This feels very wrong, police action
Discussion
rich85uk said:
And people keep forgetting some points here
1)he should not of been within a certain distance of the Cambridge Utd stadium
2)he should not of been in the city centre before,during or after the match
3)he should not of been within a certain distance of the train station before during or after the match
Have, FFS, have! He should not HAVE been. 'Of' you never been taught how to write or speak English? This really, really winds me up.1)he should not of been within a certain distance of the Cambridge Utd stadium
2)he should not of been in the city centre before,during or after the match
3)he should not of been within a certain distance of the train station before during or after the match
rich85uk said:
the police did the right thing here
That's currently under debate. I actually agree with Greendubber et al- if he's broken a law/court order then arrest him, otherwise leave him alone. Cambridge isn't the wild west and 'running people outta town' isn't really the done thing.rich85uk said:
had someone had a Cambridge supporter had a pint glass smashed in their face by him the police would have had their pants pulled down
Let's talk about what did happen rather than what didn't. Fantasy scenarios don't help the discussion move forward.rich85uk said:
Elysium said:
He is an extremist. He is also rather like Anjem Choudary - provocative, but always careful to remain just on the right side of the law. He is a former BNP member who claims that he did not realise the organisation excluded non-whites.
He has devoted his life to racism regardless of his dancing around and trying to avoid the word. He is of no help at all in the fight against extremism, be it Muslim or otherwise.
Tommy Robinson is just one of a number of false names he uses and is itself a tribute to a football hooligan. This is not a normal man in the street being victimised. Sometimes you must reap what you sew.
ExactlyHe has devoted his life to racism regardless of his dancing around and trying to avoid the word. He is of no help at all in the fight against extremism, be it Muslim or otherwise.
Tommy Robinson is just one of a number of false names he uses and is itself a tribute to a football hooligan. This is not a normal man in the street being victimised. Sometimes you must reap what you sew.
And people keep forgetting some points here
1)he should not of been within a certain distance of the Cambridge Utd stadium
2)he should not of been in the city centre before,during or after the match
3)he should not of been within a certain distance of the train station before during or after the match
Having met someone caught up in Oxford Utd trouble the bans are harsh, he breached all the above and he knew it. Chances are he has more conditions to his ban and given the connection between EDL and football hooligans he probably has to surrender his passport at certain times.
These are the bans issued to Brighton fans for throwing chairs and bottles during the Euro 2016
http://www.sussex.police.uk/news/sussex-football-h...
They might have been extra pissed off with him for getting into the ground to watch the game but the police did the right thing here, had someone had a Cambridge supporter had a pint glass smashed in their face by him the police would have had their pants pulled down
I must apologise for my poor grammar in my earlier post, really need to read before i post
He was served a new banning order while he was in France for the Euro's, the details are proving quite hard to find (possibly due to him appealing the ban)
http://www.luton-dunstable.co.uk/failed-attempt-fr...
He was served a new banning order while he was in France for the Euro's, the details are proving quite hard to find (possibly due to him appealing the ban)
http://www.luton-dunstable.co.uk/failed-attempt-fr...
rich85uk said:
I must apologise for my poor grammar in my earlier post, really need to read before i post
He was served a new banning order while he was in France for the Euro's, the details are proving quite hard to find (possibly due to him appealing the ban)
http://www.luton-dunstable.co.uk/failed-attempt-fr...
If this is correct, it is not formally in place yet: He was served a new banning order while he was in France for the Euro's, the details are proving quite hard to find (possibly due to him appealing the ban)
http://www.luton-dunstable.co.uk/failed-attempt-fr...
https://alisongurden.wordpress.com/2016/06/29/stat...
Perhaps that is why he was given a notice to disperse instead of being prosecuted?
Either way, I think he got away lightly. Most people would keep out of trouble at this point, but he doesn't want that.
Elysium said:
If this is correct, it is not formally in place yet:
https://alisongurden.wordpress.com/2016/06/29/stat...
Perhaps that is why he was given a notice to disperse instead of being prosecuted?
Simple question- does this make it lawful to run him out of town as they did? A simple yes or no will suffice.https://alisongurden.wordpress.com/2016/06/29/stat...
Perhaps that is why he was given a notice to disperse instead of being prosecuted?
An application to a court is very different to any order being in place.
Elysium said:
Either way, I think he got away lightly.
Got away lightly with what, exactly? What law was he breaking? He might be a repugnant individual but that's no grounds to ride roughshod over any rights he has.article said:
On Bedfordshire Police’s own admission, there is no evidence that Tommy Robinson has been involved in any reported football related disorder for at least the past 5 years.
S.35 is a preventive power. There are many laws which are designed to prevent issues occurring. None of us are going to be in a position to judge whether or not the grounds were there to use this power the way Parliament intended. As I wrote earlier, there are sufficient ways to complain and take legal action if it were used unlawfully.
Banning orders:
It's possible to get a banning order in two ways:
1) Upon conviction (S.14A).
2) Upon complaint (S.14B).
Banning orders:
It's possible to get a banning order in two ways:
1) Upon conviction (S.14A).
2) Upon complaint (S.14B).
CPS said:
Prosecutors are able to apply for a "civil" football banning order on complaint. The court must make an order if satisfied that the respondent has at any time caused or contributed to any violence or disorder in the UK or elsewhere and that there are reasonable grounds to believe that it would help to prevent violence or disorder at or in connection with any regulated football matches.
CPS said:
For S.14A and S.14B orders, "violence" means violence against persons or property and includes threatening violence and doing anything which endangers the life of any person.
Also, disorder includes:
- Stirring up hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins, or against an individual as a member of such a group,
- Using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour,
- Displaying any writing or other thing which is threatening, abusive or insulting.
Also, disorder includes:
- Stirring up hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins, or against an individual as a member of such a group,
- Using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour,
- Displaying any writing or other thing which is threatening, abusive or insulting.
So let's just assume it was all perfectly correct as per our current legislation and then ask if that is in line with our ideas of justice? Try so far as is possible to take the individual and the cause out of the equation.
He displayed a flag saying showing his opposition to a terrorist organisation who have recently attacked the country hosting the tournament, at a football match.
Bedfordshire police decided this constitutes inciting racial or religious hatred and decide to ban him from attending football matches. A banning order which is still being appealed in the courts.
He is then allowed to attend a Luton game in Cambridge but subsequently told by police that he has to leave the city despite the management of the pub he was in saying he was not causing any problems and was welcome to stay.
Does this seem right?
It doesn't to me.
As for the apparent attitude of some here that Tommy Robinson is a nasty piece of work and wherever he goes trouble soon follows, well that's probably most alarming of all.
It's all well and good for a policeman to know who the trouble makers on his beat. He will prevent punch-ups and have a starting point for petty vandalism which is almost always correct.
When you try to apply this on a national scale it is totalitarianism.
He displayed a flag saying showing his opposition to a terrorist organisation who have recently attacked the country hosting the tournament, at a football match.
Bedfordshire police decided this constitutes inciting racial or religious hatred and decide to ban him from attending football matches. A banning order which is still being appealed in the courts.
He is then allowed to attend a Luton game in Cambridge but subsequently told by police that he has to leave the city despite the management of the pub he was in saying he was not causing any problems and was welcome to stay.
Does this seem right?
It doesn't to me.
As for the apparent attitude of some here that Tommy Robinson is a nasty piece of work and wherever he goes trouble soon follows, well that's probably most alarming of all.
It's all well and good for a policeman to know who the trouble makers on his beat. He will prevent punch-ups and have a starting point for petty vandalism which is almost always correct.
When you try to apply this on a national scale it is totalitarianism.
AJS- said:
When you try to apply this on a national scale it is totalitarianism.
I think it's right that the authorities be held to account and in this instance I have no idea whether they have handled the situation correctly.But lets not cry two tears out of one eye for this particular individual.
He has scored his goal for the weekend.
desolate said:
I think it's right that the authorities be held to account and in this instance I have no idea whether they have handled the situation correctly.
But lets not cry two tears out of one eye for this particular individual.
He has scored his goal for the weekend.
Again I don't think anything good can come out of personalising this. It's either right or it's wrong. If it's right for Robinson then it's right for everyone with a potentially controversial opinion. If someone holds up a Palestinian flag or a Scottish nationalist flag then they should expect the same treatment. But lets not cry two tears out of one eye for this particular individual.
He has scored his goal for the weekend.
In fact I suspect this rule, instigated by Theresa May when she was Home Secretary was cheered through by the so-called right on thr basis that this would shut up some left wing protest group without a second thought to what else it might open the door to.
Is there anyone on the left who still believes in Voltaire's maxim that however much he disapproves of what you say he will defend your right to say it?
AJS- said:
So let's just assume it was all perfectly correct as per our current legislation and then ask if that is in line with our ideas of justice? Try so far as is possible to take the individual and the cause out of the equation.
He displayed a flag saying showing his opposition to a terrorist organisation who have recently attacked the country hosting the tournament, at a football match.
Bedfordshire police decided this constitutes inciting racial or religious hatred and decide to ban him from attending football matches. A banning order which is still being appealed in the courts.
He is then allowed to attend a Luton game in Cambridge but subsequently told by police that he has to leave the city despite the management of the pub he was in saying he was not causing any problems and was welcome to stay.
Does this seem right?
It doesn't to me.
As for the apparent attitude of some here that Tommy Robinson is a nasty piece of work and wherever he goes trouble soon follows, well that's probably most alarming of all.
It's all well and good for a policeman to know who the trouble makers on his beat. He will prevent punch-ups and have a starting point for petty vandalism which is almost always correct.
When you try to apply this on a national scale it is totalitarianism.
Something doesn't quite add up... His solicitor claims he's being banned for displaying the anti-Isis flag while in France.. yet the article says the police had already compiled the evidence before he travelled....He displayed a flag saying showing his opposition to a terrorist organisation who have recently attacked the country hosting the tournament, at a football match.
Bedfordshire police decided this constitutes inciting racial or religious hatred and decide to ban him from attending football matches. A banning order which is still being appealed in the courts.
He is then allowed to attend a Luton game in Cambridge but subsequently told by police that he has to leave the city despite the management of the pub he was in saying he was not causing any problems and was welcome to stay.
Does this seem right?
It doesn't to me.
As for the apparent attitude of some here that Tommy Robinson is a nasty piece of work and wherever he goes trouble soon follows, well that's probably most alarming of all.
It's all well and good for a policeman to know who the trouble makers on his beat. He will prevent punch-ups and have a starting point for petty vandalism which is almost always correct.
When you try to apply this on a national scale it is totalitarianism.
He's a delightful individual, with convictions ranging from mortgage fraud through immigration offences (using someone elses passport to enter the US as he was banned) to good old fashioned assault. Even got convicted for headbutting one of his fellow EDL members..
List of most of his convictions here https://edlcriminals.com/category/tommy-robinson/
rscott said:
He's a delightful individual, ...
List of most of his convictions here https://edlcriminals.com/category/tommy-robinson/
Your personal feelings for the man are not relevant to whether or not this is political persecution. Which, frankly, it increasingly seems to be.List of most of his convictions here https://edlcriminals.com/category/tommy-robinson/
And who on earth has bothered to set up an edlcriminals.com website? Would that be the "Anti-fascist" fascists? That's precisely the level of dumb tribalism that gives us football violence.
Previous convictions, their nature and how recent those convictions are can all form part of the decision-making process for using preventive legislation.
AJS- said:
He displayed a flag saying showing his opposition to a terrorist organisation who have recently attacked the country hosting the tournament, at a football match.
According to his legal team that's the extent (or main aspect) as well as some cumbersome twisting that the police are saying ISIS = the general Muslim population. For them to apply for an order prior to him attending the Euros, they obviously needed evidence prior to him attending. AJS- said:
Bedfordshire police decided this constitutes inciting racial or religious hatred and decide to ban him from attending football matches. A banning order which is still being appealed in the courts.
Exactly, in the courts. An independent judiciary that we have in this country that'll make the decision. If there's sufficient evidence to meet the legislative requirement then there is, if there isn't, there isn't. AJS- said:
He is then allowed to attend a Luton game in Cambridge but subsequently told by police that he has to leave the city despite the management of the pub he was in saying he was not causing any problems and was welcome to stay.
What does it matter if the management say he's OK to stay? Most football risk supporters don't cause problems at licensed premises. AJS- said:
When you try to apply this on a national scale it is totalitarianism.
Are we in North Korea?AJS- said:
So let's just assume it was all perfectly correct as per our current legislation and then ask if that is in line with our ideas of justice? Try so far as is possible to take the individual and the cause out of the equation.
He displayed a flag saying showing his opposition to a terrorist organisation who have recently attacked the country hosting the tournament, at a football match.
Bedfordshire police decided this constitutes inciting racial or religious hatred and decide to ban him from attending football matches. A banning order which is still being appealed in the courts.
He is then allowed to attend a Luton game in Cambridge but subsequently told by police that he has to leave the city despite the management of the pub he was in saying he was not causing any problems and was welcome to stay.
Does this seem right?
It doesn't to me.
As for the apparent attitude of some here that Tommy Robinson is a nasty piece of work and wherever he goes trouble soon follows, well that's probably most alarming of all.
It's all well and good for a policeman to know who the trouble makers on his beat. He will prevent punch-ups and have a starting point for petty vandalism which is almost always correct.
When you try to apply this on a national scale it is totalitarianism.
You can't separate the man from his actions. He displayed a flag saying showing his opposition to a terrorist organisation who have recently attacked the country hosting the tournament, at a football match.
Bedfordshire police decided this constitutes inciting racial or religious hatred and decide to ban him from attending football matches. A banning order which is still being appealed in the courts.
He is then allowed to attend a Luton game in Cambridge but subsequently told by police that he has to leave the city despite the management of the pub he was in saying he was not causing any problems and was welcome to stay.
Does this seem right?
It doesn't to me.
As for the apparent attitude of some here that Tommy Robinson is a nasty piece of work and wherever he goes trouble soon follows, well that's probably most alarming of all.
It's all well and good for a policeman to know who the trouble makers on his beat. He will prevent punch-ups and have a starting point for petty vandalism which is almost always correct.
When you try to apply this on a national scale it is totalitarianism.
If you or I had waived that flag at a football match in Paris, then it would have been inappropriate (a football match is not a place for this kind of statement), but I doubt that we would face any action. I even agree with the message, although it is crassly stated.
Tommy Robinson on the other hand sets out to politicise any situation where the actions of some people, who claim to be Muslims, can be used to stir up hatred against an entire religion. The police tried for prevent him from going to France for the Euro championship, because he has a history as a football hooligan, with convictions as recently as 2011:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/jul/25/english...
Back then, he was already citing the 'police state' argument - and of course using one of his several false names.
He was allowed to travel to France, but instead of peacefully attending the football he sought further publicity for his 'cause'. I think it is quite clear that he wanted action to be taken against him in order to do this:
https://twitter.com/UKPegida/status/74813681904530...
Completely in line with his general approach. If you read down this page, it is a relentless list of crimes and atrocities, compiled purely to illustrate the fact that they were committed by Muslims.
https://twitter.com/UKPegida
Now imagine someone in Saudi Arabia putting together such a list of crimes by only Christian people, with the sole purpose of conflating their actions, with the principles of the Christian religion.
This is not totalitarianism. He has brought this on himself, deliberately sought it out in fact, so that he can fuel his crusade with indignation.
grumbledoak said:
rscott said:
He's a delightful individual, ...
List of most of his convictions here https://edlcriminals.com/category/tommy-robinson/
Your personal feelings for the man are not relevant to whether or not this is political persecution. Which, frankly, it increasingly seems to be.List of most of his convictions here https://edlcriminals.com/category/tommy-robinson/
And who on earth has bothered to set up an edlcriminals.com website? Would that be the "Anti-fascist" fascists? That's precisely the level of dumb tribalism that gives us football violence.
The link I used was simply the most concise summary of his criminal convictions I could find - I could have linked to half a dozen different news stories instead. Any comment on the content, rather than the source?
AJS- said:
Again I don't think anything good can come out of personalising this.
I quite agree, and I think that's clouding your judgement.A known football hooligan, with previous convictions for violence and a history of stirring up trouble got moved on by the police after his team's match was finished.
I suspect it happens regularly all over the country and couldn't give two s
ts. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff