PCSO cut to lead to more arrests?

Leicestershire County Council is reported to be proposing to cut its funding for PCSOs. Around 20 will be relieved of their duties over the next two years, that's apparently a 6th currently employed.

I heard the story on the local radio, and I also heard the comments of Dr Sarah Hill, who is the deputy leader of the Lib Dem council group. She said:

"They have a valuable role in the community helping the police ... They're around the community more than police officers because they don't change ... and they have links with the people".

She went further on the radio interview, saying that PCSOs don't have warrant cards, and will therefore speak to people before wading in, preventing potentially inflammatory confrontations. Or words to that effect.

Now forgive me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't police officers also speak to ordinary citizens before throwing their weight around, and using their powers of arrest? Just because they have more powers than the ordinary citizen, or a PCSO, it doesn't mean that they are obliged to use them?

Does it?

Unwelcome visitors - Part Two

In the 3rd round of this season's FA Cup, my team, Leicester City, were drawn away to local rivals, Nottingham Forest. 8,000 tickets were sold to Leicester fans, however in the days leading up to the game, we were given some "guidance" on where we could and could not go.

Unofficial reports suggest 9 Leicester fans were arrested during the relevant time for this game; that's around 0.11% of the travelling support. I was not able to find out how many of those 9 fans have been subsequently charged with any offence, as I was told that this information was not available.

We are now preparing for a 5th round tie against Norwich City, with fans from both sides confident of reaching the quarter-finals. Leicester City can have a decent away following, and fans were confident that there would be demand for the full 15% allocation we should have been entitled to, which is around 4,200 tickets.

Norwich City's Safety Advisory Group (SAG) has, after acting on police advice, said that we are only entitled to 2,400 tickets.

The reason for this is that Leicester City fans are seen as "high risk". This is all based on two events that took place in February 2008.

The first took place between Leicester City and Norwich City fans on February 16th 2008, after the Norfolk club had lost 4-0 at the then named Walkers Stadium. The second took place a week later on February 23rd 2008, in Earlsdon, a suburb of Coventry, before Leicester's visit to the Ricoh Arena, a good five or so miles away.

The second incident is pretty damning; it was an organised ruck, involving a very large group of men. 36 were eventually convicted for their part, from both sets of fans; 18 Leicester fans were named and shamed in the local press.

The first is slightly more confusing, however. 11 men were given prison sentences, and a further 3 given suspended sentences. Just 2 of those men were Leicester City fans. The rest were Norwich City supporters.

Anyone convicted of a football-related offence is subject to Football Banning Orders (FBO), which prevents them from being within a prescribed area around a football ground for not just the duration of the game, but for the 2 hours preceding and following the game. Furthermore, they must surrender their passports when designated games are played outside of the UK. There are also restrictions on the use of the rail network, and those under an FBO have to seek permission to travel by train from the British Transport Police. 

All those involved in the incidents the Norfolk Constabulary have raised concerns over have FBOs ranging from 5 to 10 years. If any were to turn up to the game, they would be committing a further offence.

Aside from the fact that these incidents happened 4 years ago, if the Norfolk Constabulary have concerns with regards to the safety of law-abiding fans who want to watch the game in peace, then will the Norwich City fans also be subjected to a reduced ticket allocation for this cup tie? After all, their fans are just as, if not more, complicit in any trouble that took place between the two sets of fans.

Or will Norwich fans be sitting in the seats that really should have been allocated to the visitors, whose fans are capable of travelling in large numbers and behaving properly?

Watching football is not a crime, yet the law-abiding majority of fans are still being made to suffer because of a minority who are intent on causing trouble.

Aylestone Meadows - "best and most extensive area of wildlife in Leicester"

Last year, some members of Leicester City Council wanted to build football pitches on part of Aylestone Meadows.

Thankfully, for the residents and visitors to the park, the Planning Department had more sense, and the application was rejected. The pitches will now be built on an old, disused school in the area, a site touted by those opposed to the plans as the most sensible option.

Today, it has been reported in the Leicester Mercury that Aylestone Meadows is home to over 600 species of flora and fauna, including a rare tree, the only one of its kind reported in the world.

It would have been a tragedy to have lost any of these, especially at a site so close to a city centre. It also reinforces, to those few who were ever in doubt, that the right decision was made.

One of the worst arguments against reintroducing standing

In England and Welsh football grounds is that it will see the return of hooliganism.

The latest figures since records relating to arrests at football matches show a decrease not only in those arrested on suspicion of committing an offence, but also in the number of fans currently subject to a Football Banning Order.

The suggestion that standing will automatically lead to an increase in trouble is based on the perception of football around thirty years ago. Since then, the demographic of the fan has changed. Clubs have focused on attracting more affluent (safer?) fans to games. There are more middle-classed families attending matches. There are more women at games. The corporate side of football is seen as a priority at some clubs. There are more people attending matches now than there were in the Eighties, and yet trouble at games is decreasing.

At present, teams in the top two divisions are meant to have all-seater stadia. In the Championship during the period November 2010 - November 2011, two clubs had terracing; Scunthorpe and Peterborough United. Compared with other teams in the Championship, there were fewer arrests at their grounds than at those clubs with all-seater stadia.

Further, arrests in League One and League Two are lower still, where more clubs still have terracing.

On top of that, surveillance at grounds is far superior to the methods at the disposal of the police and clubs thirty years ago. At an induction at the then named Walkers Stadium back in 2002, I was told by a very proud Head of Security that the CCTV cameras could focus in on a spot on a suspect's face, so it would be reasonable to assume that the identification of any troublemaker would be relatively simple, should any trouble ensue in a safe-standing area.

To suggest that I, or my fellow like-minded fans, are potential hooligans is not only factually incorrect, but quite frankly insulting. Watching football is not a crime, even if it is done so from a standing position, and not from a plastic seat.

The dangers of misinformation

Last year, I wrote about a story that had been reported in two different ways; there was a local newspaper story, which was followed up two weeks later by some of the more right-wing nationals. Needless to say there were disparities between the earlier publication and the versions reported later, which I highlighted in my blog post.

I'm not the only person who picked up upon the discrepancies, however the EDL held a short protest last week, and now plans a march in Leicester on 4th February, where the attack on Rhea Page took place.

The Leicester Mercury has sought to clarify things, basically confirming what people like myself have commented upon regarding the sentencing of the attackers, and the fact that these women were never charged with a racially aggravated offence. However, it would appear that this will not deter the EDL from their agenda of trying to cause a rift in a city that is proud of its multicultural heritage.

I can only hope that the EDL will find themselves just as unwelcome as they were the last time that they visited my home city.

Unwelcome visitors

Tomorrow, I'll be going to watch a football match. Along with many thousands of others up and down the country. My team, Leicester City, have a game against Nottingham Forest in the FA Cup, a match that has excited one set of supporters more than the other (or so they would have us believe). 

However, I have been "asked" by Nottinghamshire Police to get to the ground early, because they have told the pubs in the area not to admit me, or my husband, or my friends, or any other Leicester City fan, for that matter.

Just in case we haven't seen the message from the Constabulary, our local paper has published a polite reminder for us to behave ourselves. Despite Supt Mark Holland's belief that 8,000 travelling supporters won't "increase the risk of disorder", he's still deploying extra officers for this fixture. I'm pretty sure the fans travelling by train will be "politely dissuaded" from going into the city centre to enjoy Nottingham's fine pubs, cafes, and restaurants before the game. The reports also suggest that we'll be "asked" to leave the city as soon as possible after the game too.

Sadly, as a naive youngster, I have been subjected to the Nottingham Police's "friendly welcome"; in 1994, I arrived by train and was held at the station in an enclosure with my fellow fans for over an hour, with no access to toilet facilities, let alone food or drink, even of the non-alcoholic kind. We were then escorted to the City Ground; the numbers were so huge that it was difficult to stay on the pavements, and I was threatened with arrest for being accidentally pushed onto the road. Luckily, the brave constable didn't lay a finger on me, unlike one poor man who was thrown up against the wall for "looking funny".

I've never had to go through this kind of experience when travelling to a game in Nottingham since that day, but the fear that it could happen again worries me. For this reason, I travel early, and without "colours"; items that identify me as a Leicester fan. I feel like I am an on an undercover mission. A young(ish) woman out for a day's shopping. I understand, having spoken to friends, that escorts do take place with later arrivals, but so far I have avoided them.

Now don't get me wrong; I've seen stuff on social networking sites and forums suggesting that the "boys" are fancying a kickabout of their own variety. But if I've seen this stuff, surely the police officers assigned to specifically dealing with football hooliganism have also seen it. They must know who these guys are. Why not spend the time and resources in dealing with the problem itself, rather than taking a "pro-active" approach that impinges on the civil liberties of law-abiding football fans, who are in the huge majority.

Whilst football fans are portrayed as violent, drunken thugs, latest figures from the Home Office show that arrests at football matches are the lowest since records began in 1983. Football Banning Orders are lower, and the majority of those whose bans have expired have been deemed no longer a threat to the public. 0.01% of fans who attend football matches are arrested at games. Over 70% of matches have no arrests at all, and over half of games had no policing at all.

In the year from November 2010 to November 2011, 17 Leicester City fans were arrested at the club's 23 league away games. This would include the games against Forest on 20th August 2011, and 22nd April 2011. Similarly, just 11 Forest fans were arrested at their 23 home games. That's less than one fan per side arrested at any one game. What the statistics don't show is how many of those arrests result in a conviction.

Overall, more fans are arrested for public order or alcohol related offences. Most arrests of City and Forest fans have been for the former. Again, nothing is said, but it is likely alcohol is a factor with the public order offences.

The suggestion is that this is not orchestrated violence either. These are not the hooligans we know from days of old, but people who drink too much and consequently behave in an unacceptable way.

It would be interesting to see how the football arrests compare with arrests made in town and city centres at the weekend, where people go out, get drunk, and get into fights, or behave in antisocial ways. I wouldn't be surprised if the numbers arrested were proportionately higher for night-time revellers in Leicester on a Friday or Saturday than at the King Power Stadium, yet we don't see the police threatening to restrain the civil liberties of those out for a "good time" to prevent any potential disorder.

Watching football is not a crime. The vast majority of those who do are well-behaved, law-abiding citizens who want to follow their respective teams, and enjoy the company of their friends and fellow supporters. Shouldn't we be allowed that freedom, whilst the powers that be concentrate on the less than 0.01% intent on causing trouble?

So I offer my sincere apologies now to Supt Mark Holland. Thank you for your words of advice, but me and the hubby will spend our pre-match in the city centre, where we can get a coffee, maybe a nice lunch somewhere, and to see what's left in the sales. If that's a crime, then that's where you'll find me.

The Footballer and the Social Network Site

A Championship footballer with a Twitter account decided this morning to offer his followers a brief Q & A session before heading off to training.

I don't mean to be disingenuous, but I am pretty certain that this player honestly believed that he would be asked questions like "who snores the loudest on away trips" or "what is your favourite flavour Monster Munch". Despite this player's performances being under par, in spite of his recent spate of goals, in an average Championship side, I would happily wager that he did not expect questions relating to his form, the form of his team-mates, and further, that of his team.

Which is a pity, because those are the kinds of questions that he did get; some from genuinely concerned supporters, some maybe tinged with sarcasm. Needless to say, those questions went unanswered, and in fact, were retweeted, probably under some misguided notion that the player felt "picked on".

Footballers are not like us ordinary folk. They lead sheltered lives, to an extent, and then use their status to live the kind of lives us mere mortals can dream of. Footballers of even a modest level can hide behind their clubs, their agents, and various PR people. Social networking can seem, to players and fans alike, a great way of engaging with each other, but it is also presents potential problems. Time and time again, some footballers have shown that despite all of their training and advice, they are not able to engage constructively with members of the public.

If this player did not want to answer questions relating to his and his club's on-field performances, he could have avoided it by adding a simple caveat to his initial invitation.

If he had inadvertently omitted to do this, he could have tweeted after receiving awkward questions, that he could not, or was not able to discuss these matters.

However, by retweeting those questions without a reply, he has made himself out to be a victim, whether intentionally or not, and set genuinely concerned fans, who will be with his club long after he has left, up to be abused.

Not a great way of dealing with fans who are already struggling to justify his inclusion in their team's line-up.