Police Presence

[ThreeSixes]

They are probably watching you right now

Hope not, I'm having a shit

 

[SE1_Gills]

Here we go

 

[Trashbat]

Bhudda - do you think Scally has the rozzers in his pocket such that he can get them to intimidate a certain section of fans? Sounds a little ludicrous to me.

 

[shotshy]

Irrelevant to the point I'm making.

I've noticed that with you, shotty. Sometimes when I offer a counter argument to yours you ignore the points I've made and instead respond with a glib or jocular remark.

How about telling me if you think that the surveillance of John Catt was:

a) comparable of that with Anjam Choudary?

and

b) legitimate?

The surveillance of anyone is legitimate if the security services suspect a potential threat.
Otherwise we’d have anarchy.

 

[jogills]

I'm not a fan of over enthusisastic policing at football mmatches but we have to admit that some fans, by their behaviour, encourage the public to support that. I admit my first reaction to the police deployment was "that's a bit excessive" but I wasn't aware of all the background and things were certainly degenerating into disorder that might have challenged the stewards.

I defer to Nobby's knowledge regarding the hows, whys and wherefores and there is no way Scally could have deployed the police like a private force. I also remembered the Lincoln shennanigans, which will have placed us in the firing line for punishment for any future offences. The protesters certainly intended to carry on escalating until they were ejected, some left early in the game, others goaded nearby fans inviting trouble.

I support some of Buddha's arguments in principle but in practice this was not an example of heavy handed policing and none of his points really apply in this case. The protests had distracted from the game (legitimate) but were moving into outright disruption (illegitimate).

What a cracking game.

 

[Trashbat]

No. That's not what I am suggesting.

Read my posts, Trashy.

I'm not really talking about yesterday, although I am very much interested in what happened and why.

Rather I am talking about how the police FIT and EGT teams often film and intimidate law abiding protesters. My point is that simply because the police were filming does not mean one can assume that those being filmed were suspected of having committed or being about to commit a crime or crimes.

As I've clearly demonstrated, filming of protesters is often used as a tactic to disrupt or stop legitimate protest.

Understood.

In fairness to the ScallyOut crowd, in the few games that I have been to (mostly away from home) I’ve not witnessed any illegal behaviour at games. They are just fucking annoying idiots who are ruining the match day experience for the majority.

I presume that there must have been some intelligence that police picked up on to justify a heavier presence on Saturday.

 

[Gills 58]

The bellend who was giving the finger to our own fans was one of the group that ruined my away trip to Wimbledon. Persistent ludicrous swearing in the one and only pub we could get in and then he and his mates set off the fire alarm "for fun" I assume. Pub visit wrecked. Then continued to be a bore in the ground. His mate tried to get on the pitch to attack the Cheltenham goalie for saving a penalty in the Carabau Cup.

These people are bullies and don't give a sh#t about their fellow Gills fans.

I'm disappointed that the Police haven't sorted them out before. Frankly, I think they've been useless in the past.

Re the filming. Good. Buddha, you are simply wrong about this issue (fair enough about dodgy surveillance in other areas of life, particularly in years gone by).

I'd love to see these tossers banned.

I'm reluctant to go to away games as I can't get away from them.

As for their freedom of expression? Yes, freedom to wreck other people's day out.
Fortunately my son is an adult but if he was little I wouldn't attend away games. When I think of the great away trips we had when he was young, this is really sad.

The more this goes on, the more I find myself sympathising with Scally.

If we let these morons win then we are empowering them. If Scally is forced out, the minute a new owner is not doing well, they will be at it again.

I'd be delighted if they were banned and many of us know exactly who they are.

Rant over

 

[Gills 58]

Just realised that my link to Bindmans re John Catt isn't working.

So here's the text instead:

19 FEBRUARY 2019
Catt v UK – A peaceful activist’s victory over unwarranted police surveillance
1. The European Court of Human Rights’ decision in Catt represents an important statement of the law in relation to the right to protest when a protester has been labelled as a “domestic extremist” and it determines what is lawful in terms of the storage and retention of an individual’s data, when that data has been obtained by overt surveillance. Mr Catt has been through the mill to get there though: he lost in the High Court, won in the Court of Appeal, lost in the Supreme Court and won in the European Court in a chamber judgment.

The Background Facts
2. John Catt is now aged 94 and lives in Brighton. He has been active in the peace movement since 1948 and has been a regular attendee at public demonstrations. Since 2005 Mr Catt has participated in demonstrations organised by ‘Smash EDO’, whose object was to close down the activities in the United Kingdom of EDO MBM Technology Ltd, a United States owned company which manufactured weapons and weapon components at a factory in Brighton. Serious disorder and criminality were features of a number of Smash EDO protests and the protests attracted a substantial policing presence.

3. Mr Catt was arrested twice at demonstrations for obstructing the public highway but had never been convicted of any offence. In March 2010, Mr Catt made a subject access request to the police under section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998 for information held about him. Sixty-six entries were disclosed which incidentally mentioned him, concerning incidents between March 2005 and October 2009. Those records were held on a police database known as the “Extremism Database”, the responsibility of the National Public Order Intelligence Unit of the police (NPOIU).

4. Most of the records related to demonstrations at the office of EDO, but thirteen entries related to other demonstrations, including those at a Trades Union Congress Conference and a Labour Party Conference, a pro-Gaza demonstration and at a demonstration against “New Labour”. Mr Catt asked the Association of Chief Police Officers (“ACPO”) to delete entries from nominal records and information reports which mentioned him. ACPO declined to do so, without giving reasons. On 17 November 2010, Mr Catt issued proceedings against ACPO for judicial review of the refusal to delete the data arguing that retention of his data was not “necessary” within the meaning of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention.

5. On 30 May 2012, the High Court held that Article 8 was not engaged in the case and that, even if it were, the interference was justified under Article 8 § 2. Mr Catt appealed.

6. The Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the appeal in a judgment of 14 March 2014, finding that the inclusion of Mr Catt’s personal data in the database constituted an interference with his Article 8 rights which was not justified. Art 8 was engaged as there was systematic collection, processing and retention on a searchable database of personal information. The information was of a routine kind, but retention nonetheless involved an interference with the right to respect for private life. Such retention can be justified by showing that it serves the public interest in a sufficiently important way, but in this case the respondent had not shown that the value of the information was sufficient to justify its continued retention.

7 Supreme Court upheld the appeal in a judgment dated 4 March 2015 by a majority of four justices to one, Lord Toulson dissenting. All five justices agreed that Article 8 was engaged and that retention of the data amounted to an interference with Mr Catt’s rights under Article 8. The majority concluded that the interference was in accordance with the law. Any person who thought that the police held personal information about him/her could seek access to it under section 7 of the DPA, if s/he objected to its retention or use and could bring the matter before the Information Commissioner. Lord Sumption, giving the lead judgment, said the invasion of privacy involved in the retention of information of this kind was ‘minor’. Retention of the personal data of someone who has a clean record and for whom violent criminality must be a very remote prospect can be justified for any of three reasons: (1) to enable the police to make a more informed assessment of risks and threats to public order; (2) to investigate criminal offences where there have been any, and to identify potential witnesses and victims; (3) to study the leadership, organisation, tactics and methods of protest groups which have been persistently associated with violence. In conclusion, Lord Sumption was of the view that sufficient safeguards existed to ensure that personal information was not retained for longer than required for the purpose of maintaining public order and preventing or detecting crime, and that disclosure to third parties was properly restricted.

8. Lord Toulson, dissenting, considered that retention of the data was disproportionate and the Defendant did not explain why it was thought necessary and proportionate to keep details of Mr Catt’s attendance at other political protest events such as those at the Labour Party and TUC Conferences. Lord Toulson could not see what value the police had identified by keeping indefinitely a record of Mr Catt’s attendances at events where he had done no more than exercise his democratic right of peaceful protest.

The decision of the European Court
9. The ECtHR said it had concerns about the ambiguity of the legal basis for the collection of Mr Catt’s personal data and the fact that the data could potentially be retained on an indefinite basis. The ECtHR considered that the variety of definitions of the term ‘domestic extremism’ gave rise to ‘significant ambiguity over the criteria being used by the police to govern the collection of the data. The Court expressed concern at the lack of a clear and coherent legal basis for the collection and storage of the data. The Court noted the loosely defined notion of ‘domestic extremism’ and the fact that Mr Catt’s data could potentially be retained indefinitely. However, the court acknowledged that the data would not be disclosed to third parties and the applicant had the possibility to apply for deletion of his data - though this safeguard was inadequate in the circumstances.

10. The Court went on to find that personal data revealing political opinion falls among the special categories of sensitive data attracting a heightened level of protection. As to whether there was a pressing social need to collect the applicant’s personal data, the court accepted that the police had an obvious role to monitor protests where the activities of the group were known to be violent and potentially criminal; the data was overtly obtained. As to Mr Catt’s data in particular concerning peaceful protest it had been shown neither that its retention was absolutely necessary nor that deletion of the data would be over-burdensome.

Conclusion
11. The decision of the Supreme Court judgment appeared to grant extensive discretion to the police in the operation of police databases in the collection of intelligence related to ‘domestic extremism’ or other protest activity. It had been seen as giving judicial approval for the mass surveillance of UK political activism.

12. The ECtHR judgment clarifies that the legal framework provided by the Data Protection Act 1998 with the accompanying Guidance (which the Supreme Court considered was sufficient to meet the requirements of being in accordance with the law) was not adequate to protect the citizen.

13. For political activists and NGOs campaigning against unwarranted data retention and surveillance, the Catt case will be seen as a resounding victory. For the police and ACPO it is the cue for a review of their systems for retention and deletion of records where there is no connection between the individual and any criminal activity.

Yawn. You are way off the mark re yesterday. Save the general comments about surveillance for a Non Gills thread. You've hijacked this thread.

 

[LockdownLife]

The bellend who was giving the finger to our own fans was one of the group that ruined my away trip to Wimbledon. Persistent ludicrous swearing in the one and only pub we could get in and then he and his mates set off the fire alarm "for fun" I assume. Pub visit wrecked. Then continued to be a bore in the ground. His mate tried to get on the pitch to attack the Cheltenham goalie for saving a penalty in the Carabau Cup.

These people are bullies and don't give a sh#t about their fellow Gills fans.

I'm disappointed that the Police haven't sorted them out before. Frankly, I think they've been useless in the past.

Re the filming. Good. Buddha, you are simply wrong about this issue (fair enough about dodgy surveillance in other areas of life, particularly in years gone by).

I'd love to see these tossers banned.

I'm reluctant to go to away games as I can't get away from them.

As for their freedom of expression? Yes, freedom to wreck other people's day out.
Fortunately my son is an adult but if he was little I wouldn't attend away games. When I think of the great away trips we had when he was young, this is really sad.

The more this goes on, the more I find myself sympathising with Scally.

If we let these morons win then we are empowering them. If Scally is forced out, the minute a new owner is not doing well, they will be at it again.

I'd be delighted if they were banned and many of us know exactly who they are.

Rant over

Well said 58.

I really can't be arsed to go to games whilst they're there. Totally ruined everything about Gills.

I'd pay to give them discounted tickets to sit in the BMS and get away from everyone. Or if they could just go set up their own club like they say they would if we folded then that'd be even better.

Everyone has a right to their opinion but there is a time, place and method - which I believe they have got all 3 wrong.

 

[Tarian]

The protests had distracted from the game (legitimate) but were moving into outright disruption (illegitimate).

What evidence do you have for saying:
"The protests were moving into outright disruption (illegitimate)"
I was outside the Factory door when the first 2 police arrived then 3 or 4 more - then 8 or so - and another 8 - then finally another dozen.
Nearly 20 inside and another 20+ outside.

I speculated that a problem arose between "Outers" versus "Inners" - but it was just that - speculation.

More importantly, whatever the police were doing inside.....
...it didn't appear to stop some drinkers from carrying on talking to each other - without a glance over their shoulders.

So I also "speculate" that the police presence was OTT.

If you mean the gathering of stewards in the RE - with police down the front....
How "outright" was the disruption that prompted that ?
Whatever it was, it was over in seconds.

What a cracking game.

Agreed.

 

[Tarian]

These people are bullies and don't give a sh#t about their fellow Gills fans.

I'm disappointed that the Police haven't sorted them out before. Frankly, I think they've been useless in the past.

Re the filming. Good. Buddha, you are simply wrong about this issue (fair enough about dodgy surveillance in other areas of life, particularly in years gone by).

I'd love to see these tossers banned.

I'm reluctant to go to away games as I can't get away from them.

As for their freedom of expression? Yes, freedom to wreck other people's day out.
Fortunately my son is an adult but if he was little I wouldn't attend away games. When I think of the great away trips we had when he was young, this is really sad.

Cancel Culture is alive and well.
(and from the usual suspects who would have us believe that they are "liberal" and "progressive")

Don't just disagree with your opponents message, "ban" them ?
If you disagree with them they must be "morons".

The more this goes on, the more I find myself sympathising with Scally.

If we let these morons win then we are empowering them. If Scally is forced out, the minute a new owner is not doing well, they will be at it again.

I'd be delighted if they were banned and many of us know exactly who they are.

Rant over

For the record, I would much rather "Scally Out" was not shouted during the game. The players should be left out of it.

The more this ("Scally outers are morons") goes on, the more I find myself sympathising with the Scally Outers.

 

[Therealwaldo]

Yesterday felt like a bit of a turning point. This was the first time that the majority who disagree with the Scally Out mob found a bit of a voice. There were even callers to Radio Kent saying perhaps there should be a Scally In campaign. At the very least it seemed to demonstrate that there is not the overwhelming call for change that the Scally Outers seem to think exists.

 

[Tarian]

Maybe the people singing the ScallyOut chants happen to also be troublemaker with intentions of breaking the law.

By way of example, I saw one of the ScallyOut crowd at Wycombe who had blood coming from his mouth... ...clearly been in some kind of fight.

Is this the same mind-reading that justifies so-called "hate crime" ?

 

[Jerryattrick]

The surveillance of anyone is legitimate if the security services suspect a potential threat.
Otherwise we’d have anarchy.

Or a totalitarian state!

 

[ThreeSixes]

Is this the same mind-reading that justifies so-called "hate crime" ?

Sounds a bit Minority Report to me.

 

[Tarian]

Don't we pay for policing inside the stadium? Maybe the Scally Out brigade could pay for them as I can only assume the Police were there to deal with any potential clashes between them and those who disagree with their methods.

Why should the "Outers" pay for the police - if "potential clashes" arise from those who "disagree with their methods" ?

 

[Jerryattrick]

Yesterday felt like a bit of a turning point. This was the first time that the majority who disagree with the Scally Out mob found a bit of a voice. There were even callers to Radio Kent saying perhaps there should be a Scally In campaign. At the very least it seemed to demonstrate that there is not the overwhelming call for change that the Scally Outers seem to think exists.

I think this has maybe little to do with an opinion on scally in or out.

Seems more a general view that not supporting the team during the game and in fact making a negative/toxic experience for players and fellow fans is unacceptable.

 

[Tarian]

C’mon Buddha. It was a bunch of people walk into a Gills bar and start singing anti Scally songs. What’s the likely outcome? Pretty much the same as if a bunch of Sunderland fans walked in there singing Sunderland songs.

If the police were there to stop trouble. Job done.

Over on Twitterbook it seems a lot of folk are moving firmly against the minority that are trying to cause disruption. A lot of posts and threads started trying to blame Scally for it all. And most replies seem to be of the “great! Get rid of the idiots” sort of variety rather than blaming him or the club. Dunno about the discussion forum tho. Sticking out of there.

And quite a few fans with kids seem really annoyed at the “Scally out” mob for trying to ruin a good day out. Although that’s probably what they are after.

"anti-Scally songs" versus, "Sunderland songs" ???
Surely some conflation and assumptions there - about the likely reaction of Scally Inners ?
(Imagine if some people came in singing anti-Conservative songs ....)

Is it suggested that the police are right to expect Scally Inners, to react violently ?

 

[Trashbat]

The bellend who was giving the finger to our own fans was one of the group that ruined my away trip to Wimbledon. Persistent ludicrous swearing in the one and only pub we could get in and then he and his mates set off the fire alarm "for fun" I assume. Pub visit wrecked. Then continued to be a bore in the ground. His mate tried to get on the pitch to attack the Cheltenham goalie for saving a penalty in the Carabau Cup.

These people are bullies and don't give a sh#t about their fellow Gills fans.

I'm disappointed that the Police haven't sorted them out before. Frankly, I think they've been useless in the past.

Re the filming. Good. Buddha, you are simply wrong about this issue (fair enough about dodgy surveillance in other areas of life, particularly in years gone by).

I'd love to see these tossers banned.

I'm reluctant to go to away games as I can't get away from them.

As for their freedom of expression? Yes, freedom to wreck other people's day out.
Fortunately my son is an adult but if he was little I wouldn't attend away games. When I think of the great away trips we had when he was young, this is really sad.

The more this goes on, the more I find myself sympathising with Scally.

If we let these morons win then we are empowering them. If Scally is forced out, the minute a new owner is not doing well, they will be at it again.

I'd be delighted if they were banned and many of us know exactly who they are.

Rant over

I do have young children and, being an exile, I only manage to get to away games where there are a disproportionate number of ScallyOut twats.

It does ruin the atmosphere and I regularly have to tell my son that he shouldn’t repeat the behaviour that he sees from them.

 

[Tarian]

It would seem that we are in agreement, Tarian.

I know. I "liked" your 3 point post above.

How should we mark this momentous occasion?!

Let's keep the addressing the points not the person.