Millwall fans apparently attacking members of catering...

[User removed 4]

I'm not on a wind up. You admit to not seeing something, yet know with absolute certainty that this police officer wasn't reacting to it. Even if she was not directly involved in it you don't know a colleague hasn't told her what the spark that you missed was, and whether she was reacting to that.

so you think a colleague may have said to her ( in the five or so seconds it took for the original melee to spill over to everyone else) " It's kicked off over there, make sure you indiscriminately use your pepper spray, to the extent you spray a fellow police officer in the face, we want to wind this mob up " ??

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

I'm concerned that there is an agenda here as a similar thread (and associated threads) were started when Leeds were in Brighton. As I pointed out then and in another Millwall associated thread today, Brighton are in no position to claim moral high grounds. The thread starters should start a thread headed "Brighton violence" as its Brighton that have last week had fans sentenced for up to 3 years for a fight with Spurs fans involving over 100 people. I also would ask if the thread starters have seen brighton play at places like Palace, pompey, Chesterfield, Southend, Oxford, actually the list goes on and on when naming grounds / towns where Brighton have seriously played up. Therefore, why no "brighton violence" thread? I also would ask the moderators whether it is acceptable to start such alarmist, one sided threads about another club.

where do you get this 100 from WCP ?

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

listen you slaaaaaaaaaaaaaaags. 'wall were hurting a bit, there had been an official meet before ko, but only those itk knew about it. Word was aht that arnold the armadillo had a bit of previous dahn here and wanted to settle a score. There were a few private tweets, posts made on certain websites, facebook pictures defaced by moustaches, that meant that the issue had to be put to bed once and for all.

Generals arranged it all, agreed to settle it in the cock inn at wivelsfield, as the ob wouldn't be expecting four transits of bermondsey's finest nutters to meet up with some of the hardest, and i mean fackin hardest, geezers ever to have set foot in bn1.

When they arrived the centre of pub cleared like my bowels after eight pints of lager top and a dodgy doner. The landlord put the lights down, he had been tipped off, any bleating to the authorities, and he could expect a visit from hpac late one night, with very, very nasty consequences.

'wall's top top boy, david 'dave' davidson, who has every jim davidson dvd ever produced, walked up and showed our guv'nor, big vern, how it was going to pan out, no scarfers, no little old ladies, no poofters, no kids were to be involved, just top boys strutting their stuff.

Dave started with a cheeky little salsa in a blue diamante open top shirt and matching brogues, his partner, doris, a one eyed lidl shop assistant from borough market, practically floated over the dancefloor, the only controversial moment was when her glass eye popped out and bounced into steve stinkypants cheeky vimto. They were given a score of 34, to gasps from the assembled masses. The albion fought back, size five had been practicing a cha cha cha all week, and he was not to disappoint. His partner, big sarah, was floating like a post curry turd over the floor, when 'wall played a despicable trick. One of their lads shouted out that terry connor has been appointed as wolves manager, and was coming to the match at the amex to watch lewis dunk. This caused big sarah to lose her balance (but never, of course, her dignity), but the judges marked down the albion team with a disappointing 29.

Could we fight back, had ernest perfected his quickstep enough, was roger the rabbit, who was rumoured to have the most parking tickets in bethnal green, going to impress with his american smooth?

Only those itk know the answers, i'm not grassing, but suffice to say that ernest will never have to buy a drink in west street again.

God bless the queen (and cass pennant)

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Acker79]

so you think a colleague may have said to her ( in the five or so seconds it took for the original melee to spill over to everyone else) " It's kicked off over there, make sure you indiscriminately use your pepper spray, to the extent you spray a fellow police officer in the face, we want to wind this mob up " ??

Or "those guys did X, they're a threat", or even just "spray them" - the person giving that instruction having a reason, based on the event you did not see, for spraying particular people, despite it resulting in some "collateral damage".

They don't necessarily need to have an in-depth dialogue to pass on instructions or information. A lot more can be said in 5 seconds than one would think, especially if they have short hand or key phrases.

 

[In The Rough]

By tasering people? What world do you live in!?

Not on a wind up I assure you.

My point is not that Police should use them. But they should have them as a detterant.

If your at an airport and you see officers with machine guns, you dont mess about.

If the police had a visible detterant ie, tasers, guns with rubber bullets, police dogs etc, then you would stamp out at source behaviour we saw at the amex on tuesday.

I have been following albion home and away for 20 years now and am pleased to see the progress that has been made in this area, but feel adding a few extra visable threats would calm things down.

 

[Acker79]

Not on a wind up I assure you.

My point is not that Police should use them. But they should have them as a detterant.

If your at an airport and you see officers with machine guns, you dont mess about.

If the police had a visible detterant ie, tasers, guns with rubber bullets, police dogs etc, then you would stamp out at source behaviour we saw at the amex on tuesday.

I have been following albion home and away for 20 years now and am pleased to see the progress that has been made in this area, but feel adding a few extra visable threats would calm things down.

If they are not going to use them, they aren't going to be a deterrent.

 

[User removed 4]

Or "those guys did X, they're a threat", or even just "spray them" - the person giving that instruction having a reason, based on the event you did not see, for spraying particular people, despite it resulting in some "collateral damage".

They don't necessarily need to have an in-depth dialogue to pass on instructions or information. A lot more can be said in 5 seconds than one would think, especially if they have short hand or key phrases.

I'll condense things for you, i saw it, i was there you weren't , i could tell instinctively that this woman had nothing to do with the original incident , she panicked , you're talking shit, sorry but thats about the strength of it.

 

[TWOCHOICEStom]

Not on a wind up I assure you.

My point is not that Police should use them. But they should have them as a detterant.

If your at an airport and you see officers with machine guns, you dont mess about.

If the police had a visible detterant ie, tasers, guns with rubber bullets, police dogs etc, then you would stamp out at source behaviour we saw at the amex on tuesday.

I have been following albion home and away for 20 years now and am pleased to see the progress that has been made in this area, but feel adding a few extra visable threats would calm things down.

Sorry, but the atmosphere in an airport cannot be compared with that of a Millwall away day. They would inflame the situation rather than calm it down!

 

[Acker79]

I'll condense things for you, i saw it, i was there you weren't , i could tell instinctively that this woman had nothing to do with the original incident , she panicked , you're talking shit, sorry but thats about the strength of it.

Yes, I'm talking shit, I'm highlighting how illogical it is that you can rule out a link between an incident you saw and one you didn't though both involved a group of people who are in constant communication with each other (i.e. the police). Complete nonsense from me.

 

[rool]

Sorry, but the atmosphere in an airport cannot be compared with that of a Millwall away day. They would inflame the situation rather than calm it down!

Have you seen the dash for seats on a Ryanair plane?

 

[User removed 4]

Yes, I'm talking shit, I'm highlighting how illogical it is that you can rule out a link between an incident you saw and one you didn't though both involved a group of people who are in constant communication with each other (i.e. the police). Complete nonsense from me.

Yes, complete and utter shit, as I've said , I saw the original incident start in my peripheral vision from about 20ft away, but not what started it, this woman was nothing to do with it , spraying people indiscriminately is what she did, because she panicked , even if the original incident had been someone pulling a gun out, her actions in relation to where she was in conjunction with the original incident would have served no purpose , you're completely and utterly wrong .

 

[JCL666]

Sorry, but the atmosphere in an airport cannot be compared with that of a Millwall away day. They would inflame the situation rather than calm it down!

Sorry I'm lost. I thought a toilet had been smashed up, but now it seems a terrorist atrocity involving aircraft is in the making.......

Plus what's all this talk about a "scrum" in the away end? I thought Millwall HATED rugby.

 

[Acker79]

Yes, complete and utter shit, as I've said , I saw the original incident start in my peripheral vision from about 20ft away, but not what started it, this woman was nothing to do with it , spraying people indiscriminately is what she did, because she panicked , even if the original incident had been someone pulling a gun out, her actions in relation to where she was in conjunction with the original incident would have served no purpose , you're completely and utterly wrong .

And in conjunction with what started it? Oh that's right. You didn't see what started it. Nor were you privileged to the communication between the police officers.

I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm saying there is a reason not to take what you've said as gospel (other than your general anti-police position), because you didn't see what started the original incident and you weren't privy to the police's communications. You don't know if there was a threat (in any form) and whether that threat made the "indiscriminate" spraying acceptable in the eyes of the law.

 

[User removed 4]

And in conjunction with what started it? Oh that's right. You didn't see what started it. Nor were you privileged to the communication between the police officers.

I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm saying there is a reason not to take what you've said as gospel (other than your general anti-police position), because you didn't see what started the original incident and you weren't privy to the police's communications. You don't know if there was a threat (in any form) and whether that threat made the "indiscriminate" spraying acceptable in the eyes of the law.

Yes I do( there wasnt one, I was standing there) , that made indiscriminate spraying completely unacceptable.

 

[Acker79]

Yes I do( there wasnt one, I was standing there) , that made indiscriminate spraying completely unacceptable.

But you were standing there looking at the end of an incident without knowing how it related to what sparked the original incident, because you didn't see what sparked the original incident.

Any way. I've said my piece. I've highlighted a possible flaw in your testimony (and concede it is only a possible flaw). Despite not seeing what sparked the original incident and not being privvy to the conversations between police officers, you can continue to deny that there is any possible link between that spark you didn't see and the spraying at the end, if you like. I've made my point, whether you accept it as legitimate or not.

 

[Rugrat]

Is that the end of the thread? What about the heavy armour and airport skirmishes?

 

[Acker79]

Is that the end of the thread? What about the heavy armour and airport skirmishes?

Not if people keep replying.

 

[User removed 4]

But you were standing there looking at the end of an incident without knowing how it related to what sparked the original incident, because you didn't see what sparked the original incident.

Any way. I've said my piece. I've highlighted a possible flaw in your testimony (and concede it is only a possible flaw). Despite not seeing what sparked the original incident and not being privvy to the conversations between police officers, you can continue to deny that there is any possible link between that spark you didn't see and the spraying at the end, if you like. I've made my point, whether you accept it as legitimate or not.

They didnt have time for "conversations" before she started spraying, and as I've already said, I saw the original incident start in my peripheral vision, it wasnt anything serious enough to warrant what happened, the ONLY possible reason you have for continuing to argue the point is a desperation to prove me wrong , personally.

 

[therealdsg]

is it just me, or are all london clubs supported by wankers

This!

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

The Football Supporters Federation have said they are not aware of pepper spray ever being used inside a ground before. This backs up the argument that using such products for crowd control in a busy and enclosed area is a unorthodox not to mention unique approach. I therefore find it very hard to believe the police officer was instructed to use it, and feel she panicked.