The Official Bradford City Match Thread (Sponsored by Discarded Prophylactics "for all your dead rubber needs")

[Buddha]

Give it a rest.

Knowing the lack of resources in the Police and CPS , along with shortage of Court space the decision makes perfect sense, sadly. I can easily picture the person being able to sow sufficient doubt into the minds of a jury. Terrible, I know.

I don't think the public have any idea how close to collapse our legal system is. Frankly, unless they are virtually certain of getting a conviction then it will be NFA (no further action). There isn't the capacity to deal with the cases they'd like to take on.

Stop voting for Austerity will be a good start. Justice costs money.

Why don't you give it a rest and stop making assumptions.

You might think you know that certain posters are anarchists or fascists, and you know what they're thinking, but you seem to be developing a habit of putting words in people's mouths (or at least responding to what you think they mean rather than what they've actually said).

I didn't vote for austerity.

As for justice, I see very little. Freedom without socialism results in privilege and injustice. I see lots of that.

 

[Gills 58]

Why don't you give it a rest and stop making assumptions.

You might think you know that certain posters are anarchists or fascists, and you know what they're thinking, but you seem to be developing a habit of putting words in people's mouths (or at least responding to what you think they mean rather than what they've actually said).

I didn't vote for austerity.

As for justice, I see very little. Freedom without socialism results in privilege and injustice. I see lots of that. Only the first sentence was aimed at you

Only the first sentence was aimed at you.

I was trying to explain why the Police would not have taken it further, even though it was a shocking incident. I resent the assumption that they are "not bothered" blah blah. The vast majority of Police are frustrated at the limitations on their work.

Btw, I accept there are some "wronguns" in the Police too. Sasly, the outcime of this incident is unlikely to be because they were wronguns or not bothered.

Totally agree with your last sentence.

 

[LancsGordoRoad]

Well what happened was they were invited to the next Millwall home game to sit in with the police to scan the crowd. They thought that they spotted the bloke, but the police said to all four of them that they had to be 100% certain that it was the right bloke, if not it wouldn't be worth pressing charges. They weren't all 100% although 2 of them were, so it should have gone ahead but these lads were only 18 years old and not very worldly wise. I was convinced the police intimidated them and couldn't be bothered.

Hi, Davey. I don`t know all the circumstances but, the (initial) course of action by police, ie the subsequent process of attempting ID in a Group identification setting, appears a reasonable response in my view.

I`ll try not to bore you too much; if I might just say that there are literally hundreds of legal pages and rules that govern Identification issues. You mention about being 100% certain that the person spotted was the offender, that`s correct. As, potentially if a witness is unsure and/or identifies the wrong person etc, that doubt will be pushed at trial by the defence who would call the two non-identifiers, generating enough doubt to end a trial. Police can`t "un-know" that half the group couldn`t ID the suspect - they have to tell the defendant.

From what you`ve said, i`d say that police had justified grounds for arresting the person who was 100% identified by two of the witnesses. That would have led to an interview, where the suspect might, or might not have (probably the latter), admitted an offence. An admission at that stage would probably have led to a charge. Of course, a legal advisor, made available to an arrested person prior to interview, would no doubt have explained the many difficult issues with identification and a suspect might well have thought it best to say nothing at all, challenge the matter and see what CPS decided.

If visual identification was the be all and end all in the matter, the fact that two witnesses could not make an identification, could be used to seriously undermine the case.

Carrying out ID procedures is a speciality in the police due to the many complications involved. Judges throw out large numbers of cases due to doubts over identification. As such, i`d guess that someone involved in the (subsequent) formal ID procedure at Millwall`s ground would have overseen the process and would have had experience of previous, similar situations and, in particular, the threshold required to take the matter to CPS with confidence. CPS decide, on the basis of available evidence, whether there will be a prosecution, not police. (CPS threshold for prosecuting seems to have got steeper and steeper in recent years).

Sorry to be long winded, Davey. But respectfully, the fact is that matters like this are inevitably more complicated than the regular person on the street would imagine and the threshold around identification is very high. Some might say too high; some might say not high enough. If you want to delve deeper, the CPS website is the reference point: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/identification#_Toc11076096

I can`t know whether the cops you dealt with could have been more robust in their investigation. If they were lacking in that regard it saddens me that you were let down and i`m disappointed for you and the lads that were attacked. The reality is that Police, like all other professions and public services, are imperfect, make mistakes and make wrong decisions. Some folk rarely come into contact with police, it`s important that cops make that contact count positively.

From personal experience, I do know that the vast majority of cops, despite being occasionally frustrated by a judicial system which a lot of the public see as overly-weighted in favour of offenders, are earnest, honest and resolute enough to keep doing their best to see violent thugs and other criminals brought to justice.

A little by-the-by; quite a long time ago I used to do uniformed police duty at Millwall`s home games. It wasn`t something I particularly looked forward to !

 

[jokerman]

Hi, Davey. I don`t know all the circumstances but, the (initial) course of action by police, ie the subsequent process of attempting ID in a Group identification setting, appears a reasonable response in my view.

I`ll try not to bore you too much; if I might just say that there are literally hundreds of legal pages and rules that govern Identification issues. You mention about being 100% certain that the person spotted was the offender, that`s correct. As, potentially if a witness is unsure and/or identifies the wrong person etc, that doubt will be pushed at trial by the defence who would call the two non-identifiers, generating enough doubt to end a trial. Police can`t "un-know" that half the group couldn`t ID the suspect - they have to tell the defendant.

From what you`ve said, i`d say that police had justified grounds for arresting the person who was 100% identified by two of the witnesses. That would have led to an interview, where the suspect might, or might not have (probably the latter), admitted an offence. An admission at that stage would probably have led to a charge. Of course, a legal advisor, made available to an arrested person prior to interview, would no doubt have explained the many difficult issues with identification and a suspect might well have thought it best to say nothing at all, challenge the matter and see what CPS decided.

If visual identification was the be all and end all in the matter, the fact that two witnesses could not make an identification, could be used to seriously undermine the case.

Carrying out ID procedures is a speciality in the police due to the many complications involved. Judges throw out large numbers of cases due to doubts over identification. As such, i`d guess that someone involved in the (subsequent) formal ID procedure at Millwall`s ground would have overseen the process and would have had experience of previous, similar situations and, in particular, the threshold required to take the matter to CPS with confidence. CPS decide, on the basis of available evidence, whether there will be a prosecution, not police. (CPS threshold for prosecuting seems to have got steeper and steeper in recent years).

Sorry to be long winded, Davey. But respectfully, the fact is that matters like this are inevitably more complicated than the regular person on the street would imagine and the threshold around identification is very high. Some might say too high; some might say not high enough. If you want to delve deeper, the CPS website is the reference point: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/identification#_Toc11076096

I can`t know whether the cops you dealt with could have been more robust in their investigation. If they were lacking in that regard it saddens me that you were let down and i`m disappointed for you and the lads that were attacked. The reality is that Police, like all other professions and public services, are imperfect, make mistakes and make wrong decisions. Some folk rarely come into contact with police, it`s important that cops make that contact count positively.

From personal experience, I do know that the vast majority of cops, despite being occasionally frustrated by a judicial system which a lot of the public see as overly-weighted in favour of offenders, are earnest, honest and resolute enough to keep doing their best to see violent thugs and other criminals brought to justice.

A little by-the-by; quite a long time ago I used to do uniformed police duty at Millwall`s home games. It wasn`t something I particularly looked forward to !

People getting off on an element of doubt sown drives us all nuts, but when you see what people will swear blind that they saw when they didn't, I'm glad it's skewed that way and not the other.

 

[daveycrocket]

Hi, Davey. I don`t know all the circumstances but, the (initial) course of action by police, ie the subsequent process of attempting ID in a Group identification setting, appears a reasonable response in my view.

I`ll try not to bore you too much; if I might just say that there are literally hundreds of legal pages and rules that govern Identification issues. You mention about being 100% certain that the person spotted was the offender, that`s correct. As, potentially if a witness is unsure and/or identifies the wrong person etc, that doubt will be pushed at trial by the defence who would call the two non-identifiers, generating enough doubt to end a trial. Police can`t "un-know" that half the group couldn`t ID the suspect - they have to tell the defendant.

From what you`ve said, i`d say that police had justified grounds for arresting the person who was 100% identified by two of the witnesses. That would have led to an interview, where the suspect might, or might not have (probably the latter), admitted an offence. An admission at that stage would probably have led to a charge. Of course, a legal advisor, made available to an arrested person prior to interview, would no doubt have explained the many difficult issues with identification and a suspect might well have thought it best to say nothing at all, challenge the matter and see what CPS decided.

If visual identification was the be all and end all in the matter, the fact that two witnesses could not make an identification, could be used to seriously undermine the case.

Carrying out ID procedures is a speciality in the police due to the many complications involved. Judges throw out large numbers of cases due to doubts over identification. As such, i`d guess that someone involved in the (subsequent) formal ID procedure at Millwall`s ground would have overseen the process and would have had experience of previous, similar situations and, in particular, the threshold required to take the matter to CPS with confidence. CPS decide, on the basis of available evidence, whether there will be a prosecution, not police. (CPS threshold for prosecuting seems to have got steeper and steeper in recent years).

Sorry to be long winded, Davey. But respectfully, the fact is that matters like this are inevitably more complicated than the regular person on the street would imagine and the threshold around identification is very high. Some might say too high; some might say not high enough. If you want to delve deeper, the CPS website is the reference point: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/identification#_Toc11076096

I can`t know whether the cops you dealt with could have been more robust in their investigation. If they were lacking in that regard it saddens me that you were let down and i`m disappointed for you and the lads that were attacked. The reality is that Police, like all other professions and public services, are imperfect, make mistakes and make wrong decisions. Some folk rarely come into contact with police, it`s important that cops make that contact count positively.

From personal experience, I do know that the vast majority of cops, despite being occasionally frustrated by a judicial system which a lot of the public see as overly-weighted in favour of offenders, are earnest, honest and resolute enough to keep doing their best to see violent thugs and other criminals brought to justice.

A little by-the-by; quite a long time ago I used to do uniformed police duty at Millwall`s home games. It wasn`t something I particularly looked forward to !

Thanks for your very in depth analysis Lancs. My son said at the time that the police were very strict and not friendly at all, as if it was a big inconvenience because they had lots of paperwork and questions to ask the boys. There were also some young Millwall fans who were straining their necks outside to look into the police area to see who was in there, giving the impression that this was a regular occurrence and perhaps the boys might get intimidated on leaving the ground.

These lads were all inexperienced 18 year olds and I think they were a bit baffled by the bulls**t of the occasion plus the potential of some form of intimidation, sadly. My wife banned my son from ever going to Millwall again, although subsequently he did with me and friends on the official coaches.