Unwelcome visitors - Part three

So it continues...

We were given no warning, although past experience, where Barry Fry said us Leicester City fans had a "reputation", leading to an early kick off, the group I travelled with decided to get in Peterborough early for Saturday's game. As an added bonus, it enabled us to get cheaper train tickets. Bonus.

We left Leicester station at 8.15am; there was one officer from the BTP monitoring things, but very few football fans about. The train trip was quiet, reflecting the fact most fans would prefer a lie in, and take a later train.

Arriving into Peterborough almost an hour later, we were greeted by a line of Cambridgeshire Constabulary's finest, barking "Are you Leicester fans?" at almost every person alighting the train. Anyone who is a regular traveller would know that the idea would be to direct the travelling football fans to one pub, which would end up being overcrowded and noisy. There would also be a possibility that once in, we would not be able to leave the premises until the police told us to, which would be at a time of their choosing.

As far as we were concerned, we didn't want to be shoehorned into a pub we didn't want to go to, especially seeing as one of our group was a Peterborough fan!

We ignored the questions, and left the station. All we wanted to do was to have some breakfast, and then a few quiet drinks in the pub of our choosing, and there was nothing to say that we could not do this.

We arrived at the pub of choice; there was nobody on the door, and no signs outside advising us that access would be restricted to one set of supporters or the other. We went to the bar, ordered our breakfasts, and drinks, and took our seats. The staff didn't seem concerned by our presence, and didn't ask us if we were there for the football, or indeed, which team we supported.

It wasn't long after we'd sat down that two police constables came over, and asked if we were Leicester fans, as one of the group was wearing a University of Leicester hoodie. The officers were told that most of us were, but we were with a Peterborough fan. This was when we were told that we were in the designated home fans pub. I explained that it was news to us. The officers accepted our explanation that we were a mixed group of fans, and advised us that we may have to move later if our presence was causing a breach of the peace. Apart from the hoodie, there was no indication that any of us were from Leicester, so we decided to stay.

However, we were quickly approached by a sergeant, who told us that we would have to leave the pub. We were Leicester fans, and we weren't allowed in. He would not accept any explanation that this information had not being communicated to any fans, neither would he accept that we were law abiding citizens, or that we were with a friend who, according to the sergeant, was allowed in the pub. He didn't actually address me, just the male members of the group; I don't know whether to be relieved or insulted!

I tried to explain to the sergeant that we had ordered food and drink, and that given that it was 9.30am, and the pub was largely empty, we should be given the chance to consume our breakfasts, after all, there was no breach of the peace, no breach of the peace was imminent, and that it was private property, and the pub manager had not asked us to leave.

This seemed to annoy the sergeant, because he had no answer to this. He threw me a dirty look, and said "I'm not happy with this, I'm going to have to call this one in". He left with his phone to his ear.

We didn't seem him again until after our breakfasts had arrived. This time, he turned up with Leicestershire police's football liaison team. These guys travel to every away game, and are a good point of contact if we are having problems with other fans, stewards, or even police officers. They also help to advise the local police teams on the supporters at the games. I am also lucky to know some of them from my role on the Fans Consultative Committee.

So it was the icing on the cake when he came over, not to tell us to leave, but to have a bit of chat about my choice of brekkie! This was after they had been told that there had been no problems in the pub, or with any patrons.

We stayed in the pub until we left for the game, shortly after 2pm. We saw other Leicester fans in there. Amazingly (roll eyes), there was no trouble, or aggravation. Everyone seemed to be having a quiet drink. We did notice that there were fewer people in there than in previous seasons. Outside, it looked as though there were more police officers in the street than was necessary, and several vans parked up and down the street. It seemed like complete overkill when there was nobody causing any trouble anywhere. 

No doubt the constabulary will argue that their presence was responsible for this, however, I would like to put my faith in the ability of the majority of fans to behave themselves. We have taken over 8,000 fans to Nottingham this year, with fewer than 0.1% of fans arrested on the day. We went to Norwich, after being branded "high risk", and there was no trouble. There was no reason to turn Peterborough town centre into a mini-police state, where law abiding citizens are told where they can or cannot go.

Further, splitting fans into designated pubs encourages divisiveness. Yes, there are a minority of fans who want to cause trouble, but I suspect these are the sort of people who would be spoiling for a fight even if football didn't exist. Football clubs talk about encouraging families, or minorities to their stadia, but how can people feel safe when some city and town centres are overrun with police? Does this not say that hooliganism is still a huge problem, when the opposite is true?

I dream of a day when I can go where I want, when I want, even if I follow a football club.

London Road, Peterborough
Taken with a steady hand, despite alcohol consumption

Confession time,,,

I hate to have to admit this, but my car is not fitted with Telepathy. It wasn't even an optional extra.

This may cause problems, but being the resourceful chappess that I am, I have resorted to using those little orange, flashy lights to inform other road users of my intentions. You know the ones; the ones that you use to say sorry, or thanks, depending on whether you're cutting someone up, or being allowed to aggressively push in. That's them, the same ones that also allow people to park up in the most stupidest of places to save walking too far from the cash machine, or with the bottle of Chateauneuf du Pape.

Sadly, other road users don't seem to have twigged. Like the woman from down the road, who didn't seem to think that sticking on the left sided flashing light, and pulling into the side of the road meant anything. Even when I stuck the car in reverse, she still didn't twig that I wanted to reverse onto my drive. The lack of Telepathy clearly hindered her progress home, as I was unable to communicate my intentions to her. I was not able to make my manoeuvre, and allow her on her way, seeing as she was practically sitting on the back of my inadequate motor. I can only apologise to her. Well, I could, but it's not worth driving that far to speak to her.

Having said that, if she'd invested in the Clairvoyant extra as well as Telepathy, she would have known exactly what it was I wanted to do. Pfft.

Clare's Law - my thoughts

The family of Clare Wood has campaigned for a scheme similar to Sarah's Law, whereby people can find out if their potential partner has a history of domestic violence.

In principle, this sounds like a good idea; anything that prevents one human being abusing another should be applauded. If any lives can be saved through the implementation of such a scheme, it will be hailed as a success.

There are also a number of reasons, and assumptions, why this scheme may not be the panacea to domestic violence.

• Those who have abused their previous partners will be known to the police

The first assumption is that those who abuse their partners are convicted for these offences.

Victims of domestic violence do not report these crimes. They make excuses for their partner's behaviour. Even when they do call the police, they may retract their statements, or refuse to speak out against them. So having been reported, the chances of securing a conviction may be slim.

The scheme does not take into account the potentially thousands of men and women who physically, verbally, and mentally abuse their partners, who have never been reported to the police. So your perfect new boy/girlfriend could still be a potential bully; you just won't know about it until it happens.

• The right charges were brought in the first place

This can work either way.

Somebody who attacks their partner the once, could be charged with an offence relating to domestic violence.

Another person who has been regularly violent to their partner(s) may be convicted of a violent offence not specifically related to domestic violence, say for example, if the victim has been unwilling to assist, or if the offender has agreed to plea to a such a charge.

Will details of convictions, such as the whys and wherefores, be included with any request? Or will all offences against the person be disclosed?

There is a danger that a person with a history of fighting after a few too many beers in the pub could be branded a wife beater by a well-meaning but misinformed family. A list of convictions tells us one thing but it does not paint a full picture.

• A leopard never changes his spots

There is a dangerous precedent that once convicted of violent offences, an offender could always be seen to be a potential murderer at worst, or abusive partner at best. No credit is given for any programmes that may have changed an offender's behaviour for the better. Or  that the circumstances that were present at the time of offending have changed, enabling an offender to alter their own behaviour. 

Again, with no details on how and why someone has been convicted, how can an informed decision on the potential danger posed by that person be fairly assessed?

Further, there's an implicit assumption that a person who has never been violent towards their partner in the past couldn't possibly find themselves in a situation where they begin to abuse the one person that they claim to love. A clear search could lead to complacency from the searching party, who may then find themselves in a very dangerous situation.

• Informed potential victims will give that person a wide berth

The most dangerous assumption to make is that armed with a list of convictions against a new partner, the now suspecting victim can walk away from potential harm.

But what happens if you're already in love with someone when you found out they beat their last other half black and blue? Would you really walk away?

Or would you risk it? After all, s/he hasn't laid a finger on you - yet.

This doesn't even begin to take into account we do not know how many couples have abusive relationships. There are women, and men, already refusing to walk away from a situation where they are fully aware of what their partner is capable of. Love is a powerful emotion.

So why is this scheme going to make any difference?

Are we going to see people vetting their first dates for any criminal past? Surely this is the only way one can be protected? Isn't it? Will dating websites be asking for CRB checks on all their members? Should single men and women be requesting them, just on the off-chance?

Or are we merely bolting the stable door after the horse has done one?

• The invasion of privacy

What's to stop me from going into a police station and telling the officer at the desk that the bloke from down the road, who I don't actually like, is a new boyfriend? I could then use this information to drag his name through the mud, which would be a great thing because I don't actually like him.

Well, nothing. I guess

What may surprise some readers is that I can do this anyway. Even without Clare's Law, the police have the power to disclose this information to me, if I present myself as a potential victim. 

So what exactly are we gaining? Apart from undermining the civil liberties of those people who have a past from which they are trying to move away from?

• So what should be done?

Education is key. Resources could be better used in empowering victims to report crimes against them to the police. Many victims know that the treatment they receive is wrong, but lack the strength to do anything about it. Maybe support is needed, as well as educating them.

It may also be that a lack of faith in the criminal justice system doesn't help. The media is quick to report cases where the police or the CPS has failed, but we don't hear of the many victims who have seen their abusers dealt with appropriately. I'm not saying that authorities don't get it wrong; far from it. But we do need to see more success stories.

That doesn't absolve the police and the CPS from their duties in protecting the public. The question shouldn't be "what information can I get to protect me", but "what are the authorities going to do to protect me"?

There is no formula for stopping domestic violence. I have every sympathy with the Wood family, and I wouldn't wish the fate of Clare on anyone. They may take comfort in believing that she would have been safe if she had known her killer had a history of violence towards women. But I have seen too many cases where even armed with such information, women have accepted abusive behaviour on far too many occasions, believing that the last time really will be the last. I may be being cynical here, but I can't see this scheme making much difference to domestic violence in the UK.

Trial by Facebook?

I've been busy, and write this post a little late, however the general theme is a recurring one that I witness on social networking sites, albeit not as extreme as the example given.

My local police force is keen to promote itself on social networking sites. This is a good thing, it gives the public the chance to engage with the police on a level and in a way that feels more comfortable with them.

As part of their postings, the force posts links to news stories. One story concerned the arrest of a woman on suspicion of child neglect. The child had been removed, and the woman released on bail pending further enquiries.

I became aware of it when a few friends shared the link. At first the comments were harmless enough ("how could someone do that to their child"). Some questioned why the woman had been bailed, and the misunderstandings over bail are a blog post in their own right, so won't be dealt with here.

As the thread developed, two different types of comment were being added to the story.

The first concerned the woman herself. They started along the lines of "I know her, this isn't the first time this has happened". These then developed into further allegations, going into explicit detail. Some comment makers named the woman in question.

The second type, following on from the first, were from potential vigilante types, who gave details of the type of "justice" that should be doled out in the circumstances.

All of this, as far as I could tell, was based on rumour and conjecture.

Social networking sites are brilliant places to gossip. Facebook is great for finding out that the popular kids at school are now fugly. Or that the school bullies are now fugly. It's like a virtual pub, or supermarket, or school playground, where groups gather to spend their time idly speculating about people they shouldn't give a hoot about. But whereas face to face gossip can remain insular, writing allegations on the internet can have far wider implications.

It's very easy to cross the line when criminal investigations are taking place. We've already seen the consequences of jurors using the internet to find out about defendants. We have no idea whether the woman in this incident is guilty of any wrongdoing or not. If she is guilty, who's to say she won't admit it, and be dealt with in the appropriate manner? If she says she's not guilty, rumour-mongering could potentially damage the chances of securing any conviction.

Further, it would be hoped that this woman, if she has been cruel to her child, will be dealt with by the courts. It may be that many have no confidence in the system following the Baby P incident, however, many cases like this escape the public attention. Why? Because they are being dealt with properly, and children are being saved from dangerous situations. It's sad that the success stories are not reported. There is no excuse for taking matters into your own hands. If there are failings in the system, challenge the system, not the perpetrators. 

There is, of course, the other side to the story; that this woman has done nothing wrong. Or even worse, the Facebook gossipers have named and shamed the wrong person. Maybe there is another mother who shares the same name, who cannot understand why people are avoiding her, or are calling her names. Lives can, and have, been ruined through the making of false allegations, or by having the misfortune of sharing the same name as a criminal.

The link to this story was pulled within a few hours. Hopefully, not too much damage has been done, and the matter can be dealt with in the fairest and most appropriate way.

I would also ask my Facebook friends and Twitter followers to think before posting.

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.