The Colchester Assault

[Guest M_OAFC]

I'll source the CCTV and get authority for a copy of it. I'm sure it will make fascinating viewing, unles it gets lost.

 

In the meantime, thanks to those who have already given me their clear and factual accounts of what they themselves observed. More please. Everyone who has posted about what they saw on this or the other thread should be sending me a message or an email. I could just copy and paste off the threads, but it will be much better to have it as adirect report - we all know that people talk :censored: on messageboards

 

As soon as I've written up something 'proper' I'll make sure I send it to you but you'll have got the jist of it from my original post. As you suggested I'll also liaise with Alex re supporters direct as well. I'll be in touch at some point Alex.

 

Also agree 100% with your list of objectives Andy and thanks for taking the lead on co-ordinating this as well mate. I feel very strongly about pursuing this so I really appreciate you taking the time to ensure it is done in a well co-ordinated fashion. Knowing your thoughts on authoritarianism I'm sure you will be very good at it as well!

[Diego_Sideburns]

The controllers of the CCTV scheme (in this case CUFC) are legally bound under the code of practice of the DPA ( Data Protection Act) to provide any footage of an individual, if it is so held, and if the individual requests it. That footage may be edited to protect the identities of individuals not involved, but provide the footage they must. (as long as some is held of course!).

 

And make sure that the footage is requested asap, as after 30 days, the scheme controller has to delete all footage held.

 

In my letter to the CUFC Chief Executive I have asked for the CCTV footage to be retained in the event of it being needed in any subsequent proceedings.

Edited August 31, 2008 by Diego_Sideburns

[Diego_Sideburns]

 

I suggest our objectives should be:

 

1) A quashing of the caution, including the destruction of any records that could taint Lee with a slur on his reputation

2) Appropriate Police and Club action regarding the Stewards who committed the assault.

3) A full and public apology by the parties involved

4) Some publicity that highlights the insane treatment that football fans are dealt with.

 

We won't achieve all of the above, but let's see how far we can get. But the main thing is that one of our own shouldn't have that hanging over his head when he was the victim, not the culprit.

 

I agree with the suggested objectives.

 

If we all spit together we can drown the bastards!

 

P.S. What about marching to Colchester.......

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

or am I getting carried away?

Edited August 31, 2008 by Diego_Sideburns

[kentlats]

He was told to sign a document accepting the reprimand. He wasn't happy about that but was told by the police that if he didn't he wouldn't be going home for at least a week!

 

If we could prove that I reckon the police complaints commission would be very interested in that but I suppose it's virtually impossible to prove. However, surely it can be over turned if overwhelming evidence to the contrary, including CCTV footage, can be produced.

 

Even if it can't, I'm sure it doesn't preclude justice from being served upon the steward. It certainly doesn't stop us pursuing a change in stewarding policy at CUFC.

 

Hi all, Lee should never have been told to 'sign' the document, his options should have been explained and then it's totally his decision on what to do next, and to be told he wouldn't be going home for a week screams of a bully policeman trying to scare a young lad into signing something he shouldn't, the police can only hold you for 24 hours before then asking for another 12 hours which has to be authorised by a superintendant, and for something as trivial as this that would never ever be granted!

 

As for Lee being 17, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE), which regulates police powers, states that anyone UNDER 17 must have an appropraite adult with them before they are interviewed, cautioned, charged with an offence or even have their fingerprints, photos or DNA taken, if Colchester Police have a policy that the age is 18 and under then that needs to be looked by a solicitor. On that subject did Lee get offered free and independant legal advice at the police station, he hsould have been and I would suggest that no half decent solicitor would have advised him to sign any repremand.

 

Anything that happens in a police custody area should be recorded both vision and sound 24 hours a day 365 days a year, so anything said or done in there is covered and these recording are stored for 6 years, so if the coppers was stupid enough to tell Lee he would be staying there for a week on camera then this would quash the caution straight away.

 

I would advise Lee to contact a solicitor if he really wants to challenge this. If the paperwork he has from the Police states that anything he has signed must be countersigned by someone over 18 years of age then this immediately puts the police in breach of their own policy and would make any admissions inadmissable and therefore the caution should be removed, the police will definately have known his age as part of the booking in procedure in custody is to take everyones personal details, and the police have to know if they are dealing with a juvenile as they are dealt with differently than adults!

 

Hope this helps.

 

Good luck fella.

[oafcprozac]

Hi all, Lee should never have been told to 'sign' the document, his options should have been explained and then it's totally his decision on what to do next, and to be told he wouldn't be going home for a week screams of a bully policeman trying to scare a young lad into signing something he shouldn't, the police can only hold you for 24 hours before then asking for another 12 hours which has to be authorised by a superintendant, and for something as trivial as this that would never ever be granted!

 

As for Lee being 17, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE), which regulates police powers, states that anyone UNDER 17 must have an appropraite adult with them before they are interviewed, cautioned, charged with an offence or even have their fingerprints, photos or DNA taken, if Colchester Police have a policy that the age is 18 and under then that needs to be looked by a solicitor. On that subject did Lee get offered free and independant legal advice at the police station, he hsould have been and I would suggest that no half decent solicitor would have advised him to sign any repremand.

 

Anything that happens in a police custody area should be recorded both vision and sound 24 hours a day 365 days a year, so anything said or done in there is covered and these recording are stored for 6 years, so if the coppers was stupid enough to tell Lee he would be staying there for a week on camera then this would quash the caution straight away.

 

I would advise Lee to contact a solicitor if he really wants to challenge this. If the paperwork he has from the Police states that anything he has signed must be countersigned by someone over 18 years of age then this immediately puts the police in breach of their own policy and would make any admissions inadmissable and therefore the caution should be removed, the police will definately have known his age as part of the booking in procedure in custody is to take everyones personal details, and the police have to know if they are dealing with a juvenile as they are dealt with differently than adults!

 

Hope this helps.

 

Good luck fella.

 

He was offered a solicitor but obviously he just wanted out of there asap, they did take his photo, prints and DNA and the paperwork did clearly require a counter-signatory from a responsible adult. They don't have a leg to stand on, the whole 'evidence' of Lee's indiscretion was the fact the steward marched him up to a copper and said "he assaulted me", the copper immediately arrested him, despite there being no evidence whatsover to found the allegation against the lad and he lost 4 hours of his time because of this. If it hadn't been so serious it would be laughable. When he came and met us in The Albert after his release and he told us his story I immediately piped up "Who the hell was the interviewing officer.......Gene Hunt? A complete cock-up every step of the way, at the very least the steward should be sacked, the coppers involved get a bollocking and retrained on procedure of holding minors and Lee gets an apology, his name cleared and some sort of recompense.

[Diego_Sideburns]

I have received the following email from Alan Hardy:

 

 

Thanks for a copy of the email you have sent to Colchester .

 

I had a telephone conversation with Barry Owen on this yesterday and I will certainly take this matter up with the club and our Police liaison officer who was at the game.

 

I will let you know what reaction we get.

 

 

Regards

 

Alan

[kentlats]

He was offered a solicitor but obviously he just wanted out of there asap, they did take his photo, prints and DNA and the paperwork did clearly require a counter-signatory from a responsible adult. They don't have a leg to stand on, the whole 'evidence' of Lee's indiscretion was the fact the steward marched him up to a copper and said "he assaulted me", the copper immediately arrested him, despite there being no evidence whatsover to found the allegation against the lad and he lost 4 hours of his time because of this. If it hadn't been so serious it would be laughable. When he came and met us in The Albert after his release and he told us his story I immediately piped up "Who the hell was the interviewing officer.......Gene Hunt? A complete cock-up every step of the way, at the very least the steward should be sacked, the coppers involved get a bollocking and retrained on procedure of holding minors and Lee gets an apology, his name cleared and some sort of recompense.

 

 

It does sound like a complete cock up by the police, and also it sounds like they don't have a leg to stand on, i'm sure any half decent solicitor would get this binned immediately, and get Lee's name cleared, also they should be able to get him some compo too, think the going rate for wrongful arrest is around £1500 per hour!!!!!! Now there's a thought......................

[oafc_ok]

I'll source the CCTV and get authority for a copy of it. I'm sure it will make fascinating viewing, unles it gets lost.

 

In the meantime, thanks to those who have already given me their clear and factual accounts of what they themselves observed. More please. Everyone who has posted about what they saw on this or the other thread should be sending me a message or an email. I could just copy and paste off the threads, but it will be much better to have it as adirect report - we all know that people talk :censored: on messageboards

 

 

D_S is currently proof reading my letter to Col U, which you, along with AH, will be copied in on tonight, Andy.

 

Let me know if you need any more info.

[LaticsLee]

Please Could Everyone E-mail Me The Letters Your Sending And Any Pictures Or Videos.

 

Thanks Alot

[Beardy]

Please Could Everyone E-mail Me The Letters Your Sending And Any Pictures Or Videos.

 

Thanks Alot

I have a great picture of me at the Eiffel Tower?

[JoeLatics]

IF you want publicity (looking at the 4 aims on page 1/2 :P ) try calling 5live?

[wardlelatic]

Hi all, Lee should never have been told to 'sign' the document, his options should have been explained and then it's totally his decision on what to do next, and to be told he wouldn't be going home for a week screams of a bully policeman trying to scare a young lad into signing something he shouldn't, the police can only hold you for 24 hours before then asking for another 12 hours which has to be authorised by a superintendant, and for something as trivial as this that would never ever be granted!

 

As for Lee being 17, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE), which regulates police powers, states that anyone UNDER 17 must have an appropraite adult with them before they are interviewed, cautioned, charged with an offence or even have their fingerprints, photos or DNA taken, if Colchester Police have a policy that the age is 18 and under then that needs to be looked by a solicitor. On that subject did Lee get offered free and independant legal advice at the police station, he hsould have been and I would suggest that no half decent solicitor would have advised him to sign any repremand.

 

Anything that happens in a police custody area should be recorded both vision and sound 24 hours a day 365 days a year, so anything said or done in there is covered and these recording are stored for 6 years, so if the coppers was stupid enough to tell Lee he would be staying there for a week on camera then this would quash the caution straight away.

 

I would advise Lee to contact a solicitor if he really wants to challenge this. If the paperwork he has from the Police states that anything he has signed must be countersigned by someone over 18 years of age then this immediately puts the police in breach of their own policy and would make any admissions inadmissable and therefore the caution should be removed, the police will definately have known his age as part of the booking in procedure in custody is to take everyones personal details, and the police have to know if they are dealing with a juvenile as they are dealt with differently than adults!

 

Hope this helps.

 

Good luck fella.

 

 

Cheers for this info.

 

Lee was told that if he didnt sign the form he would have to stay over night while they processed him and not a week that as been mentioned earlier. Little details like this sometimes gets lost.

 

 

The fact that a young lad under the age of 18 was allowed to be left without any money or credit on his phone 235 miles away from his own by the police is one of the major factors for me. I spoke to the custody sargent at the police station where Lee was held to leave my contcat details of number and hotel I was staying in. I also told the Latic liason officer of Lee's prediment if he was held without any response ! !! I understand that the officer is only there to obersve and not interven but surely a duty of care should have been met for a minor ( sorry lee) in this case?

 

I have spoken to Barry Owen in regards to the police reprimand and police action( which I or Lee have yet mentioned the state his wrists where the police handcuffed him - Photos were taken) Barry as been making some calls today and as offered Lee any help he may need in dealing with any POLICE complaint of him being detained without any evidence and only hearsay !

[jimsleftfoot]

Good work here guys. I read in the Times last week that the government are looking at giving certain officials special powers including football stewards. I had a look but cannot find the article but have found this article in the Mail. Have a look at the image showing what powers accredited workers i.e. football stewards will have. This shows why its so important for this stand to be made. Basically if this is brought in, the same Steward could have dished out a fine to Lee in the same way as a parking ticket and anyone arguing could probably have faced the same result.

 

 

What powers football stewards may get!!!

 

Before you look, have a guess which council is quoted in the article..........

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Colchester

[boboafc]

i can see it soon football stewards invade poland

[Matt]

i can see it soon football stewards invade poland

What with?

[boboafc]

What with?

the attack of the yellow jackets has started

[Matt]

Those aren't stewards.

[boboafc]

Those aren't stewards.

new stewards in training

[oafcprozac]

Those aren't stewards.

 

No they're not, it's the official Carbrini/JD 08/09 Away kit launch photo!

[Diego_Sideburns]

Have a look at the image showing what powers accredited workers i.e. football stewards will have. This shows why its so important for this stand to be made. Basically if this is brought in, the same Steward could have dished out a fine to Lee in the same way as a parking ticket and anyone arguing could probably have faced the same result.

 

Once again it's football stewads, not stewards at sporting events. The fact is that the prohibition of standing, drinking alcohol within sight of the pitch, etc., are only applicable to football matches. We had all this at Reading when the stadium was new. The steepness of the stands was quoted as the safety issue, as people standing might fall onto other spectators. Yet when rugby is played at the same stadium, the prohibitions under the Football Spectators Act are not applicable.

 

What about the safety of the spectators at rugby matches? The implication is that rugger supprters are more upright citizens than football spectators. Hence they won't fall on fellow spectators, even when drinking alcohol within sight of the pitch.

 

As someone said, we're treated like simething scraped off the bottom of a shoe!

[Diego_Sideburns]

I spotted this headline on the Colchester MyFootballWriter site:

 

"Geraint rues 'criminal' timing of Oldham strikes, as U's' hard work is undone"

 

I reckon he was refering to the assault by the steward as Taylor's goal was scored!

[OldhamSheridan]

Stewards fining makes the heights of The Sun:

 

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article82936.ece

 

 

(four years ago)

Edited September 2, 2008 by OldhamSheridan

[jimsleftfoot]

Stewards fining makes the heights of The Sun:

 

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article82936.ece

(four years ago)

 

Apparently Charity workers are supposed to get powers under the proposed new regime in the Mail Article. Now I work for a charity, does that mean I can issue my own fines to over agressive stewards?