Anti-sectarian football laws fear as fans complain

[Frankie 8,150]

I think we need to be reminded that the "kettling" was at an illegal march where the participants started acting aggressively. There's even their own phone footage to show this.

 

Stephen House has responded in detail to that incident. I'm stunned the Scotsman didn't refer to it

 

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_JusticeCommittee/Meeting%20Papers/Papers20131105.pdf

[Juancornetto 1]

Stephen House has responded in detail to that incident. I'm stunned the Scotsman didn't refer to it

 

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_JusticeCommittee/Meeting%20Papers/Papers20131105.pdf

 

The Chief Constable's responses make very interesting reading. For me it highlights the scale of the effort that goes in to the yahoos propaganda activities. The only reliable comnentary on the Gallowgate incident and it's hidden away on a Scotgov webiste.

[bluebear54 0]

The Chief Constable's responses make very interesting reading. For me it highlights the scale of the effort that goes in to the yahoos propaganda activities. The only reliable comnentary on the Gallowgate incident and it's hidden away on a Scotgov webiste.

 

It's not hidden away mate.

It's there for all to see. You just need to know how to find it.

You'd better believe that thousands of Yahoos know exactly how to find it.

[andy steel 0]

I would simply make the point that as far as I can see the events in the Gallowgate had little or nothing to do with this Act.

 

Frank Mulholland. And from Stephen House, the Chief Constable:

 

On Thursday 14 March the Green Brigade announced their intention to march from

the Chrystal Bell Public House in the Gallowgate in Glasgow to Celtic Football Club

at Parkhead. The Green Brigade did not have authority to hold a public procession

as required by Section 62 of the Civil Government (Scotland) Act 1982 which

requires the organisers to give at least 28 days’ notice and have approval from the

local authority. Their intention to hold the procession was publicised through a

variety of media over a period of time, however no formal approach by organisers

was made to the police or to the local authority. It was therefore not a lawful

demonstration.

 

The march was publicised as a protest at the number of Celtic football fans who

have been arrested and convicted for a variety of football related offences and are

now subject of football banning orders and who are also banned by the club.

 

At approximately 1pm a number of fans began to congregate in the Gallowgate area

in and around the Chrystal Bell Public House and there was an initial police

deployment of 4 police officers in the area. As information was received that a large

group of people were now gathering, a secondary deployment of 25 officers, who

were on standby for the other policing operations previously highlighted, was moved

to the immediate vicinity and deployed on foot when it became clear that a group

were about to set off as a march.

 

As this stage it became clear that there were between 200-300 demonstrators

intending to march and it was the intention of the senior police officer on the ground

to facilitate this as a peaceful protest and allow the crowd to ‘march’ to Celtic

Football Club, with the condition that the protestors remain on the pavement and

thereby not compromise their own safety or the safety of other road users. Despite J/S4/13/30/3

9

repeated attempts to engage with members of the group, no organisers or leaders

were identified and the officers were confronted with demonstrators who were

actively avoiding negotiations with the police and clearly not responding to any of

their instructions. The conciliatory offer of the police facilitating a peaceful protest

was clearly not being accepted and consequently the demonstrators formed up

across the width of the road, affecting both lanes of traffic, and began to march.

 

The senior police officer on the ground was faced with a very large, non-compliant

crowd, which was intent on disrupting vehicular and pedestrian traffic in the vicinity,

with no means of contacting an organiser or leader to assist in following safety

instructions. When an attempt was made to cordon off the road and prevent any

further progress of the march, the officers were completely engulfed by an angry

mob, many of whom were wearing hoods and had scarves obscuring their faces.

 

Faced with this rapidly evolving situation, the senior police officer on the ground

reasonably believed that the intentions of the group were not peaceful and that a

safe environment could not be created to facilitate a ‘march’. The decision was then

made to rapidly deploy further available resources from the other planned operations

in the city to the Gallowgate in support of his officers who were now clearly being

overwhelmed and being subjected to violent intimidation and aggressive tactics from

the crowd.

 

I fully accept that the crowd contained protestor who would have been intent on

peacefully marching, however there were clearly large numbers of persons within the

crowd who were intent on causing large scale disorder. In order to contain the

situation and prevent further escalation, the tactical use of a box cordon was

employed. This allowed for the movement of the crowd to be brought under control

safely and then for the people within the cordon to be dispersed in fewer, more

manageable numbers. This tactic was successfully deployed and the crowd was

thereafter dispersed.

 

The use of a box cordon is a recognised approved public order tactic. However, as

part of the internal review of this incident the public order element was specifically

reviewed by a senior officer with significant experience in public order policing. This

officer had no prior involvement in this incident. He concluded that the public order

tactic was both proportionate and appropriate in the circumstances, that it was

implemented efficiently and professionally and that it remained in place for no longer

than was reasonably necessary.

 

I can confirm that 13 arrests were made as a direct result of the protest and ‘march’,

resulting in 12 persons being reported to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal

Service (COPFS) and a juvenile offender being reported to the Scottish Children’s

Reporter. The offences libelled all relate to public disorder and include 7 persons

charged with a Breach of the Peach and others changed with assaults on police and

resisting arrest. In addition, enquiries are continuing to identify 7 persons who have

been captures on CCTV committing various public order offences and it is

anticipated that, following identification, they will also be reported to COPFS.

Following this incident, I set up a dedicated team of specialist officers to investigate

all related complaints about the police. As you will be aware we have formal

processes and guidance in place which ensures that all such complaints are

thoroughly investigated and are subject to a high level of scrutiny. Over the past

month a detailed investigation has taken place and all persons who have engaged in J/S4/13/30/3

10

the complaints process have been interviewed and their allegations recorded and

investigated. In addition, all available video and CCTV footage has been reviewed.

 

The majority of complaints that we have received were made by e-mail to the former

Strathclyde Police. Following receipt, the originator of each e-mail was contacted

and asked to provide contact details in order that a member of the enquiry team

could contact them to ascertain the specific nature of their complaint(s), whether they

were a witness to the incident or had viewed footage of the march on social network

sites or other media, and where relevant, to note statements and gather evidence. In

many cases, despite repeated attempts, these potential witnesses have failed, or

refused, to engage with the enquiry team.

 

In total there have been 72 members of the public who have made complaints either

directly to the police or via their MPs, MSPs and Local Councillors in relation to

concerns they have about the policing of this incident. These concerns vary from

complaints about police ‘heavy handedness’ to issues about wasting tax payers’

money. In the very large majority of cases the complaints that have been made are

generic and relate to unspecified allegations of misconduct, against unspecified

officers, mostly referring to video footage seen on television or on social media sites.

Of these, 34 have refused to engage with the police beyond their initial e-mail,

despite a number of attempts to contact them and 5 have withdrawn their complaint.

Of the remaining 33 people who have complained, few were actually present at

incident and correspondence has come from all over Scotland, and as far afield as

the very South of England, and even Cyprus. Many of these people are not making

specific complaints and merely wish to register their disapproval at the alleged

treatment of Celtic fans.

 

Six of the complainers have made specific allegations about the conduct of individual

officers. I do not propose to discuss the details of each allegation but two complaints

were recorded alleging assault by police officers. One of the complainers

subsequently decided to withdraw her complaint and the other allegation has been

fully investigated and a report has been submitted to the Crown Office and

Procurator Fiscal Service. Whilst I am limited to what I can say at this stage, I can

confirm with certainty that no person has alleged that they have been struck with a

police baton. With regard to the 4 other complaints against individual officers, 3

relate to complaints incivility and the other relates to excessive force, which was

made by a member of the public who viewed one of the arrests on the media sit

YouTube.

 

I acknowledge that there has been strong condemnation in certain sections of the

media and the public about what they believe was inappropriate behaviour by my

officers, but I do not accept that this was the case. There have been various persons

alleging that there is video footage of police assaults and ‘heavy handedness’ but the

officers who have investigated these complaints have not found, or had provided to

them, any evidence by video or otherwise of any police misconduct.

 

For clarity, the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 makes specific provision for

processions of this type to ensure that the police and local authorities can prepare

for and facilitate lawful protest, while at the same time ensuring the safety of the

marchers and other members of the public. Regardless of the Green Brigade not

 

After reading that, any sympathetic coverage you see of the GB and their whining can be filed under 'fellow traveller'.

[bluebear54 0]

Agreed Andy. Pretty conclusive evidence from the Police there, and tends to rubbish all the nonsense making agit-prop that emanates from the Yahoos. It won't stop it however.

I noted Frank Mulholland's comment about "identical letters" being received also. It would appear that this has been mainly a GB organised effort (and not well-organised at that.)

[the gunslinger 3,366]

i think we all knew this law would be destroyed the minute it was applied to people singing about the ira.

[bossy 0]

The Groin Birgade and their hangers on and apologists are upset because this law, whether it is right or wrong, actually leveled the playing field. Prior to the law, only Rangers supporters had been targeted for 'offensive behaviour'. Prior to the law only Rangers supporters had been arrested and prosecuted for singing naughty songs. Funnily enough, we never heard any complaints from MSPs about that. Now that they are getting the same treatment that we have been getting for years, their tame poodles at Holyrood are all upset. Cry me a river.

[54andcounting 0]

In total there have been 72 members of the public who have made complaints , mostly referring to video footage seen on television or on social media sites.

 

Of these, 34 have refused to engage with the police beyond their initial e-mail, despite a number of attempts to contact them and 5 have withdrawn their complaint.

Of the remaining 33 people who have complained, few were actually present at the incident and correspondence has come from all over Scotland, and as far afield as the very South of England, and even Cyprus. Many of these people are not making

specific complaints and merely wish to register their disapproval at the alleged treatment of Celtic fans.

 

72 numpties.

[26th of foot 5,830]

Bluebears contribution is most accurate.

 

Let's go back several years and a conference is called by the then new First Minister, Alex Salmond. He leads a minority Government and wants to place building blocks in place to ensure he leads a majority Government after the next election. He nominated Rose Cunningham to take the issue forward, the alarm bells should have begun to ring. Rose liaised with Kenny McAskill, Cabinet Secretary for Justice and the then Solicitor General, Frank Mulholland. Now, with Kenny's own particular problems of being drunk and incapable at both national/Hearts games, and Frank Mulholland's well publicised annual contributions at ra Sellik's AGM; the klaxons were sounding.

 

There's a moratorium until the old firm 'Shame Game'. Another confab, hosted by Salmond, assurances are given and Republican Rose let's the cat out of the bag, "its a particular solution to the specific problem of anti-Catholic sectarianism". In mitigation, the camera team caught Rose leaving Glasgow University after the meeting, it was raining, and Joan McAlpine wasn't there to hold her hand. There you have it, the Focus concept was a tool fashioned for a specific vote catching purpose. The country's finest legal minds warned our current Lord Advocate, Frank Mulholland that the existing Breach of the Peace was perfectly adequate to deal with the problem. Frank decided his place at the Cabinet table was more important than sound application of the law. The sound of sirens are deafening.

 

Where is Rose now? The usual suspects have quietly briefed Salmond and McAskill(probably at a CL match at ra Stydome) and it will conclude with a repeal and the Green Brigade receiving an apology(before the next election). It's been a clusterfcuk of vanities since the very beginning.

[andy steel 0]

The Two Faced Vote Catcher!

 

A new, exciting, Gersnet game for all the family!!

 

No more sitting around on raining afternoons debating whether or not to watch an old Western, pester the old lady or take the dug for a walk. Now you too can enjoy the thrill of political chicanery as you try to solve this fabulous puzzle!!!

 

Position A: Tims are an unwelcome minority in Scotland.

 

Position B: Pandering to Tims is a vote-catcher.

 

Can you, reader, reconcile the two positions? It seems tricky! How does a minority group become the all important voting demographic? Fun Fun Fun!