked that's for sure.
Not that I am defending the actions of the officer as I have not watched the video and was not in that block at the time.
By the sounds of what people are saying he went OTT.
If an officer was walking past you tomorrow would you in a not so very polite manner point out to him that he is not wearing his numbers?
Keeping this thread going all night without watching the video. The equivalent of voicing your opinion without going to the game. Just watch the video for f*ck sake.
Good point.
Nah feck it going watch Father Ted instead more fun.
None of my recent comments above relate to the video.
They were a boring stereotyping lecture to The Lord.
Fair enough. Watch it though. It's interesting viewing.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?