'The CCTV of these incidents has been reviewed and we believe that staff working for Charlton Athletic have acted appropriately at all times. The supporters involved in all of these incidents have been contacted and invited in to see club officials to review the footage and discuss actions taken on the day. We will communicate further after this process is complete. ' i.e. punching women and throwing out children is appropriate behaviour, we've already made up our minds and you can come to The Valley at your own expense and be directly insulted all over again.
The CCTV of these incidents has been [edited for steward conduct] reviewed [and the originals destroyed]
Not so much a cover-up and a whitewash as a Pyongyang style rewriting of history, la Meire might have a bright future indeed with those talents.
Seriously, anybody with first hand eye-witness evidence should make that available to the injured parties who can then consider to whom they then complain and what action to take next.
Also rather predictable that the club would sandwich the "alleged" assault in with the actions of the fans. To me, this makes it 10 times worse.
You know what? I could think that the guy who threw the cards was a complete and utter prick*, and those who threw the smoke bomb and bottle were utter morons** - but even with that in mind there's a fundamental difference between these two sets of events.
The fans aren't paid to be there to keep the fucking peace and to ensure the safety of other fans, are they?
Just more cowardly tactics by the club to avoid actually confronting issues head on, instead they'll twist and contort the facts and play with them until they can shift some blame elsewhere.
*For the record I think the guy that threw the cards deserves a pint, but throwing the bottle and smoke bombs what a bit idiotic.
Also, describing the event as the removal of a flag is completely mis-informing. It was the removal of a fan, in fact two fans - one having to be let back in to care for someone. Yet they try to paint a picture that makes a fan DROPPING (not throwing) some pieces of paper seem like the criminal here. Someone got grabbed and someone else got hit in the face, yet some dropped pieces of paper is the scary bit to the Club..
To clarify this once and for all, @gwen or her son can request a copy of the CCTV.
£10 potential charge. Once she has that, she has the facts and can decide if she wishes to take this further. Will be able to confirm for everyone exactly what happened and if it was appropriate or not.
Request CCTV footage of yourself You have the right to request closed circuit television (CCTV) footage of yourself.
The CCTV owner must provide this within 40 days, and can charge up to £10.
You need to make a request in writing to the owner of the CCTV system. The owner’s details are usually written on a sign attached to the camera, unless the owner is obvious (like a shop).
You should tell them you’re requesting information held about you under the Data Protection Act, and provide information to help them identify you, like:
a specific date and time proof of your identity a description of yourself The CCTV owner must provide you with a copy of the footage that you can be seen in. They can edit the footage to protect the identities of other people.
The CCTV owner can invite you to a viewing of the footage if:
they’re unable to provide you with the footage itself you agree with that arrangement They can refuse your request if sharing the footage will put a criminal investigation at risk.
CCTV footage of a crime If the CCTV footage relates to a crime and the police have the footage, they will tell you if you can see it.
Hi @gwen, this is known as an SAR, Subject Access Request under the DPA rules, please see below-:
You have the right to see CCTV images of you and to ask for a copy of them. The organisation must provide them within 40 calendar days of your request, and you may be asked to pay a fee of up to £10 (this is the maximum charge, set by Parliament). This is called a Subject Access Request. You will need to provide details to help the operator to establish your identity as the person in the pictures, and to help them find the images on their system.
I like the way they dont reference what the banner was or why people was outside the west stand.
Another point is its more work they have had to do this week, it must be getting tiresome and will continue to do so.
who else is thinking katrien will come out with "because of recent legal proceedings by fans we were unable to allocate the time and resources to sign our targets this january transfer window to allow us to stay up" - effectively blaming fans. Honestly wouldn'tt surprise me.
'The CCTV of these incidents has been reviewed and we believe that staff working for Charlton Athletic have acted appropriately at all times.'
Absolutely outrageous. They really are playing a dangerous game here.
Whoever has been "invited" to go & review footage etc, take a witness. They will try & stop you doing so by saying if you want to do that they'll go down the legal route. If they had any evidence they would do anyway. Just be aware that they are going to try & intimidate you. You will have 2 security staff firing questions at you at the same time trying to make you angry etc. I think they're ex old bill so they know how to manipulate you. Stay calm at all times, enjoy their frustration at failing to wind you up.
The people concerned should avoid any contact with the club whatsoever if they are going to bring legal action as they should do, since otherwise they are prejuducing any legal proccedings. Also bear in mind Pinocchio is a lawyer as well as a liar, and will know how to twist and manipulate anything said outside of a Court of Law, and she would make you look very stupid indeed. The only people who should review the CCTV images and make any decisions are the Police and Crown Prosecution Service. Any meeting with Miss Meire or anyone else connected with the regime will fatally undermine any litigation
'The CCTV of these incidents has been reviewed and we believe that staff working for Charlton Athletic have acted appropriately at all times.'
Absolutely outrageous. They really are playing a dangerous game here.
Whoever has been "invited" to go & review footage etc, take a witness. They will try & stop you doing so by saying if you want to do that they'll go down the legal route. If they had any evidence they would do anyway. Just be aware that they are going to try & intimidate you. You will have 2 security staff firing questions at you at the same time trying to make you angry etc. I think they're ex old bill so they know how to manipulate you. Stay calm at all times, enjoy their frustration at failing to wind you up.
I think you are way off about how these meetings are conducted
Setting aside everything else, are the stewards ACTUALLY club staff or are they contractors? Could it be that the careful use of the word "staff" means the statement is not inaccurate, but still misleading?
Setting aside everything else, are the stewards ACTUALLY club staff or are they contractors? Could it be that the careful use of the word "staff" means the statement is not inaccurate, but still misleading?
I imagine they outsource it don't they - it would make sense.
Setting aside everything else, are the stewards ACTUALLY club staff or are they contractors? Could it be that the careful use of the word "staff" means the statement is not inaccurate, but still misleading?
If that were the case I reckon the club would be all over that; it's a scape goat in a gift cart.
The more i think about it the more mad it seems how daft the club is treating 'its customers' why are we employing such a heavy handed approach towards our own?
All part of the master plan IMO. He's after an average crowd of 5-6000 watching a league 2 team of academy players, therefore only requiring a small ground having made shitloads from either the whole or partial sale of The Valley.
My cousin works for centre circle and often does the charlton matches, albeit the security side, however he did work previously on the stewarding side so therefore they are agency staff not techninally cafc employees
My cousin works for centre circle and often does the charlton matches, albeit the security side, however he did work previously on the stewarding side so therefore they are agency staff not techninally cafc employees
As I thought - so Gwen needs to sue Centre Circle I guess. CAFC may have to supervise day-to-day operations but I imagine there will be plenty of opt out around individual actions etc.
Who would get sued if a kitchen problem gave someone food poisoning ? CAFC, Delaware or the individual who purposefully (or accidently) dropped salmonella in the pie ?
The good people organising the protests are far too cleaver for you dearie, why not just clear your desk now and trot off back to Belgium, there's a good girl
After much police insistence. Which in some ways is the worst part, that the stewards / match day security controller felt it was appropriate to leave a vulnerable person in the ground to fend for themself.
'The CCTV of these incidents has been reviewed and we believe that staff working for Charlton Athletic have acted appropriately at all times.'
Absolutely outrageous. They really are playing a dangerous game here.
Whoever has been "invited" to go & review footage etc, take a witness. They will try & stop you doing so by saying if you want to do that they'll go down the legal route. If they had any evidence they would do anyway. Just be aware that they are going to try & intimidate you. You will have 2 security staff firing questions at you at the same time trying to make you angry etc. I think they're ex old bill so they know how to manipulate you. Stay calm at all times, enjoy their frustration at failing to wind you up.
I think you are way off about how these meetings are conducted
I've been there & what i have written over two posts are exactly how it was.
After much police insistence. Which in some ways is the worst part, that the stewards / match day security controller felt it was appropriate to leave a vulnerable person in the ground to fend for themself.
Surprised the stewards didn't come back and turf him out as well.
Comments
'
i.e. punching women and throwing out children is appropriate behaviour, we've already made up our minds and you can come to The Valley at your own expense and be directly insulted all over again.
The CCTV of these incidents has been [edited for steward conduct] reviewed [and the originals destroyed]
Not so much a cover-up and a whitewash as a Pyongyang style rewriting of history, la Meire might have a bright future indeed with those talents.
Seriously, anybody with first hand eye-witness evidence should make that available to the injured parties who can then consider to whom they then complain and what action to take next.
You know what? I could think that the guy who threw the cards was a complete and utter prick*, and those who threw the smoke bomb and bottle were utter morons** - but even with that in mind there's a fundamental difference between these two sets of events.
The fans aren't paid to be there to keep the fucking peace and to ensure the safety of other fans, are they?
Just more cowardly tactics by the club to avoid actually confronting issues head on, instead they'll twist and contort the facts and play with them until they can shift some blame elsewhere.
*For the record I think the guy that threw the cards deserves a pint, but throwing the bottle and smoke bombs what a bit idiotic.
Another point is its more work they have had to do this week, it must be getting tiresome and will continue to do so.
You have the right to see CCTV images of you and to ask for a copy of them. The organisation must provide them within 40 calendar days of your request, and you may be asked to pay a fee of up to £10 (this is the maximum charge, set by Parliament). This is called a Subject Access Request. You will need to provide details to help the operator to establish your identity as the person in the pictures, and to help them find the images on their system.
I think they're ex old bill so they know how to manipulate you. Stay calm at all times, enjoy their frustration at failing to wind you up.
Could it be that the careful use of the word "staff" means the statement is not inaccurate, but still misleading?
I bet a special someone on here knows the details
We supply match day stewards and security for Charlton Functions.
http://www.centre-circle.co.uk/clients.asp
Who would get sued if a kitchen problem gave someone food poisoning ? CAFC, Delaware or the individual who purposefully (or accidently) dropped salmonella in the pie ?
The good people organising the protests are far too cleaver for you dearie, why not just clear your desk now and trot off back to Belgium, there's a good girl