Kirkstall Blue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 22 Dec 2008
- Messages
- 6,407
- Location
- St Helens. Formally Manchester
- Team supported
- Manchester City
Yes your right, I trusted the MEN statement :(Longsight-memories said:
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Trouble in the East Stand??
- Thread starter Mad Eyed Screamer
- Start date
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 89,066
109 (before mid-way through last season) was a seated block. Some people still wish to sit in there and as such, complain to the stewards about the standing. A lot of them have had tickets there for 5+ years and don't see why they should move for the JCL's that have arrived in the last 2 seasons that want to stand. Go to the top of 109 at half time and there is usually a small queue of people moaning about standing to the head steward bloke (big bald fella).cibaman said:Excuse my ignorance but what is the significance, if any, of this happening in Block 109? From where I sit its not a particularly visible part of the ground so I dont know what the make up of the crowd is in there.
Is it customarily all standing, or are there significant numbers that want to sit? The pics give the impression that its all standing but the club said that the stewards were callled following complaints. Why would people complain, or are the club not telling the truth?
My opinion is that there are more wanting to stand than sit and the practical solution is to allow standing and try and move those that want to sit into the spares in 105-107 (if there are any).
What the club really needs to more dialogue and clarity on the matter.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
Re: Re: Trouble in the East Stand??
Being de-arrested means the arrest record is expunged and generally signals the police are satisfied on the basis of subsequent evidence that the original arrest was incorrect and no offence was committed.
Wrong. You can be arrested and not charged but that remains on record. So it means police believe an offence has been committed but lack the evidence to press charges.SWP's back said:I would not doubt for one minute that showsec may have lied mate.Ricster said:SWP's back said:He was arrested for an alleged breach of the peace then de-arrested. If you watch the video, its all kicking off and is centred around the man. The police removing the man was no doubt an attempt to calm things down. The police hardly had time to take statements from all the witnesses before the arrest did they?
Or maybe an explanaition as to why the Showsec stewards lied about this man comitting a breach of the peace?
I'm simply saying that the police did what they did "for the best intentions".
-- Tue Oct 18, 2011 10:15 am --
marios stress ball said:SWP's back said:He was arrested for an alleged breach of the peace then de-arrested. If you watch the video, its all kicking off and is centred around the man. The police removing the man was no doubt an attempt to calm things down. The police hardly had time to take statements from all the witnesses before the arrest did they?
People said they were being pushed around and kicked by plod
De-arrested means he was innocent
De-arrested means there was no evidence to continue the arrest or caution him. Not quite the same thing.
Being de-arrested means the arrest record is expunged and generally signals the police are satisfied on the basis of subsequent evidence that the original arrest was incorrect and no offence was committed.
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 89,066
Re: Re: Trouble in the East Stand??
According to section 30, subsection (7) and (7A) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, to "de-arrest" is to allow that "a person who has been arrested under any act of law at a place other than a police station, shall be released before reaching a police station if a constable is satisfied that there are no grounds for keeping him under arrest".
Why do you think the police arrested the de-arrested the man? The police state it was due to an ending of the breach of the peace.
Is there anyway your pedantry, whether true or not, changes the fact that the police removed the man to end a breach of the peace?
Look Colin, in the scheme of the thread, it doesn't fucking matter you tiny pedant.Prestwich_Blue said:Wrong. You can be arrested and not charged but that remains on record. So it means police believe an offence has been committed but lack the evidence to press charges.
Being de-arrested means the arrest record is expunged and generally signals the police are satisfied on the basis of subsequent evidence that the original arrest was incorrect and no offence was committed.
According to section 30, subsection (7) and (7A) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, to "de-arrest" is to allow that "a person who has been arrested under any act of law at a place other than a police station, shall be released before reaching a police station if a constable is satisfied that there are no grounds for keeping him under arrest".
Why do you think the police arrested the de-arrested the man? The police state it was due to an ending of the breach of the peace.
Is there anyway your pedantry, whether true or not, changes the fact that the police removed the man to end a breach of the peace?
M18CTID
Well-Known Member
Re: Re: Trouble in the East Stand??
Cheers for that PB - that might come in handy when dealing with the trolling twats on the YouTube Showsec vid ;)
Prestwich_Blue said:Wrong. You can be arrested and not charged but that remains on record. So it means police believe an offence has been committed but lack the evidence to press charges.SWP's back said:I would not doubt for one minute that showsec may have lied mate.Ricster said:Or maybe an explanaition as to why the Showsec stewards lied about this man comitting a breach of the peace?
I'm simply saying that the police did what they did "for the best intentions".
-- Tue Oct 18, 2011 10:15 am --
marios stress ball said:People said they were being pushed around and kicked by plod
De-arrested means he was innocent
De-arrested means there was no evidence to continue the arrest or caution him. Not quite the same thing.
Being de-arrested means the arrest record is expunged and generally signals the police are satisfied on the basis of subsequent evidence that the original arrest was incorrect and no offence was committed.
Cheers for that PB - that might come in handy when dealing with the trolling twats on the YouTube Showsec vid ;)
Longsight-memories
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Nov 2010
- Messages
- 1,133
SWP's back said:109 (before mid-way through last season) was a seated block. Some people still wish to sit in there and as such, complain to the stewards about the standing. A lot of them have had tickets there for 5+ years and don't see why they should move for the JCL's that have arrived in the last 2 seasons that want to stand. Go to the top of 109 at half time and there is usually a small queue of people moaning about standing to the head steward bloke (big bald fella).cibaman said:Excuse my ignorance but what is the significance, if any, of this happening in Block 109? From where I sit its not a particularly visible part of the ground so I dont know what the make up of the crowd is in there.
Is it customarily all standing, or are there significant numbers that want to sit? The pics give the impression that its all standing but the club said that the stewards were callled following complaints. Why would people complain, or are the club not telling the truth?
My opinion is that there are more wanting to stand than sit and the practical solution is to allow standing and try and move those that want to sit into the spares in 105-107 (if there are any).
What the club really needs to more dialogue and clarity on the matter.
Would that not be under the remit of the chief safety officer
Should the said chief safety officer not make it HIS business to go out among the customers to HIS place of work... so the information he receives from the people he controls & the information he receives from the paying customers HE IS THEIR TO SERVE... makes it a more pleasent experience for both parties .
OSC clubs should start to invite the knut out to meet the fans...
SWP's back said:109 (before mid-way through last season) was a seated block. Some people still wish to sit in there and as such, complain to the stewards about the standing. A lot of them have had tickets there for 5+ years and don't see why they should move for the JCL's that have arrived in the last 2 seasons that want to stand. Go to the top of 109 at half time and there is usually a small queue of people moaning about standing to the head steward bloke (big bald fella).cibaman said:Excuse my ignorance but what is the significance, if any, of this happening in Block 109? From where I sit its not a particularly visible part of the ground so I dont know what the make up of the crowd is in there.
Is it customarily all standing, or are there significant numbers that want to sit? The pics give the impression that its all standing but the club said that the stewards were callled following complaints. Why would people complain, or are the club not telling the truth?
My opinion is that there are more wanting to stand than sit and the practical solution is to allow standing and try and move those that want to sit into the spares in 105-107 (if there are any).
What the club really needs to more dialogue and clarity on the matter.
Wouldn't it be just simpler to move the people that want to sit towards the front of 109 and move the ones that want to stand towards the back? How hard would that be to do?
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 89,066
Longsight-memories said:SWP's back said:109 (before mid-way through last season) was a seated block. Some people still wish to sit in there and as such, complain to the stewards about the standing. A lot of them have had tickets there for 5+ years and don't see why they should move for the JCL's that have arrived in the last 2 seasons that want to stand. Go to the top of 109 at half time and there is usually a small queue of people moaning about standing to the head steward bloke (big bald fella).cibaman said:Excuse my ignorance but what is the significance, if any, of this happening in Block 109? From where I sit its not a particularly visible part of the ground so I dont know what the make up of the crowd is in there.
Is it customarily all standing, or are there significant numbers that want to sit? The pics give the impression that its all standing but the club said that the stewards were callled following complaints. Why would people complain, or are the club not telling the truth?
My opinion is that there are more wanting to stand than sit and the practical solution is to allow standing and try and move those that want to sit into the spares in 105-107 (if there are any).
What the club really needs to more dialogue and clarity on the matter.
Would that not be under the remit of the chief safety officer
Should the said chief safety officer not make it HIS business to go out among the customers to HIS place of work... so the information he receives from the people he controls & the information he receives from the paying customers HE IS THEIR TO SERVE... makes it a more pleasent experience for both parties .
OSC clubs should start to invite the knut out to me the fans...
Absolutely it is his remit. What he is doing is making a situation is more likely to be unsafe for fans in 109 than persistent standing. If the current situation carries on then I can see a mini-riot and someone being seriously hurt.
peoffrey
Well-Known Member
I can't believe the amount of people who are saying Fletcher doesn't even acknowledge an e-mail. Over the years, I've e-mailed City, Tickets, Supporter Services and Retail with a response received within a fair period of time. If Fletcher has too much work then he must be able to employ someone to assist him.
M18CTID
Well-Known Member
Re: Re: Trouble in the East Stand??
My own take on this is that I don't believe the GMP did too much wrong for a change and much of the blame is down to the Showsec stewards being completely incapable of dealing with the incident. The police were requested as back-up after the situation had started to develop and probably arrested the bloke based on information given to them by the stewards. Later it transpired that the stewards had either got it wrong or lied and as such the police decided the bloke hadn't done enough to warrant being nicked and subsequently de-arrested him.
SWP's back said:Look Colin, in the scheme of the thread, it doesn't fucking matter you tiny pedant.Prestwich_Blue said:Wrong. You can be arrested and not charged but that remains on record. So it means police believe an offence has been committed but lack the evidence to press charges.
Being de-arrested means the arrest record is expunged and generally signals the police are satisfied on the basis of subsequent evidence that the original arrest was incorrect and no offence was committed.
According to section 30, subsection (7) and (7A) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, to "de-arrest" is to allow that "a person who has been arrested under any act of law at a place other than a police station, shall be released before reaching a police station if a constable is satisfied that there are no grounds for keeping him under arrest".
Why do you think the police arrested the de-arrested the man? The police state it was due to an ending of the breach of the peace.
Is there anyway your pedantry, whether true or not, changes the fact that the police removed the man to end a breach of the peace?
My own take on this is that I don't believe the GMP did too much wrong for a change and much of the blame is down to the Showsec stewards being completely incapable of dealing with the incident. The police were requested as back-up after the situation had started to develop and probably arrested the bloke based on information given to them by the stewards. Later it transpired that the stewards had either got it wrong or lied and as such the police decided the bloke hadn't done enough to warrant being nicked and subsequently de-arrested him.