This feels very wrong, police action
Discussion
hairykrishna said:
If he was just a random convicted football hooligan how many people on here would be questioning the polices actions? He is not the voice of reason speaking out against muslims and being oppressed for it. He's got multiple previous convictions for violence, knew if he went to the right place the police would move him on and is playing up the resultant encounter to paint himself as some kind of martyr.
If he wanted to watch the football in pubs near football games, with or without his kids, then he shouldn't have previously been fighting at football games.
I wouldn't have cared if Rosa Parks was a convicted football hooligan. My beef relates to the principles of justice, not the merits of the individual.If he wanted to watch the football in pubs near football games, with or without his kids, then he shouldn't have previously been fighting at football games.
Cambridgeshire Police and Crime Commissioner said:
I have now had an opportunity to look into the issue with Cambridgeshire Constabulary who confirmed that a group of 18 Luton Town Football Club supporters were asked to leave The Grain Store Pub in Cambridge at about 6.30pm on Saturday. They did this because they believed that public disorder could occur between rival football fans and that as a result, members of the public could be put at risk. The group left peacefully without the need for a dispersal order to be invoked.
http://m.cambridge-news.co.uk/ex-edl-leader-tommy-robinson-s-cambridge-pub-incident-claims-police-boss-defends-officers/story-29676276-detail/story.htmlBlackLabel said:
Cambridgeshire Police and Crime Commissioner said:
I have now had an opportunity to look into the issue with Cambridgeshire Constabulary who confirmed that a group of 18 Luton Town Football Club supporters were asked to leave The Grain Store Pub in Cambridge at about 6.30pm on Saturday. They did this because they believed that public disorder could occur between rival football fans and that as a result, members of the public could be put at risk. The group left peacefully without the need for a dispersal order to be invoked.
http://m.cambridge-news.co.uk/ex-edl-leader-tommy-robinson-s-cambridge-pub-incident-claims-police-boss-defends-officers/story-29676276-detail/story.html
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: So are we saying we only want the Police to intervene when a crime has been committed?
That is the usual riposte, yes In reality, the question is about greyness. My position would be to ask people to move on when there is an actual risk (2 groups around, some verbals, etc.), not moving people in so as to remove the chance of risk.The latter is the department of pre-crime at work; where does it stop? The inconsistent exercise of discretionary powers is a major part of the disconnect between people and power in many nations...
skwdenyer said:
That is the usual riposte, yes In reality, the question is about greyness. My position would be to ask people to move on when there is an actual risk (2 groups around, some verbals, etc.), not moving people in so as to remove the chance of risk.
The latter is the department of pre-crime at work; where does it stop? The inconsistent exercise of discretionary powers is a major part of the disconnect between people and power in many nations...
So convicted drunk driver lurking around his car holding car keys? Disqualified driver doing the same? Bloke with domestic violence convictions deciding to have a little stroll back and forth outside his ex-partners house? In reality, the question is about greyness. My position would be to ask people to move on when there is an actual risk (2 groups around, some verbals, etc.), not moving people in so as to remove the chance of risk.The latter is the department of pre-crime at work; where does it stop? The inconsistent exercise of discretionary powers is a major part of the disconnect between people and power in many nations...
I'm sure I'll be told I'm using hyperbole and of course they're perhaps slightly extreme examples. So long as you have discretion you'll always have inconsistencies and I still think people want to have their cake and eat it and would take a slightly different view if a bunch of yobs were gathered outside their house and they called the Police and were told "Sorry, we can't send anyone, call back when they've commited a crime".
Seems a little bit of an ivory tower view of the world personally.
skwdenyer said:
That is the usual riposte, yes In reality, the question is about greyness. My position would be to ask people to move on when there is an actual risk (2 groups around, some verbals, etc.),
You mean you'd move people on just for "a harmless bit of bantz".....? In reality, the question is about greyness. My position would be to ask people to move on when there is an actual risk (2 groups around, some verbals, etc.),
It's a judgement call and IMO the best people to make the call are the Police.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:skwdenyer said:
That is the usual riposte, yes In reality, the question is about greyness. My position would be to ask people to move on when there is an actual risk (2 groups around, some verbals, etc.), not moving people in so as to remove the chance of risk.
The latter is the department of pre-crime at work; where does it stop? The inconsistent exercise of discretionary powers is a major part of the disconnect between people and power in many nations...
So convicted drunk driver lurking around his car holding car keys? Disqualified driver doing the same? Bloke with domestic violence convictions deciding to have a little stroll back and forth outside his ex-partners house? In reality, the question is about greyness. My position would be to ask people to move on when there is an actual risk (2 groups around, some verbals, etc.), not moving people in so as to remove the chance of risk.The latter is the department of pre-crime at work; where does it stop? The inconsistent exercise of discretionary powers is a major part of the disconnect between people and power in many nations...
I'm sure I'll be told I'm using hyperbole and of course they're perhaps slightly extreme examples. So long as you have discretion you'll always have inconsistencies and I still think people want to have their cake and eat it and would take a slightly different view if a bunch of yobs were gathered outside their house and they called the Police and were told "Sorry, we can't send anyone, call back when they've commited a crime".
Seems a little bit of an ivory tower view of the world personally.
Although it isn't perfect, it is reasonable, and it doesn't drive the people involved into the back streets where there's no CCTV. It doesn't marginalise them, it doesn't set them against the police for moving them on / whatever because "they might do something."
As a result of that policy, actual crime has dropped massively in the 10 years I've been there. 10 years ago, there was a great deal of "moving-on" and "dispersal" used, and it was massively counter-productive.
So, no, I don't live in an ivory tower. I recognise how corrosive it is to, in effect, acuse people of being ready to commit a crime - it is no different really to the old "suss" laws that caused so many problems.
I remember the old sus' law and regularly used /abused it to clear people out of town centre areas in the early hours. I worked on a large (16000 population) rough council estate for many years. Geographically - the estate was a bit isolated with the nearest town of note three miles away - therefore without transport the kids were stuck on the estate until they learned to drive. Of course they'd hang around the estate in the evenings but we'd leave them alone until we received any complaints. Foot patrols and mobile units would pay passing attention just to let them know they were being kept an eye on. Younger cops coming on the state would throw their weight around and confront and move the groups on if there was the slightest hint of messing around or piss taking as they passed them. We'd soon point out to the rookies -whats the point of shifting them until we get a complaint - where are they going to go? Shifting them around from pillar to post was pointless. Remember they live on the estate 24/7 - you just pop in for eight hours a day - wind them up then go home. We had some good sport with the youngsters over the years - with no winners or losers. They knew we knew all of them and theyd get nicked if they overstepped the mark by too wide a margin. Its not right to move people about on the off chance there may ba an incident. The public also had the luxury of knowing that we'd attend each and every call.
Edited by Bigends on Saturday 3rd September 22:54
Robinson seems to have a habit of shooting himself in the foot.
Uploads a video where he tracks down one of his trolls however he allows himself to be filmed doing this.....
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WjvKDAtu9Ns
Uploads a video where he tracks down one of his trolls however he allows himself to be filmed doing this.....
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WjvKDAtu9Ns
BlackLabel said:
Robinson seems to have a habit of shooting himself in the foot.
Uploads a video where he tracks down one of his trolls however he allows himself to be filmed doing this.....
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WjvKDAtu9Ns
To be fair, it is a very interesting piece. It throws up some paradoxes and questions.Uploads a video where he tracks down one of his trolls however he allows himself to be filmed doing this.....
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WjvKDAtu9Ns
rscott said:
Is another example of the footgun being used by him..
Yes, there's nothing more to say there is there? Picture says more than 1,000 words.I did think it quite funny though that the student who actually made a death threat against Robinson was relatively ignorant a.) of the offence and b.) of some of the issues being debated.
Digga said:
BlackLabel said:
Robinson seems to have a habit of shooting himself in the foot.
Uploads a video where he tracks down one of his trolls however he allows himself to be filmed doing this.....
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WjvKDAtu9Ns
To be fair, it is a very interesting piece. It throws up some paradoxes and questions.Uploads a video where he tracks down one of his trolls however he allows himself to be filmed doing this.....
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WjvKDAtu9Ns
and posting this rant after his tyre blew out.. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tommy-robinso... , only stopping when his mum arrived..
BlackLabel said:
Expect a begging letter from Tommy to help with either the appeal or £20k costs..BlackLabel said:
ExcellentGassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff