without giving away too much info in regards the source, as far as I know we are now considered a 'high risk' set of supporters for whatever reasons, placing us in the same grouping as Millwall and Tottenham (West Ham and Chelsea are supposedly a lesser risk!) when it comes to policing us.
this is a recent change which may explain why people notice it now.
[cite]Posted By: nichorob[/cite]without giving away too much info in regards the source, as far as I know we are now considered a 'high risk' set of supporters for whatever reasons, placing us in the same grouping as Millwall and Tottenham (West Ham and Chelsea are supposedly a lesser risk!) when it comes to policing us.
this is a recent change which may explain why people notice it now.
[cite aria-level=0 aria-posinset=0 aria-setsize=0]Posted By: nichorob[/cite]without giving away too much info in regards the source, as far as I know we are now considered a 'high risk' set of supporters for whatever reasons, placing us in the same grouping as Millwall and Tottenham (West Ham and Chelsea are supposedly a lesser risk!) when it comes to policing us.
this is a recent change which may explain why people notice it now.
And no im not a copper.
Bloody hooligans, I was safer over upton park ;-)
mate proper 1980's style tear up outside mine earlier was well funny
As CafcAndy rightly attempted to point out, there is a disturbing increase in both the level of police presence at football and the aggression those constables feel able to use towards the fans. This is part of a trend in society, the police seem increasingly to be a force for control of the public, rather than our protectors and guardians of the peace. What Charlton's hooligan category is I have no idea and less interest really because the majority of us aren't hooligans and have (or should have) the right to expect decent treatment by the police. There is no reason to accept a lower standard of treatment on the basis that you are going to a football match, but as I say the police are becoming generally more aggressive towards everyone these days. Look at any recent protest marches, for instance. They are simply more aggressive toward any large collection of people regardless of those people's intentions.
And you don't think the public are getting more violent too? I don't condone ott force but jeez if someone told them it was Nath and his mates what else are they supposed to do? All they did is issue a little bit of paper that can be argued.
Like the Criminal Justice Act before it, Section 27 of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 was not specifically aimed at football fans, but is increasingly being used by police against fans.
Designed to prevent potential 'alcohol-related disorder,' the act gives the police powers to move individuals on from a specified area for up 48 hours.
The police serving the order need to have good reason and evidence to support their assertion that you are likely to cause alcohol-related crime or disorder (so just being in a pub is not just cause).
If you're are told to move on from the locality, the police can specify the means and route, although the law fails to define 'locality,' so they could force you to travel a considerable distance.
Note: The police have no powers to make you sign anything. If you feel you've been unfairly dealt with under S27, get the details of the officer concerned and - ideally - get it all on camera, along with the names of any witnesses.
If you want to argue the toss, ask to speak to a senior officer and put your case forward peacefully while complying with the order (i.e. walking away). If you stand your ground you're likely to be arrested and/or fined by the courts.
Pretty much what happened, someone threw a bottle at a barmaid in the opposite diecton to where we were, then we got the blame by the police spotters, but I wasnt aware of any bottle being thrown, plus I was in the toilet at the time it "apparantly" came from our direction, so then as soon as I come out the toilet, I get dragged out and blamed for it.
Dazzler 21, target the criminals, that is what I expect them to do. And I don't accept the argument we're all becoming more aggressive, not for a moment. I am not talking about specific instances here, I wasn't there, I don't know. What I can talk about is the things I have seen, and the police are getting more aggressive and controlling, usually to those who won't fight back. And before you say it no I don't like the police, never have. Because I have had to work alongside them, and know their attitude towards Joe and Jane public.
It would seem that (by previous posts) that Nathan is not the threat to football violance that the police consider. In light of this, to judge his bravado by a bunch of keyboard warriors would seem more laughable.
I'm sorry to hear that you don't like the police in fact why don't we completely abolish policing and see what happens. A few officers do not make a force.
[cite]Posted By: NathanPrior[/cite]Pretty much what happened, someone threw a bottle at a barmaid in the opposite diecton to where we were, then we got the blame by the police spotters, but I wasnt aware of any bottle being thrown, plus I was in the toilet at the time it "apparantly" came from our direction, so then as soon as I come out the toilet, I get dragged out and blamed for it.
Perhaps the spotters was in the bog and saw you with your weapon in your hands.
[cite]Posted By: Dazzler21[/cite]I'm sorry to hear that you don't like the police in fact why don't we completely abolish policing and see what happens. A few officers do not make a force.
Its more than a few, let's be honest, most of the robocop meat heads love to get their baton out come Saturday afternoon!
[cite]Posted By: Dazzler21[/cite]I'm sorry to hear that you don't like the police in fact why don't we completely abolish policing and see what happens. A few officers do not make a force.
Its more than a few, let's be honest, most of the robocop meat heads love to get their baton out come Saturday afternoon!
What they get up in their own time is surely their business?
This is an interesting issue though and one that helps highlight how the police see footy fans as a good day out. Put 50 people in a pub and no drama. Put 50 people in a pub on the day of a football game and the police take it upon themselves to act as the custodians of pre-emptive good order with no recourse on their actions and little public sympathy for the innocents caught up in it .
We'd all agree that Nathan is hardly a threat to opposing fans but he now has Sec27 for absolutely no reason. Laugh (and this episode is actually funny) but it could happen to anyone and the police do not give a poodle about it.
Anyone who has been videod in a pub by marauding robocops with cameras can rest assured the film is held somewhere. If CAFC have, for whatever reason, picked up a higher "threat" level then expect this at every game from now on - there's nothing a local copper likes less that a "cockney"
Dazzler 21, I have no doubt that most police join with purely noble motivations. However, I have first hand expirience of what happens to them after a few years in. Most become cynical, hard-nosed and careerist, they also adopt the most terrible facistic attitude toward us, the general public. We've all done something, or are planning to, or will and don't know it, we need to be controlled, stopped. A large gathering of us is a potential riot, end of. Especially if a football stadium is nearby and it's matchday. Couple this with a forelock-tugging, arse-licking obiedience to the establishment, and that's yer average wooden-top. Sorry, but that's just my expirience of them.
I am glad I gave the C&H a miss and drank in the Orient Supporters Club where I was not alone as an Addick and had good old fashioned friendly banter.
One of the reasons I love Charlton has been our lack of a 'firm' and the fact that we are seen by the Met as the same risk level as Millwall surprises me ,normally in my younger days me and mates would always avoid the 'obvious' places and find pubs maybe half an hour from whatever ground we visited.
I don't know Nathan but it sounds like he was unlucky and treated badly by the Police but Football supporters are an easy target.
Nichorob said "as far as I know we are now considered a 'high risk' set of supporters for whatever reasons, placing us in the same grouping as Millwall and Tottenham (West Ham and Chelsea are supposedly a lesser risk!) when it comes to policing us."
Unless tartan blankets and thermos flasks are now considered to be weapons, how on earth are our travelling fans considered more high risk than West Ham and Chelsea?!!
We aren't 'high risk'. We're 'moderate'. This is also dependent on the opposition. When, for instance, we go to Hartlepool, we're considered 'minimal risk'. When we go to Southampton, we'll be considered 'high risk', after events of previous years.
Please don't bother giving it the old 'you don't know nuffink' shit that inevitably follows posts like this - I DO know this for a fact, because I have recently worked for a police force. Charlton's 'threat level' was upgraded over four years ago. This is largely because of the behaviour of a group of pond life that 'follow' us, but could by no stretch of the imagination be called 'supporters'.
[cite]Posted By: CafcAndy[/cite]I can in fact say as A fact that we have no risk level.
Only games have risk level's and that is decided within the weeks beforehand.
Police can have certain fans to look out for, thats about it.
Nonsense. You obviously have never had contact with the FI departments of any police force. As someone who worked for a police force for two years I can categorically state that all clubs are assigned a risk status, which is regularly reviewed, and based on many factors including (but not limited to): Past transgressions, likely number of away followers, propensity of any number of those supporters for violence, specifics relating to the fixture in question ('previous' between the two sets of supporters), number of banning orders in place for fans of said club, arrests at previous games, other fixtures taking place nearby on the same day (and associated history of trouble between the sets of fans of any clubs involved), past criminal activity of fans associated with the club whilst attending matches (theft, disorder, fare-dodging etc).
I can categorically state that, at one point about six years ago, Charlton were identified as a 'moderate risk' after a couple of incidents which, though relatively tame in comparison with the grief that follows Millwall, Leeds, Cardiff and others wherever they go, was certainly taken seriously by the force I worked for (and no - I am not, never have been and never will be a copper or special - this was purely in a civilian capacity). I don't know what our risk category is now - but I suspect it's probably lower as I've noticed less police presence around us at away games in comparison with, say, three years ago. Of course, since I no longer work for the gavvers I can't confirm this is true, and it could all just be down to the fact that we are lower down the league, have less numbers in attendance overall and have less frequent (and, with the greatest of respect to the 'firms' of Brentford, Orient and the 'nam, less potentially incendiary) London derbies than we used to.
There is a salient point made in a few posts on this thread though - namely the behavious of the police being far more aggressive in general when dealing with crowds of any description. Sadly, 'crowd control' now revolves almost exclusively on massive manpower and swift, sharp enforcement. I bet plenty of pwople on here moaning about the treatment they get from the coppers at grim Northern dumps had a good old moan about the 'swampies' last year in London and thought the police were bang to rights in giving them a kicking...
[quote][cite]Posted By: Leroy Ambrose[/cite][quote][cite]Posted By: CafcAndy[/cite] .....There is a salient point made in a few posts on this thread though - namely the behavious of the police being far more aggressive in general when dealing with crowds of any description. Sadly, 'crowd control' now revolves almost exclusively on massive manpower and swift, sharp enforcement. I bet plenty of pwople on here moaning about the treatment they get from the coppers at grim Northern dumps had a good old moan about the 'swampies' last year in London and thought the police were bang to rights in giving them a kicking...[/quote]
And that, more than anything to do with football policing really, is what I am driving at. The Old Bill behave more like an occupying army than the guardians of peace these days. I find that disturbing.
Leroy - I don't really see how you can claim this said group can not be classified as 'supporters'. Plenty of shitholes were visited to watch poor performances by the youth element including the loss at Wigan 3-0, Man City 4-0 etc. Even when there weren't larger turnouts there would always be a handful (around 6/7) who went to nearly every away game for a few seasons.
I think you've missed the point. Perhaps I didn't make it clear - let me elaborate further. No-one who travels away with your club and acts like a fucking moron, dragging the name of the club through the mud, can be considered a 'supporter'. I think that's a bit less ambiguous.
[cite]Posted By: Leroy Ambrose[/cite]I think you've missed the point. Perhaps I didn't make it clear - let me elaborate further. No-one who travels away with your club and acts like a fucking moron, dragging the name of the club through the mud, can be considered a 'supporter'. I think that's a bit less ambiguous.
And as I have pointed out on a previous thread that you dont have to actually do anything to be a high risk supporter.
Believe it or not but i am 95% certain that Nathan is now classed as a risk supporter due to having his name taken and section 27. I am 100% that every one on this forum would say Nathen is not a rick supporter.
Comments
1st name of this young lad?
this is a recent change which may explain why people notice it now.
And no im not a copper.
Bloody hooligans, I was safer over upton park ;-)
mate proper 1980's style tear up outside mine earlier was well funny
Like the Criminal Justice Act before it, Section 27 of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 was not specifically aimed at football fans, but is increasingly being used by police against fans.
Designed to prevent potential 'alcohol-related disorder,' the act gives the police powers to move individuals on from a specified area for up 48 hours.
The police serving the order need to have good reason and evidence to support their assertion that you are likely to cause alcohol-related crime or disorder (so just being in a pub is not just cause).
If you're are told to move on from the locality, the police can specify the means and route, although the law fails to define 'locality,' so they could force you to travel a considerable distance.
Note: The police have no powers to make you sign anything. If you feel you've been unfairly dealt with under S27, get the details of the officer concerned and - ideally - get it all on camera, along with the names of any witnesses.
If you want to argue the toss, ask to speak to a senior officer and put your case forward peacefully while complying with the order (i.e. walking away). If you stand your ground you're likely to be arrested and/or fined by the courts.
Oh thats just charming
In light of this, to judge his bravado by a bunch of keyboard warriors would seem more laughable.
Perhaps the spotters was in the bog and saw you with your weapon in your hands.
Its more than a few, let's be honest, most of the robocop meat heads love to get their baton out come Saturday afternoon!
What they get up in their own time is surely their business?
We'd all agree that Nathan is hardly a threat to opposing fans but he now has Sec27 for absolutely no reason. Laugh (and this episode is actually funny) but it could happen to anyone and the police do not give a poodle about it.
Anyone who has been videod in a pub by marauding robocops with cameras can rest assured the film is held somewhere. If CAFC have, for whatever reason, picked up a higher "threat" level then expect this at every game from now on - there's nothing a local copper likes less that a "cockney"
One of the reasons I love Charlton has been our lack of a 'firm' and the fact that we are seen by the Met as the same risk level as Millwall surprises me ,normally in my younger days me and mates would always avoid the 'obvious' places and find pubs maybe half an hour from whatever ground we visited.
I don't know Nathan but it sounds like he was unlucky and treated badly by the Police but Football supporters are an easy target.
Maze Hill?
Unless tartan blankets and thermos flasks are now considered to be weapons, how on earth are our travelling fans considered more high risk than West Ham and Chelsea?!!
Please don't bother giving it the old 'you don't know nuffink' shit that inevitably follows posts like this - I DO know this for a fact, because I have recently worked for a police force. Charlton's 'threat level' was upgraded over four years ago. This is largely because of the behaviour of a group of pond life that 'follow' us, but could by no stretch of the imagination be called 'supporters'.
I can categorically state that, at one point about six years ago, Charlton were identified as a 'moderate risk' after a couple of incidents which, though relatively tame in comparison with the grief that follows Millwall, Leeds, Cardiff and others wherever they go, was certainly taken seriously by the force I worked for (and no - I am not, never have been and never will be a copper or special - this was purely in a civilian capacity). I don't know what our risk category is now - but I suspect it's probably lower as I've noticed less police presence around us at away games in comparison with, say, three years ago. Of course, since I no longer work for the gavvers I can't confirm this is true, and it could all just be down to the fact that we are lower down the league, have less numbers in attendance overall and have less frequent (and, with the greatest of respect to the 'firms' of Brentford, Orient and the 'nam, less potentially incendiary) London derbies than we used to.
There is a salient point made in a few posts on this thread though - namely the behavious of the police being far more aggressive in general when dealing with crowds of any description. Sadly, 'crowd control' now revolves almost exclusively on massive manpower and swift, sharp enforcement. I bet plenty of pwople on here moaning about the treatment they get from the coppers at grim Northern dumps had a good old moan about the 'swampies' last year in London and thought the police were bang to rights in giving them a kicking...
.....There is a salient point made in a few posts on this thread though - namely the behavious of the police being far more aggressive in general when dealing with crowds of any description. Sadly, 'crowd control' now revolves almost exclusively on massive manpower and swift, sharp enforcement. I bet plenty of pwople on here moaning about the treatment they get from the coppers at grim Northern dumps had a good old moan about the 'swampies' last year in London and thought the police were bang to rights in giving them a kicking...[/quote]
And that, more than anything to do with football policing really, is what I am driving at. The Old Bill behave more like an occupying army than the guardians of peace these days. I find that disturbing.
And as I have pointed out on a previous thread that you dont have to actually do anything to be a high risk supporter.
Believe it or not but i am 95% certain that Nathan is now classed as a risk supporter due to having his name taken and section 27. I am 100% that every one on this forum would say Nathen is not a rick supporter.