Police today (1 Viewer)

[Macca]

We have evidence of the general over policing of the game though, its the evidence for the police attack on the pub that eludes us

 

---

[OffenhamSkyBlue]

There are a few references on the Millwall forum regarding legal advice on how to deal with a copper trying to enforce a dispersal order. It CAN be done city-wide, but only if there is a reasonable suspicion that crime and/or disorder is likely. Likely to be challengeable, but only in court!

On the subject of CCTV coverage of the allegations of police brutality in the Wheatsheaf, I wonder how many landlords have been faced with the prospect of having a plod telling him to turn the CCTV system off for a little bit. As happened with the CCTV in the cells under the Ricoh with Mark Wynn?

 

[chiefdave]

But how do they identify you as a supporter of a particular team. I live by Fratton Park, what if we were playing Pompey and they enforced the same thing and I couldn't get a ticket, am I going to be forced to leave the city for the day?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

But how do they identify you as a supporter of a particular team. I live by Fratton Park, what if we were playing Pompey and they enforced the same thing and I couldn't get a ticket, am I going to be forced to leave the city for the day?

I was once unlucky enough to get a train back from Bristol after our cup tie, and ended up in a carriage with a load of comedy Spurs hoodlums talking just like that Millwall board about where to go for their ruck once they got to Cardiff.

Got to Cardiff, and as the right gender and age, was escorted by the Police to bloody Ninian Park, along with the blasted Spurs fans!

Then had to go a ve-ry long and circular way back to the centre, to avoid the Cardiff fans!

 

[Wall i Am]

I have read with interest all the comments on the policing of Saturday’s game. All that has happened is you have suffered the standard ‘over policing’ that accompanies Millwall wherever they go, if we were an ethnic group it would be called discrimination.

It won’t change anytime soon as some supporters revel in it, other protest, and it is a fact that the name draws attention and attacks, as witnessed in Foleshill Road. For all the over policing you would have to ask why they weren’t stationed where we were all being told go? Just an observation.

 

[Deleted member 2477]

Offenham get your facts right before trying to stir shit. There is no cctv in the cells at the ricoh FACT and i take it you have first hsnd evidence of a police officer requesting cctv in a pub to be turned off. I doubt it very much and your an example of the few idiots who try to start rumours to justify your own hate and belief

 

[chiefdave]

All that has happened is you have suffered the standard ‘over policing’ that accompanies Millwall wherever they go

Over policing would be an incredibly difficult thing to prove. The police will just say there was little trouble as they had the correct policing levels or use the trouble that there was to justify the high levels.

 

[Nick]

There are a few references on the Millwall forum regarding legal advice on how to deal with a copper trying to enforce a dispersal order. It CAN be done city-wide, but only if there is a reasonable suspicion that crime and/or disorder is likely. Likely to be challengeable, but only in court!

On the subject of CCTV coverage of the allegations of police brutality in the Wheatsheaf, I wonder how many landlords have been faced with the prospect of having a plod telling him to turn the CCTV system off for a little bit. As happened with the CCTV in the cells under the Ricoh with Mark Wynn?

How long is a pub going to stay in business if it turns it's cameras off for the police to give it's customers a slap?

 

[Deleted member 2477]

At the end of the day if the police didnt police it with adequet resources and you got injured then people would be knocking them. Its a no win as to many like to knock the ob whatever.

Personally ive never had an issue but thats probably because i go to watch football and not to have a pop or stir trouble like some.

As far as im concerned the more ob the better to lock up the idiots

 

[Samo]

Offenham get your facts right before trying to stir shit. There is no cctv in the cells at the ricoh FACT and i take it you have first hsnd evidence of a police officer requesting cctv in a pub to be turned off. I doubt it very much and your an example of the few idiots who try to start rumours to justify your own hate and belief

I'm sure I read somewhere in the recently published account of the Wynn incident that the cctv was 'not working'

 

[Deleted member 2477]

110% there is no cctv in the cells at the ricoh. Thats what they probably mean however im not excusing that particular officers behaviour. Im sure 99% of police would agree but in al walks of life theres always a bad apple
In westminster thats probably 1%

 

[Samo]

110% there is no cctv in the cells at the ricoh. Thats what they probably mean however im not excusing that particular officers behaviour. Im sure 99% of police would agree but in al walks of life theres always a bad apple
In westminster thats probably 1%

From Wynn's account:
''I overheard PC Allsop asking the custody officer whether or not the video camera in the cell was working. The custody officer replied that it was not''
So... questions:
1. Why would he ask if it was working if he knew it didn't exist?
2. Have you been in those cells?
3. Why would there NOT be cameras, is that even legal?

 

[Nick]

From Wynn's account:
''I overheard PC Allsop asking the custody officer whether or not the video camera in the cell was working. The custody officer replied that it was not''
So... questions:
1. Why would he ask if it was working if he knew it didn't exist?
2. Have you been in those cells?
3. Why would there NOT be cameras, is that even legal?

Surely illegal to use them without cctv?

 

[Deleted member 2477]

Nope not a designated custody block so no requirement. Its a holding area not a cell block and yes i have been there samo so no first hand

 

[Deleted member 2477]

Anyone been beat up by the ob yet for eating a pie or having a drink !!

 

[Deleted member 2477]

Bit naughty having allsopp and allsopp advertising boards at the ricoh though. Made me laugh

 

[Samo]

Nope not a designated custody block so no requirement. Its a holding area not a cell block and yes i have been there samo so no first hand

So Wynn is a liar?

 

[OffenhamSkyBlue]

From Wynn's account:
''I overheard PC Allsop asking the custody officer whether or not the video camera in the cell was working. The custody officer replied that it was not''
So... questions:
1. Why would he ask if it was working if he knew it didn't exist?
2. Have you been in those cells?
3. Why would there NOT be cameras, is that even legal?

That is what I was basing my surmising on ... the testimony under oath of a victim of police brutality and an honest fellow officer. The wording inferred that PC Alsopp knew that there WAS CCTV in there, but that it may also not be recording all the time.
I bow to your greater (but uncorroborated) knowledge, Marcus.

 

[Brylowes]

110% there is no cctv in the cells at the ricoh. Thats what they probably mean however im not excusing that particular officers behaviour. Im sure 99% of police would agree but in al walks of life theres always a bad apple
In westminster thats probably 1%

Hang on?did you really just say that 1% in Westminster are bad apples.Really!

 

[Deleted member 2477]

Nope 99% 1% are ok and thats being generous

 

[Brylowes]

Nope 99% 1% are ok and thats being generous

Phew! That's ok then

 

[oscillatewildly]

Seems like Cov have been having a go at them...

http://www.millwall.vitalfootball.co.uk/forum/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=119746&posts=12

They may talk of claret but I'd be very surprised if these proles could distinguish one wine from another. Not like we can, those philistinical fux! Cin Cin everyone!

 

[Samo]

I think what is clear from the last few pages is that either Mr.Wynn or marcus are lying/mistaken... I know where my money is.

 

[Brylowes]

I think what is clear from the last few pages is that either Mr.Wynn or marcus are lying/mistaken... I know where my money is.

To be fair maybe it's a case of something being lost in translation.

 

[Moff]

I think what is clear from the last few pages is that either Mr.Wynn or marcus are lying/mistaken... I know where my money is.

Samo, Cell blocks have CCTV, cells dont, or at least that was the case due to privacy laws etc, as you just cant spy on someone in a cell as they are allowed a degree of privacy. I think this is all covered in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

Areas where you can get to a cell are covered by a camera, so there is veidence of who eneters a cell and leaves and at what time. As Brylowes said it may just be confusion in the translation.

 

[chiefdave]

Samo, Cell blocks have CCTV, cells dont, or at least that was the case due to privacy laws etc, as you just cant spy on someone in a cell as they are allowed a degree of privacy. I think this is all covered in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

Found this on the college of policing website:

There are different levels of privacy intrusion in different areas. For example, cameras sited in cell interiors are more intrusive of a person’s privacy than those sited in corridors.CCTV can be used to record activity in many areas, including:

• the vehicle docking area
• entrance to the custody suite
• access corridors to and from the rest of the police station
• holding areas
• the charge room area
• the custody officer’s desk in the charge room (it should provide separate images showing the officer’s face/body, detainee’s face/body and property transfer on desk)
• detainees’ property store or entry to this area
• cell corridors
• entry to the interview rooms
• the fingerprinting area
• the evidential breath analysis device room
• exercise yard
• the custody office CCTV equipment cabinet
• the custody CCTV viewing area
• cell interiors (including detention rooms).

CCTV may visually cover the following areas but, because of the need to protect legal privilege, should not have audio-recording or audio-monitoring facilities:

• rooms set aside for private legal consultation
• general interview rooms.

 

[Samo]

Samo, Cell blocks have CCTV, cells dont, or at least that was the case due to privacy laws etc, as you just cant spy on someone in a cell as they are allowed a degree of privacy. I think this is all covered in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

Areas where you can get to a cell are covered by a camera, so there is veidence of who eneters a cell and leaves and at what time. As Brylowes said it may just be confusion in the translation.

So 2 police officers were having a conversation about whether or not something that doesn't exist was in working order? Is that what you are saying?

 

[Moff]

So 2 police officers were having a conversation about whether or not something that doesn't exist was in working order? Is that what you are saying?

No I am telling you what I know from personal knowledge of cell blocks.

Sorry to try to assist, wont bother in future, believe what you want.

 

[Brylowes]

So 2 police officers were having a conversation about whether or not something that doesn't exist was in working order? Is that what you are saying?

When I say something lost in translation. Had the cop who was nuts worked
the Ricoh before, possibly said to custody Sgt , is there CCTV in the cells and
Cus Sgt replies no. By the time it goes to press it's worded the other way.
Think it was probably the Cus Sgt who followed in the cell, and eventually
came forward. Whoever it was will do well to keep his career, they really
dont like cops who go against there own .

 

[Samo]

No I am telling you what I know from personal knowledge of cell blocks.

Sorry to try to assist, wont bother in future, believe what you want.

 

[Samo]

When I say something lost in translation. Had the cop who was nuts worked
the Ricoh before, possibly said to custody Sgt , is there CCTV in the cells and
Cus Sgt replies no. By the time it goes to press it's worded the other way.
Think it was probably the Cus Sgt who followed in the cell, and eventually
came forward. Whoever it was will do well to keep his career, they really
dont like cops who go against there own .

That's stretching it to be honest Bry.... see Chief Dave's post above.

 

[Brylowes]

That's stretching it to be honest Bry.... see Chief Dave's post above.

Fair do's but moff don't seem the type to lie. Sometimes with these sort of things
statements are taken and information shared between many people over a long
period of time. It's entirely possible for wording to change along the way, if it isn't
something that could compromise the integrity of the case, well it's unlikely to be
picked up.IMHO

 

[Moff]

View attachment 5135

:claping hands:. It had been a long day!

 

[OffenhamSkyBlue]

Sorry for flogging the proverbial dead horse, but my understanding is that the question of whether the "CCTV was working" was a quote from a court transcript, not lost in translation. The College of Policing guidance clearly states that CCTV can be used in "cell interiors".
Anyone who has seen any of the BAFTA award winning C4 series "24 Hours in Police Custody" (or any of the more sensationalist stuff on 5 and their like) will know that cell interiors (in Bedfordshire at least, with 24H)) are under CCTV coverage, although they have built screens to allow privacy when using the toilet.
So those of you who state SO authoritatively that CCTV is not allowed in cells are talking out your backsides.

 

[sky blue zam]

I think what is clear from the last few pages is that either Mr.Wynn or marcus are lying/mistaken... I know where my money is.

Maybe Mr Wynn is Marcus, lol