...........

Not at all, I'm not saying the article is wrong. At least he's got some examples. I was responding to 'you're all criminals in the eyes of the law'. I know that's a bit tongue in cheek, but my point is that if you don't break the law, you should've have any problems to begin with, and that it's the fault of the people who DO COMMIT THESE OFFENCES that football games have to be policed the way they are in the first place. It's pretty rare that somebody arrested at football match has actually not done something idiotic or been violent, we all know where the line is.

So yes, unfortunately fans are generalised, but when you've got thousands of them, you can't exactly pick and choose who to deal with or know how one person is going to react to a bottle being thrown at them to the next person. You're not going to get the same punishment at court as someone who's been there ten times before.

Although the troublemakers are a minority (we all know we've got a few idiots amongst our lot), they require a type of policing that does unfortunately impact on everyone else. So if you're saying am I ok with being searched, police escorts and being held after games etc, then yes I am ok with it, because it has to be done to prevent trouble. Frustrated also too. But my point was that if you're not looking for trouble and don't act like an idiot, you should be ok. You may be inconvenienced at times, but you're going to see the game and not the back of a meat wagon!

Not sure where your informed opinion stems from, certainly not derived from the many serious 'miscarriages of justice' cases in the UK [Link] Furthermore, many of these 'miscarriages' occurred post introduction of the CPS, so again unsure as to why you are so wedded to the belief in the CPS's ability to screen out fraudulently presented evidence as this is certainly not borne out in the available evidence.

"Deviance is a freedom enjoyed in a city of lightly engaged strangers"

I'm not going to drag this out, it's really going a bit off topic now. I don't feel those 'miscarriages of justice' examples of people being released from prison for those serious crimes before 2000 or whatever (I haven't read it properly to be honest) are really relevant for what I'm referring to.

Because I'm not talking about 'the CPSs ability to screen out fraudulently presented evidence' at all. I was making a quite simple point about the fact that the majority of the time people won't get charged with the offence in the first place unless there's strong evidence to suggest they committed it. Again, by that I mean unless you've been caught red handed, there's clear CCTV, data on your phone, forensics linking you to it, independent witnesses, someone that picks you out on an ID parade etc, then the case PROBABLY won't even get put before the courts because they will have absolutely no chance of proving you did it, because that's what they have to do, not the other way around.

If you have a different experience of that and disagree then that's fine, you're entitled to your opinion of course. But I'm sure you're aware that there's thousands of people who get arrested every year and later released without any charge because that concrete evidence simply isn't there. It's not necessary that they didn't do it, it's just it can't be actually proved that they did. Which brings me back to the very basic point I was trying to make - if you haven't done anything, it's gonna be pretty hard for anyone to prove that you did!

I

I use to hang around with a bloke who had a brother who was really psycho. We couldn't go anywhere without his bruv wanted to fight someone. Anyway, a few years later I was at a Palace match and a copper tapped me on the shoulder. Turning round I realised it was this same bloke. I expresswed surprise that he was in the force (that he'd been admitted) when he told me it was a great job for the bundles. Not a person I'd trust to keep the peace. Quite the opposite in fact!

His name wasn't Simon Harwood was it? A local copper with who had a tendency not to worry if anyone who was innocent or not. So much was not having to worry if you behave yourself & don't break the law. He was the TSG officer who killed Ian Tomlinson the innocent newspaper seller walking home ( [Link] ) There is plenty on the TSG on the internet but there are two examples:

One ex-Metropolitan Police officer suggested that TSG members, "spend (their) days waiting for action, and far too many officers join seeking excitement and physical confrontation." Some officers are ex-military personnel and these are "the worst bullies" as "the laws of the battlefield are not appropriate to the streets of our capital".[10]

In 1997 a man was beaten by officers from the TSG in what was described as an "outrageous display of brutality",[11] which only stopped when the man pretended to be unconscious. The man was charged with assault and threatening behaviour over the incident but was cleared after photographs of his injuries showed the officers had lied about the case under oath. After the man's acquittal the officers went on trial accused of assault in 1999 but were later cleared.[12]

Sure most of the football games go past without incident but there seems to be a growing view of those in power what football supporters can be treated like they are guilty of whatever the police want them to be & will be treated in whatever manner they want without recourse. The point of this thread is just to make everyone aware they need to be careful when dealing with them & not to tolerate abuse of their power, video is an incident occurs, after all the police are 'supposed' to be working for the public (that includes football supporters)...

Not denial, just not loosing sight of the fact that there's always a few idiots a football who in my opinion are the route cause of all these problems for other fans in the first place. I just feel people, not necessarily you, are too quick to make excuses for them and blame others on here when these things get mentioned.

Now the Public Order Act, that's a whole minefield on it's own, what Section would we even start with? I'm sure you could give me examples where people have got things overturned and I could give examples of where people have got away with stuff because no members of the public were present/effected etc. We're just going around in circles now. Perhaps we can just agree to disagree and call it a night!?