This feels very wrong, police action

[sidicks]

desolate said:

Someone above stated that he had a football banning order - not sure if that is true or not.

So if there is a law that allows the police to do what they did then fk him, as he is an undoubted tool
But if it is harassment then it's out of order.

Will be interested to see what the police say and the result of any complaint.

That's my view.

Edited by sidicks on Sunday 28th August 21:47

[Bigends]

desolate said:

sidicks said:

Really?

In a supposedly free country, the police can target people based on indiscretions in the past, rather than current actions?

That doesn't seem right to me...

Someone above stated that he had a football banning order - not sure if that is true or not.

So if there is a law that allows the police to do what they did then fk him, as he is an undoubted tool
But if it is harassment then it's out of order.

Will be interested to see what the police say and the result of any complaint.

Edited to add: given his profile it would have made sense for the police to just keep an eye on him rather than wade in - as he was probably after a reaction.

I'm sure things may have finished up differently on the day if there hadnt been cameras there

[tumble dryer]

sidicks said:

Really?

In a supposedly free country, the police can target people based on indiscretions in the past, rather than current actions?

That doesn't seem right to me...

Really?

I would have thought that 'intel' was a foundation of that premise.
(I know where you're coming from, and am sympathetic, but the lowest hanging fruits will always be picked first, and undoubtedly for good reason.)

[rich85uk]

sidicks said:

rich85uk said:

Pretty much, chances are he shouldn't of been in that pub watching football according to his bans

That's entirely different - breaking a ban is reason for the police to act. Police acting on a previous conviction is NOT, as far as I'm concerned.

Football hooligan charges are very harsh, his will probably be 10-12 years that he shouldn't be at certain pubs,public transport or city/town centres during known matches for trouble

He also probably has to hand his passport in during the Euros/World Cup and wont be allowed to Champions/Europa League games

Its like me getting a 5 year driving ban, and being caught driving after 3 years with my family sober and doing the speed limit. Rules are rules

[Ridgemont]

This seems a fairly open and shut case.

As per Brietbart article he went to Cambridge with his family to watch Luton play away.

He has a football banning order imposed by Beds
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Robinson_(ac...


He should never have attended that game. The police have every right to move him from pubs in that locale as well.

http://www.inbrief.co.uk/football-law/football-ban...

The fact he had his children with him is neither here nor there; he knew what he was doing and was deliberately flouting the order.

I would take articles from Breitbart with a pinch of salt.. Especially regarding that gobste.

[AJS-]

desolate said:

In this instance is he getting targeted for being a convicted football hooligan?

If so fair enough.

Either way he is a winner as it'stands nice publicity for his movemennt, which I hadn't heard of until now.

If so it seems strange that he was allowed to travel to Cambridge and attend the match without hindrance and was only moved on later when in the pub where the management specifically said that he was not causing any problems.

Looking at the CPS outline of the legislation here

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/dispersal_power...

The dispersal power seems very open ended

the officer must have reasonable grounds to suspect that the behaviour of the person in the locality has contributed or is likely to contribute to

(a) members of the public in the locality being harassed, alarmed or distressed, or

(b) the occurrence in the locality of crime or disorder.

The officer considers that giving a direction to the person is necessary for the purpose of removing or reducing the likelihood of anti-social behaviour, crime or disorder.

So it appears, in word and in practice to give a police Inspector the power to temporarily make the act of being Tommy Robinson in Cambridge a criminal offence. What can possibly go wrong?

And if you think that's all great because you don't like Tommy Robinson anyway, what if in a few years time wearing a burka causes "members of the public in the locality being harassed, alarmed or distressed?

[dandarez]

I'm a Spurs fan (armchair! now) but have a few mates who still go. I get to hear stories of the troublemakers.
Robinson my be a prat, but something here doesn't add up.

Correct me if I'm wrong.
Apparently he 'went' to the match, and then watched a different match in the pub where he was told to leave (although 'security' staff said he was no problem.

A football banning order as far as I hear is not a criminal sanction, but a civil sanction, and is used as a preventative tactic rather than a penalty for past behaviour. The purpose is to stop known hooligans causing trouble at football matches both home and abroad.

So if he did attend Cambridge v Luton (his home team) why was he allowed to?

The police have simply given Robinson a load of ammo, ie OTT reaction. Unless something else to it?

[BlackLabel]

His lawyer claims he has a football banning order for holding up an anti ISIS flag. If true then that's bizarre given the official line by the state is that ISIS has nothing to do with Islam. Nevertheless, should he have even been at the Luton match in the first place given the banning order?

article said:

"His lawyer, Alison Gurden, told IBTimes UK she was then served with further police statements relating to the banning order on Saturday. She claimed Bedfordshire Police and the UK Football Policing Unit had complained Robinson had "incited racial hatred" while in France due to the anti-Isis material he had been pictured alongside.

She said in a statement on her website, published on Wednesday (29 June): "The mainstay of the application by Bedfordshire Police is that Tommy Robinson, while in France, was pictured wearing an anti-Isis T-Shirt, and holding up an English Saint George Cross flag with 'F**k Isis' written across it, and that this was aimed at inciting racial hatred against Muslims."

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/tommy-robinson-ex-edl-leader-accused-by-police-inciting-racial-hatred-over-fk-isis-england-1568153

He's appealing this decision and is back in court in September:

article said:

"THE former English Defense League leader will appear in court in September to contest a football banning order that has been applied against him.

http://www.bedfordshire-news.co.uk/former-edl-leader-tommy-robinson-contesting-football-ban-for-faving-anti-isis-flag/story-29461395-detail/story.html#FfSROTz6tPq6t4qG.99

Edited by BlackLabel on Sunday 28th August 22:13

[Countdown]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I'm surprised he didn't come up with a cunning plan.....

[anonymous-user]

AJS- said:

And if you think that's all great because you don't like Tommy Robinson anyway, what if in a few years time wearing a burka causes "members of the public in the locality being harassed, alarmed or distressed?

You need help.

[anonymous-user]

Ridgemont said:

This seems a fairly open and shut case.

As per Brietbart article he went to Cambridge with his family to watch Luton play away.

He has a football banning order imposed by Beds
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Robinson_(ac...


He should never have attended that game. The police have every right to move him from pubs in that locale as well.

http://www.inbrief.co.uk/football-law/football-ban...

The fact he had his children with him is neither here nor there; he knew what he was doing and was deliberately flouting the order.

I would take articles from Breitbart with a pinch of salt.. Especially regarding that gobste.

If that's the case and it's do do with his history of football violence then surely it's fair play?

No need for the bedwetters to worry about free speech in this country of ours.

[Bigends]

desolate said:

Ridgemont said:

This seems a fairly open and shut case.

As per Brietbart article he went to Cambridge with his family to watch Luton play away.

He has a football banning order imposed by Beds
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Robinson_(ac...


He should never have attended that game. The police have every right to move him from pubs in that locale as well.

http://www.inbrief.co.uk/football-law/football-ban...

The fact he had his children with him is neither here nor there; he knew what he was doing and was deliberately flouting the order.

I would take articles from Breitbart with a pinch of salt.. Especially regarding that gobste.

If that's the case and it's do do with his history of football violence then surely it's fair play?

No need for the bedwetters to worry about free speech in this country of ours.

Why not simply arrest him for breaching th order then. Theres no point of the order being in placeif theyre not going to enforce it. What are the conditions of the order hes had imposed on him - it may only relate to home games

[anonymous-user]

Bigends said:

Why not simply arrest him for breaching th order then. Theres no point of the order being in placeif theyre not going to enforce it. What are the conditions of the order hes had imposed on him - it may only relate to home games

I have got no idea,

If he was moved on for being Tommy Robinson then it's out of order, he should complain and get his apology and compo.

If he was moved on for breaching an order then fk him.
I have no idea how they are policed but it can't be an easy job.

[Six Fiend]

Countdown said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I'm surprised he didn't come up with a cunning plan.....

Perhaps he lost his trowel and brush...

[anonymous-user]

sidicks said:

La Liga said:

ndeed, which is why only stupid people draw firm conclusions based on limited information / the information from one side.

I'm not sure any one has drawn firm conclusions, just commented on what they know so far.

Seems a couple did with stupid comments on the first page.

[Dr Doofenshmirtz]

I never had any time for him, until this interview... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCn0ptz8xMY
Difficult to disagree with him IMO.

[Greendubber]

Bigends said:

desolate said:

Ridgemont said:

This seems a fairly open and shut case.

As per Brietbart article he went to Cambridge with his family to watch Luton play away.

He has a football banning order imposed by Beds
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Robinson_(ac...


He should never have attended that game. The police have every right to move him from pubs in that locale as well.

http://www.inbrief.co.uk/football-law/football-ban...

The fact he had his children with him is neither here nor there; he knew what he was doing and was deliberately flouting the order.

I would take articles from Breitbart with a pinch of salt.. Especially regarding that gobste.

If that's the case and it's do do with his history of football violence then surely it's fair play?

No need for the bedwetters to worry about free speech in this country of ours.

Why not simply arrest him for breaching th order then. Theres no point of the order being in placeif theyre not going to enforce it. What are the conditions of the order hes had imposed on him - it may only relate to home games

Quite, I deal with lots of football 'risk' fans and all of the ones on banning orders get locked up if they breach. I have never seen a dispersal used to get rid of them if there is an offence they can be arrested for... such as breaching a banning order.

[Bigends]

Greendubber said:

Quite, I deal with lots of football 'risk' fans and all of the ones on banning orders get locked up if they breach. I have never seen a dispersal used to get rid of them if there is an offence they can be arrested for... such as breaching a banning order.

Cambs exec clearly werent happy having him in town so wanted him out.

Edited by Bigends on Sunday 28th August 23:54

[CarreraLightweightRacing]

Dr Doofenshmirtz said:

I never had any time for him, until this interview... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCn0ptz8xMY
Difficult to disagree with him IMO.

I hadn't heard of this Tommy Robinson or the news channel that video is broadcast on. I watched this to the end and it certainly raises a few questions as to how do we deal with the threats that the UK/EU are currently facing?

[Jasandjules]

This makes no sense to me.

If there is something which bans him from going somewhere, would he not be arrested and charged with breaching that Order?

If there is nothing that prevented him from attending, then it is moving into territory of more than a police state.