Guided Missile Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 I have to get this off my chest, particularly due to all the cr@ p that's been posted about the pitch invasion. After the bitterly disappointing play-off defeat at Derby, their fans invaded the pitch and ran towards our our end, celebrating. As they approached, to a man, the Saints fans started applauding them and their team. In response to this, they shouted abuse and goaded us, preventing the Saints team from running over to us, to thank us for the support. The police tactics this day, was to face the Saints fans with batons drawn to prevent the minority in the stadium from Southampton, from running on the pitch and potentially sorting these chavs out. Saturday, despite a smoke bomb being thrown at us from the Burnley end, the police were facing us, with dogs and batons drawn. I'm puzzled and would appreciate why this happened from someone who witnessed both events and has a clue ....
Weston Super Saint Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 Three arrests were made, from thousands of people. I guess you could call those tactics successful :smt102
bristolsaint29 Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 Becuse we are increasingly being associated with football hooliganism due to our behaviour at matches. HTH
Pancake Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 Surely in both cases the "angered party" were the Saints Fans, and therefore both policing decisions 'made sense'?
alpine_saint Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 I have to get this off my chest, particularly due to all the cr@ p that's been posted about the pitch invasion. After the bitterly disappointing play-off defeat at Derby, their fans invaded the pitch and ran towards our our end, celebrating. As they approached, to a man, the Saints fans started applauding them and their team. In response to this, they shouted abuse and goaded us, preventing the Saints team from running over to us, to thank us for the support. The police tactics this day, was to face the Saints fans with batons drawn to prevent the minority in the stadium from Southampton, from running on the pitch and potentially sorting these chavs out. Saturday, despite a smoke bomb being thrown at us from the Burnley end, the police were facing us, with dogs and batons drawn. I'm puzzled and would appreciate why this happened from someone who witnessed both events and has a clue .... Are you really surprised ? This is entirely consistent with policing policy in the UK. The same sort of policy that allowed a group of 20-odd scumbag Muslims in Brentford to roundly abuse a regiment of UK soliders returning exhausted (and with missing comrades) from a tour of duty in Afghanistan whilst the majority crowd got piissed of with it, and in the end they arrested members of the fed-up majority and protected the extremist sh*t-stirrers.
for_heaven's_Saint Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 Having been at both I can only assume that the police faced the Saints fans because they were the ones trying to actuall;y get to the other fans, where as the Burnley and Derby fans were just abusing people from a distance. Does seem strange though.
lordswoodsaints Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 I have to get this off my chest, particularly due to all the cr@ p that's been posted about the pitch invasion. After the bitterly disappointing play-off defeat at Derby, their fans invaded the pitch and ran towards our our end, celebrating. As they approached, to a man, the Saints fans started applauding them and their team. In response to this, they shouted abuse and goaded us, preventing the Saints team from running over to us, to thank us for the support. The police tactics this day, was to face the Saints fans with batons drawn to prevent the minority in the stadium from Southampton, from running on the pitch and potentially sorting these chavs out. Saturday, despite a smoke bomb being thrown at us from the Burnley end, the police were facing us, with dogs and batons drawn. I'm puzzled and would appreciate why this happened from someone who witnessed both events and has a clue .... Agree,I was at both games and I was on the pitch on Saturday,I was not involved in the stuff that some say they witnessed but it seems that our cat 'c' status gives us the wrong end of the Batton.
The9 Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 I have to get this off my chest, particularly due to all the cr@ p that's been posted about the pitch invasion. After the bitterly disappointing play-off defeat at Derby, their fans invaded the pitch and ran towards our our end, celebrating. As they approached, to a man, the Saints fans started applauding them and their team. In response to this, they shouted abuse and goaded us, preventing the Saints team from running over to us, to thank us for the support. The police tactics this day, was to face the Saints fans with batons drawn to prevent the minority in the stadium from Southampton, from running on the pitch and potentially sorting these chavs out. Saturday, despite a smoke bomb being thrown at us from the Burnley end, the police were facing us, with dogs and batons drawn. I'm puzzled and would appreciate why this happened from someone who witnessed both events and has a clue .... I was at both - I should think it is becase the pitch invasion at Derby was unforseen and the police/stewards reacted to the situation, whereas on Saturday the police were clearly briefed to prevent a pitch invasion from the Northam (though comically not from 5 yards to the west of the Northam) and were unable to react to the actual events (invasion from Kingsland with about 50% of the initial crowd heading straight for the away fans) with any flexibility. The fact that I saw loads of people coming out of the Northam past the unmuzzled dogs anyway, and then they eventually just walked away to allow others on if they wished tells you how poorly they actually contained the crowd. It was pretty clear that pitch-based people were the antagonists in both situations though - until the smoke bomb came in at least - but there were people on both sides lobbing stuff. Interesting that the stewards at one point made a line on the halfway line, which was how they eventually cleared the pitch at the end of last season, but there were still people moving either side of them for a long while after and I think they may have given up on that method just before I left.
The9 Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 Are you really surprised ? This is entirely consistent with policing policy in the UK. The same sort of policy that allowed a group of 20-odd scumbag Muslims in Brentford to roundly abuse a regiment of UK soliders returning exhausted (and with missing comrades) from a tour of duty in Afghanistan whilst the majority crowd got piissed of with it, and in the end they arrested members of the fed-up majority and protected the extremist sh*t-stirrers. Well, that's an interesting take - firstly you've suggested UK policing is consistent in the first place, which is a pretty broad claim when there's plenty of conflicting evidence, secondly you've insinuated that free speech should be oppressed, thirdly you seem to be claiming that vocal abuse is worse than physical violence, and finally you also appear to be suggesting that protecting a minority group under attack from a larger violent group isn't an appropriate method of policing. Without getting into the rights and wrongs of their politics or how that's colouring your judgement of the actual policing in the instances you've given, isn't the point meant to be that they minimise disorder within the parameters of law enforcement?
londonsaint1604 Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 Are you really surprised ? This is entirely consistent with policing policy in the UK. The same sort of policy that allowed a group of 20-odd scumbag Muslims in Brentford to roundly abuse a regiment of UK soliders returning exhausted (and with missing comrades) from a tour of duty in Afghanistan whilst the majority crowd got piissed of with it, and in the end they arrested members of the fed-up majority and protected the extremist sh*t-stirrers. Which made sense considering the protesters in that case were simply exercising their right to free speech and were being confronted by a bunch of morons who had turned out to cheer on soldiers returning from afghanistan as if it was VE day.
alpine_saint Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 Which made sense considering the protesters in that case were simply exercising their right to free speech and were being confronted by a bunch of morons who had turned out to cheer on soldiers returning from afghanistan as if it was VE day. Tell me, have you heard of a crime known as "behaviour likely to result in a breach of the peace" ? The line between freedom of speech and breach of the peace/inciting a riot is an extremely fine one. And the police come down on it on the wrong side all the time, imo. Just for reference, I reckon the police behaviour was RIGHT on Saturday and WRONG in the case of the Derby game
Weston Super Saint Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 Tell me, have you heard of a crime known as "behaviour likely to result in a breach of the peace" ? The line between freedom of speech and breach of the peace/inciting a riot is an extremely fine one. And the police come down on it on the wrong side all the time, imo. Just for reference, I reckon the police behaviour was RIGHT on Saturday and WRONG in the case of the Derby game Yes. One of the three whole arrests made on Saturday was for exactly that reason :shock:
miserableoldgit Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 Which made sense considering the protesters in that case were simply exercising their right to free speech and were being confronted by a bunch of morons who had turned out to cheer on soldiers returning from afghanistan as if it was VE day. Interesting way of describing 1000`s of members of the general public.
Weston Super Saint Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 Interesting way of describing 1000`s of members of the general public. He's probably a politician Or Rupert :smt102
NickG Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 Tell me, have you heard of a crime known as "behaviour likely to result in a breach of the peace" ? The line between freedom of speech and breach of the peace/inciting a riot is an extremely fine one. And the police come down on it on the wrong side all the time, imo. Just for reference, I reckon the police behaviour was RIGHT on Saturday and WRONG in the case of the Derby game technically not a crime as you cannot be convicted if it;)
Minty Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 I just find it a shame that any 'Police tactics' are necessary at all... if our 'fans' didn't go on the pitch to face up to the Burnley fans in the first place, then none of this would be necessary. Do these fans actually think about, or even care about, the consequences of their actions?
alpine_saint Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 He's probably a politician Or Rupert :smt102 Nah, he would have called the "Lunatic Fringe" ;-)
miserableoldgit Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 I just find it a shame that any 'Police tactics' are necessary at all... if our 'fans' didn't go on the pitch to face up to the Burnley fans in the first place, then none of this would be necessary. Do these fans actually think about, or even care about, the consequences of their actions? Totally agree, but it was strange on Saturday. I sit in the Kingsland on the halfway line and although it was an emotional day, I didn`t detect any feelings of "nastiness". It was only when the police came on with the dogs that the feeling changed. I am not condoning the pitch invasion etc but I seriously wonder if the police preparations for this game and the "dog" decision were the right thing.
alpine_saint Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 The more time the police seem to have to plan, prepare and resource and given public event with risk of violence or disorder, the bigger the f**king mess they seem to make..
londonsaint1604 Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 Interesting way of describing 1000`s of members of the general public. Not all of them, just those stupid enough to react to a bunch of crazy islamists.
Dannyboy_Saint Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 I agree with the previous post. It seemed that attention only switched to invading the pitch AFTER the police had made their show of force. The pitch invasion wud probably still have happened but i wonder if it would have been as large or as nasty if the police hadnt of made the situation more charged than it needed to be.
Weston Super Saint Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 I don't get it.... Isn't it kind of a tradition for the fans to 'invade' the pitch after the last home game of the season? I may be way off the mark here, but don't we usually have opposing fans present for the last game of the season? I can't understand why everyone is so surprised that it happened...
Guided Missile Posted 27 April, 2009 Author Posted 27 April, 2009 I don't get it.... Isn't it kind of a tradition for the fans to 'invade' the pitch after the last home game of the season? I may be way off the mark here, but don't we usually have opposing fans present for the last game of the season? I can't understand why everyone is so surprised that it happened... The suprise was that the police came mob handed, with dogs at the ready and asps drawn. I presume they knew we were going to lose and thus be relegated... My opinion is that nothing has changed since Hillsborough, apart from the terracing. The majority of football fans are treated like animals due to the rare occurence of misdemeanours by a minority. Yet, both Heysel and Hillsborough were failures by the police in the way they chose to control the crowds. If any young children had fallen over on the pitch on Saturday, they could have been trampled in the brief panic that accompanied the charge by the dog handlers and the police would have blamed the Saints fans for any injuries...
Minty Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 I don't get it.... Isn't it kind of a tradition for the fans to 'invade' the pitch after the last home game of the season? I may be way off the mark here, but don't we usually have opposing fans present for the last game of the season? I can't understand why everyone is so surprised that it happened... The general pitch invasion isn't the focus here, it's the fans who confronted the Burnley fans, the subsequent trouble (to whatever degree) and the police in the middle of it all, that most people are concerned with.
Guided Missile Posted 27 April, 2009 Author Posted 27 April, 2009 The general pitch invasion isn't the focus here, it's the fans who confronted the Burnley fans, the subsequent trouble (to whatever degree) and the police in the middle of it all, that most people are concerned with. The fans "confronted" the Burnley fans in the same way they had been doing all game and vice versa. It happens at every match at every ground. All I saw was the mood turn slightly ugly when the Pompey fans were spotted and much uglier when the smoke bomb was thrown from the Burnley crowd. The posters that said we threw it first were mistaken, from what I saw. I saw it being lit, FFS...
Weston Super Saint Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 The general pitch invasion isn't the focus here, it's the fans who confronted the Burnley fans, the subsequent trouble (to whatever degree) and the police in the middle of it all, that most people are concerned with. Three arrests is hardly indicative of trouble though. It really is a non shocker that fans who spend 90 minutes of a football match goading the opposition fans go and 'confront' those same fans when they get on the pitch! I imagine the presence of a couple of skates in there - one with a smoke bomb [allegedly], didn't do much to calm the situation!! Personally I would blame the stewards for that, as I distinctly remember attending an away match at Cardiff in the middle of winter and being stopped before entering the ground and asked to undo my coat to show what I was wearing underneath - presumably they were checking I was a Saints fan rather than a Swansea fan
Whitey Grandad Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 I, also, was at both. What annoyed me about Derby was that we were kept behind and had to face those Derby retards mouthing off at us and making gestures that even I didn't understand. I don't think Saturday's invasion amounted to much but I did think it was friendly gesture of both sets of fans to exchange gifts of money and soft drinks.
thesaint sfc Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 (edited) I don't get it.... Isn't it kind of a tradition for the fans to 'invade' the pitch after the last home game of the season? I may be way off the mark here, but don't we usually have opposing fans present for the last game of the season? I can't understand why everyone is so surprised that it happened... Agreed. Bunch of pansies IMO. The police have been getting lots of negative press for a couple of horrific incidents so everyone wants to jump on the band wagon. 2 police officers out of what? 35,000? Not exactly proportional representation. Edited 27 April, 2009 by thesaint sfc
Minty Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 Three arrests is hardly indicative of trouble though. I did say 'to whatever degree'... i'm not really sure how much there was... all i do know is that any such actions reflect badly on Southampton Football Club. I know it happens at most grounds most weeks, (again, to different degrees) and so my opinion is of all of football, not just this one game, but I find it a real shame that's it's virtually accepted - a 'non-shocker' to use your phrase - as part of the game nowadays. Always after such incidents, we hear how the police or stewards made it worse by doing x, y or z, and yet the route cause of it all, the fans involved, are supposedly blame free because 'that's football'. The police are FAR from perfect, I fully accept that, but they are in a very difficult situation. If they weren't needed in the first place, the club would save a lot of money, and none of this discussion would be needed. But they are needed, because fans simply can't be trusted to behave themselves. Football will probably always have this aspect to it, but just because it happens so often, doesn't make it right IMO.
Chez Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 I have to get this off my chest, particularly due to all the cr@ p that's been posted about the pitch invasion. After the bitterly disappointing play-off defeat at Derby, their fans invaded the pitch and ran towards our our end, celebrating. As they approached, to a man, the Saints fans started applauding them and their team. In response to this, they shouted abuse and goaded us, preventing the Saints team from running over to us, to thank us for the support. The police tactics this day, was to face the Saints fans with batons drawn to prevent the minority in the stadium from Southampton, from running on the pitch and potentially sorting these chavs out. Saturday, despite a smoke bomb being thrown at us from the Burnley end, the police were facing us, with dogs and batons drawn. I'm puzzled and would appreciate why this happened from someone who witnessed both events and has a clue .... several members of the crowd invasion jumped into the Burnley section and they weren't looking to shake hands or swap scarves. The police quite rightly were protecting the Burley fans so stop moaning about their tactics.
Weston Super Saint Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 Football will probably always have this aspect to it, but just because it happens so often, doesn't make it right IMO. To be fair I would go so far as to say it's not really got anything to do with football! Young men + testosterone + alcohol + other young men + a few verbals = Only one result....
eelpie Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 Police crowd control has never ben refined when there are opposing groups. Their tactics are to identify one group and go for them. So one side is seen by them as villain. (For instance their attitude to climate-change groups and their recent attempts to bribe one climate-change supporter into spying for them.) On Saturday our stupid so-called supporters went onto the pitch and some confronted the Burnley stand. The Burnley lot didn't go onto the pitch. Simple.
Amesbury Saint Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 Totally agree, but it was strange on Saturday. I sit in the Kingsland on the halfway line and although it was an emotional day, I didn`t detect any feelings of "nastiness". It was only when the police came on with the dogs that the feeling changed. I am not condoning the pitch invasion etc but I seriously wonder if the police preparations for this game and the "dog" decision were the right thing. I was in block 35 and the Police dogs changed the atmosphere of the fans near me, including me.
Julian H. Cope Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 I was in Block 36. I enjoyed the police dogs, I am also enjoying the overreaction to everything that happened on Saturday.
aintforever Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 No one seemed interested in going on the pitch until the dogs turned up. I thought it was comically bad Policing, especially when they were out-witted by a bunch of chavs who made it onto the pitch a few yards behind them from the Kingsland.
Mole Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 Maybe they tossed a coin and decided to attack the chapel end?
Legod Third Coming Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 Lot of rewriting history and some total boll0x on here. I was in the Northam/Kingsland corner - home at last... People were chanting 'on the pitch' from about 80-odd mins. Then the police dogs came out. Then anyone with half a brain wandered around to the Kingsland from the Northam - mainly past me on row P - thus spoiling my enjoyment... Then they went on the pitch through the stewards and dogs. Then I left to contemplate life at minus 10... The dogs did not incite anyone to go on the pitch. Just as cliffs don't incite people to jump and bullets don't incite people to fire guns... Now, onto Archduke Ferdinand and Sarajevo for the 16 yr olds who have missed history GCSE while in police custody...
Legod Third Coming Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 maybe they tossed a coin and decided to attack the chapel end? lmao.
Amesbury Saint Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 [quote name= The dogs did not incite anyone to go on the pitch. ...[/quote] agreed - but in my opinion they did change the atmosphere BTW I did not go on the pitch
Legod Third Coming Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 agreed - but in my opinion they did change the atmosphere BTW I did not go on the pitch Agreed. There was precious little barking before the dogs arrived.
Amesbury Saint Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 Agreed. There was precious little barking before the dogs arrived. lol
Alfred's Girl Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 I haven't been on here in ages but in a way it's sort of heartening to see the same moronic, ill-informed comments. Yes, the police had about 7 dogs max, yes, they were unmuzzled but my friend and I were perplexed because as soon as about 10 people ran past them and it was obvious it was going to happen they got the nod and just walked out of the ground.
rocknrollman no2 Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 I dread to think what would have happened if there had been a dog display at half time.
Amesbury Saint Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 The fans "confronted" the Burnley fans in the same way they had been doing all game and vice versa. It happens at every match at every ground. All I saw was the mood turn slightly ugly when the Pompey fans were spotted and much uglier when the smoke bomb was thrown from the Burnley crowd. The posters that said we threw it first were mistaken, from what I saw. I saw it being lit, FFS... I thought it was thrown by our fans first
Legod Third Coming Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 I haven't been on here in ages but in a way it's sort of heartening to see the same moronic' date=' ill-informed comments. Yes, the police had about 7 dogs max, yes, they were unmuzzled but my friend and I were perplexed because as soon as about 10 people ran past them and it was obvious it was going to happen they got the nod and just walked out of the ground.[/quote'] Actually one was muzzled - he was the loudest one - some sort of Alsation cross looking at him. With that black muzzle he couldn't hurt a fly but he could deafen an eight year old from half a mile. Probably keeps the neighbours up all night, noisy bugger...
krissyboy31 Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 I thought it was thrown by our fans first No, I stayed in the Kingsland stand and saw somebody in the Away section light it, then throw it. I thought there was a second one thrown but it seems it was the same one after it had been thrown back at them.
Alfred's Girl Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 I dread to think what would have happened if there had been a dog display at half time. I was thinking that! Everyone knows all you need is a fake arm, or failing that, distract them with a flaming hoop. These johnny-come-latelys don't have a clue
rallyboy Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 the deployment of the dogs to line up and face the Northam was a statement of intent, an aggressive move that was unwise in a volatile atmosphere and like others on here I do think it changed things for the worse. You can't blame the police for any offences BUT it escalated disorder when defusing it would have been the normal tactic. And if that doesn't make sense to you I think you had to be in there and faced by this obviously defiant act to understand how it changed things for those less disciplined members of society. And can we clear up this smoke bomb once and for all, I saw it come out of their section first and then returned from the pitch, but I don't know if I missed it going in there first....I have seen the report of it being lit in the Burnely section, any advance on that?
Ronaldo's a pansy Posted 28 April, 2009 Posted 28 April, 2009 There was obviously a second smoke bomb thrower up on the grassy knoll.
Daren W Posted 28 April, 2009 Posted 28 April, 2009 Which made sense considering the protesters in that case were simply exercising their right to free speech and were being confronted by a bunch of morons who had turned out to cheer on soldiers returning from afghanistan as if it was VE day. You ****ing *****. The fact that those scumbags could exercise their "freedom of speech" is because some people go out and fight for it. VE day? Yes. To the mothers, wives and children, it probably felt like VE day. It's not wrong to welcome your loved ones back from a WAR... The reason there was trouble was because some scumbags decided to label soldiers as "baby killers" which is as about insulting as you can get. In the meantime I think you're a child molester. Not true but just me exercising my "right to freedom of speech."
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now