New appeal ten years on from Martin McGartland attempted murder
Premium Article !
17 June 2009
By DAVID SEDGWICK
A RENEWED appeal is being made into the attempted murder of Martin McGartland, ten years after the attack.
Mr McGartland was shot as he sat in his car in Duchess Street, Whitley Bay on June 17, 1999.
He survived, despite being shot a number of times at close range.
No one has ever been charged with the attempted murder and, ten years on, officers at Northumbria Police are continuing with the extensive investigation.
In the past, detectives have not confirmed a motive for the shooting.
Early reporting at the time indicated a possibility that Mr McGartland had been shot by local criminals, but there was no evidence to support it.
Det Chief Supt Chris Thomson, who is leading the investigation, said: "Although this was an unsuccessful attack, it was a cold-blooded, calculated assassination attempt.
"Mr McGartland has asked that Northumbria Police clarify the situation as far as we can and I am happy to do so.
"Mr McGartland's history as an agent for the then Royal Ulster Constabulary and his supplying of information about the Provisional IRA is a matter of public knowledge, documented in his own books on the subject.
"Our main line of enquiry, therefore, continues to be that Mr McGartland may have been shot by a person or people with Irish Republic sympathies, for reasons closely linked to his former life in Northern Ireland."
During the ten years of the investigation:
*
* five people have been arrested, though no one has yet been charged;
* 1,004 witness statements taken;
* 1,122 house-to-house enquiries have been carried out;
* 2,764 exhibits have been collated;
* 5,043 documents have been assembled.
Detectives are continuing to use DNA recovered from the scene to eliminate people from the investigation.
Other lines of enquiry centre around a van abandoned at the scene which had been bought only two days before the attack, and a message left on a telephone answering machine a few days earlier, asking about a van for sale.
The caller had a Scottish accent, originating from somewhere in the Glasgow region.
Two semi-automatic pistols and some ammunition were found in the Gateshead area within months of the attack.
One of the guns was forensically linked to the shooting and police believe those responsible may have stayed in the Gateshead area in the run up to, and after, the attack.
Mr Thomson added: "Ten years is a long time for people to keep a secret about something like this.
"Over time, word can leak out and be talked about.
"Also, people's loyalties can change a lot in ten years, and people may now be prepared to help us.
"Anyone who may have information can contact Northumbria Police on 03456 043043 ext 69162 or the independent charity Crimestoppers on 0800 555111."
To hear the audio tape message left on the answer machine, log on to www.northumbria.police.uk/vanmessage
Story Link:- http://www.newsguardian.co.uk/latest-news/New-appeal-ten-years-on.5372715.jp
FACTS- Northumbria Police only made 10 year appeal because they were forced into doing so. Northumbria Police, Mi5 and the CPS contince to cover Up IRA involvment in my attempted murder. Northumbria Police are also involved in a cover up in the Martin McGartland case, even after 10 years. Martin McGartland says; "Northumbria Police, if they wanted to, could arrest those involved in my attempted murder. Northumbria Police know who they are and where they are. Northumbria Police, Mi5 and the CPS are protecting IRA members and in doing so are allowing them to continue killing in the name of the Real IRA."
Monday, May 31, 2010
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Northumbria Police State Cover up
Northumbria Police, more than 10 years one, continue to cover-up the 1999 IRA shooting of Martin McGartland. The CPS nor Northumbria Police will take action against those involved. McGartland said; "Northumbria Police know who shot me, know where to find them, however, they and the CPS are failing to do anything." Northumbria Police will not carry-out proper reviews of the 1999 shooting case, won't make further public appeals. Martin also said; "The police have refused to give me a copy of my own signed witness statement." Martin also has concerns about the DNA which was recovered in his case, he said; " Northumbria Police are refusing to deal with the DNA correctly. The Police did not even add the DNA to the datebase until 8 or 9 years after the shooting. The Police, in an email to Martin, clailmed that this was because; "it was not good enough" Martin said; "He does not accept this. The Police have been involved in a cover-up for almost 11 years."
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Cops broaden hunt for IRA hit team on McGartland
Sunday World, 16th May 2010
By JOHN CASSIDY
THE hunt for the IRA gang who tried to kill Special Branch spy Marty McGartland has gone international.
Detectives in Northumbria Police are now said to be looking for suspects who may
be living in the Republic, Europe or America.
As the 11th anniversary approaches on the attempted to kill 'Agent Carol', those close to
McGartland hope a breakthrough lies in enhanced DNA evidence now in the hands of
Northumbria Police. Five suspects have been arrested and questioned about the June 1999 attack in
Whitley Bay.
McGartland, then aged 29, was shot six times by a lone gunman but miraculously
survived. Two of those arrested were convicted bombers Henry
'Harry' Fitzsimmons and Scots-born Gary Scott Monaghan.
They were released on bail on November 4, 1999 and had their bail cancelled in January 2000 because
there was not enough evidence to charge them. Three others were also arrested but no charges were
made.
A spokesman for McGartland said he hoped police would make a further appeal for information
next month on the 11th anniversary of his murder bid. “The senior investigating
officer in charge of the case, Detective Chief Superintendent Chris Thomson, has been in contact
with Martin recently about the progress in the case,” said a spokesman.
”He says they are looking to obtain whatever evidence they can and that they have extended their search
internationally for the person who tried to kill him. “He confirmed that the DNA
recovered from the scene has been loaded onto the national DNA database and
his review had improved the quality of the sample
”Although he says it was good to compare with other samples, it was not good enough to load onto the
database. “Now that it is on the national DNA he will be informed of any matches.
”Martin is absolutely convinced that the police know the identities of those involved but there is political
interference from the heart of the British government not to have the arrested and charged for fear it damages
the peace process.”
Published in Sunday World Newspaper, 16th May 2010
ENDS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spokesman For McGartland said; Matin has always believed that Northumbria Police, Mi5, CPS (and others) have been involved in a State cover up. The Police, Northumbria Police, have a duty to vigorously investigate Martin's attemped murder, as with all crimes, and to prosecute those who are found to be involved, connected to his 1999 shooting. However, it's Martin's view that Northumbria Police, Mi5, others within the higher echelons of the British State, whom Marty give hes all, have sought to cover up such IRA actions to protect IRA members, it's a total outrage.
Sunday World, 16th May 2010
By JOHN CASSIDY
THE hunt for the IRA gang who tried to kill Special Branch spy Marty McGartland has gone international.
Detectives in Northumbria Police are now said to be looking for suspects who may
be living in the Republic, Europe or America.
As the 11th anniversary approaches on the attempted to kill 'Agent Carol', those close to
McGartland hope a breakthrough lies in enhanced DNA evidence now in the hands of
Northumbria Police. Five suspects have been arrested and questioned about the June 1999 attack in
Whitley Bay.
McGartland, then aged 29, was shot six times by a lone gunman but miraculously
survived. Two of those arrested were convicted bombers Henry
'Harry' Fitzsimmons and Scots-born Gary Scott Monaghan.
They were released on bail on November 4, 1999 and had their bail cancelled in January 2000 because
there was not enough evidence to charge them. Three others were also arrested but no charges were
made.
A spokesman for McGartland said he hoped police would make a further appeal for information
next month on the 11th anniversary of his murder bid. “The senior investigating
officer in charge of the case, Detective Chief Superintendent Chris Thomson, has been in contact
with Martin recently about the progress in the case,” said a spokesman.
”He says they are looking to obtain whatever evidence they can and that they have extended their search
internationally for the person who tried to kill him. “He confirmed that the DNA
recovered from the scene has been loaded onto the national DNA database and
his review had improved the quality of the sample
”Although he says it was good to compare with other samples, it was not good enough to load onto the
database. “Now that it is on the national DNA he will be informed of any matches.
”Martin is absolutely convinced that the police know the identities of those involved but there is political
interference from the heart of the British government not to have the arrested and charged for fear it damages
the peace process.”
Published in Sunday World Newspaper, 16th May 2010
ENDS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spokesman For McGartland said; Matin has always believed that Northumbria Police, Mi5, CPS (and others) have been involved in a State cover up. The Police, Northumbria Police, have a duty to vigorously investigate Martin's attemped murder, as with all crimes, and to prosecute those who are found to be involved, connected to his 1999 shooting. However, it's Martin's view that Northumbria Police, Mi5, others within the higher echelons of the British State, whom Marty give hes all, have sought to cover up such IRA actions to protect IRA members, it's a total outrage.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
"Sick" Northumbria Police - The Martin McGartland Cover-Up
Friday, Jun 04 2010 3AM
'Sick' police force win PR award for the way they handled death of schoolgirl... killed by patrol car
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 2:02 AM on 25th March 2010
A police force nominated themselves and won a public relations award for the way they handled a tragedy - of a schoolgirl knocked down and killed by a speeding patrol car.
The family of Hayley Adamson have reacted with anger that Northumbria Police put themselves forward for the prize after the horrifying smash.
Hayley, 16, was killed when a speeding patrol car with no blue light or sirens on smashed into her in May 2008.
After a five-day trial at Newcastle Crown Court, PC John Dougal was jailed for three years after being convicted of driving at 94mph moments before he ploughed into her in the late-night tragedy.
His flashing blue lights and siren were switched off as he followed what he thought was a stolen car in Newcastle's West End.
Hayley's mother Yvonne Adamson, of the Fenham area of the city branded the move as ‘sick’.
Police officers have since visited the family and apologised saying the nomination, for which the won a 'gold' award, was never intended to cause offence.
Tomorrow would have been Hayley's 18th birthday.
Her family will be in London handing over a petition at 10 Downing Street which calls for all emergency services to use their lights and sirens when breaking the speed limit.
Mrs Adamson said: ‘It's a complete joke. I can't believe they have nominated themselves for the award.
‘What about all the complaints that were put in against them when it happened? ‘Life is truly hell. This is an insult to her memory.
‘Don't get me wrong, there were some nice people around at the time. They have only taken their side of the story they should have asked me about it.
‘I can't understand why they received an award for it.
‘It's just a massive shock. It couldn't have come at a worse time for the family.’
The gold award was from the Chartered Institute of Public Relations, the CIPR's PRide Awards 2009 which was presented to the force in November last year.
Judges for the award said they thought the ‘sensitive issue’ was dealt with in a ‘professional and caring way’.
They described the entry: ‘This was an extremely sensitive issue that the judges felt was handled in a very professional and caring way.
‘With a potentially explosive community reaction, they thought Northumbria Police diffused the issue in a calm and responsible manner.
‘An extremely well thought through entry that the judges felt demonstrated the skill and tact required in this sensitive case.’
Hayley's sister Sarah Ridley, 33, of Scotswood, said: ‘It makes me sick. Hayley is killed and they get an award for it.
‘The news comes at a time when it's her birthday. Part of me thinks they have done this on purpose.’
Northumbria Police's entry described how there were fears of rioting after Hayley's death.
The scene of her death, Scotswood, was the setting for significant rioting in 1991.
But the police said they were able to handle the community after her death to prevent any incidents occurring.
Under a list of 'communication objectives' Northumbria Police aimed to ‘minimise the risks to Northumbria's reputation.’
Other objectives included ‘To minimise any inappropriate, speculative, or inaccurate reporting,’ and ‘to demonstrate Northumbria's empathy with the victim's family and community.’
Deputy Chief Constable Sue Sim said: ‘This award was not intended in any way to minimise the impact of Hayley's death on family and friends and we are truly sorry if it has been perceived as such.
‘Our deepest sympathies remain with them. Following the tragic death of Hayley police officers and staff were involved in minimising inappropriate, speculative or inaccurate reporting, working with the family to try and limit the impact of constant harassment of the family by the media, and reassuring the local community.
‘This work was singled out for praise during the CIPR awards. We did not release this information.’
Link:- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1260271/Northumbria-Police-win-PR-award-handling-Hayley-Adamson-patrol-car-death.html
'Sick' police force win PR award for the way they handled death of schoolgirl... killed by patrol car
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 2:02 AM on 25th March 2010
A police force nominated themselves and won a public relations award for the way they handled a tragedy - of a schoolgirl knocked down and killed by a speeding patrol car.
The family of Hayley Adamson have reacted with anger that Northumbria Police put themselves forward for the prize after the horrifying smash.
Hayley, 16, was killed when a speeding patrol car with no blue light or sirens on smashed into her in May 2008.
After a five-day trial at Newcastle Crown Court, PC John Dougal was jailed for three years after being convicted of driving at 94mph moments before he ploughed into her in the late-night tragedy.
His flashing blue lights and siren were switched off as he followed what he thought was a stolen car in Newcastle's West End.
Hayley's mother Yvonne Adamson, of the Fenham area of the city branded the move as ‘sick’.
Police officers have since visited the family and apologised saying the nomination, for which the won a 'gold' award, was never intended to cause offence.
Tomorrow would have been Hayley's 18th birthday.
Her family will be in London handing over a petition at 10 Downing Street which calls for all emergency services to use their lights and sirens when breaking the speed limit.
Mrs Adamson said: ‘It's a complete joke. I can't believe they have nominated themselves for the award.
‘What about all the complaints that were put in against them when it happened? ‘Life is truly hell. This is an insult to her memory.
‘Don't get me wrong, there were some nice people around at the time. They have only taken their side of the story they should have asked me about it.
‘I can't understand why they received an award for it.
‘It's just a massive shock. It couldn't have come at a worse time for the family.’
The gold award was from the Chartered Institute of Public Relations, the CIPR's PRide Awards 2009 which was presented to the force in November last year.
Judges for the award said they thought the ‘sensitive issue’ was dealt with in a ‘professional and caring way’.
They described the entry: ‘This was an extremely sensitive issue that the judges felt was handled in a very professional and caring way.
‘With a potentially explosive community reaction, they thought Northumbria Police diffused the issue in a calm and responsible manner.
‘An extremely well thought through entry that the judges felt demonstrated the skill and tact required in this sensitive case.’
Hayley's sister Sarah Ridley, 33, of Scotswood, said: ‘It makes me sick. Hayley is killed and they get an award for it.
‘The news comes at a time when it's her birthday. Part of me thinks they have done this on purpose.’
Northumbria Police's entry described how there were fears of rioting after Hayley's death.
The scene of her death, Scotswood, was the setting for significant rioting in 1991.
But the police said they were able to handle the community after her death to prevent any incidents occurring.
Under a list of 'communication objectives' Northumbria Police aimed to ‘minimise the risks to Northumbria's reputation.’
Other objectives included ‘To minimise any inappropriate, speculative, or inaccurate reporting,’ and ‘to demonstrate Northumbria's empathy with the victim's family and community.’
Deputy Chief Constable Sue Sim said: ‘This award was not intended in any way to minimise the impact of Hayley's death on family and friends and we are truly sorry if it has been perceived as such.
‘Our deepest sympathies remain with them. Following the tragic death of Hayley police officers and staff were involved in minimising inappropriate, speculative or inaccurate reporting, working with the family to try and limit the impact of constant harassment of the family by the media, and reassuring the local community.
‘This work was singled out for praise during the CIPR awards. We did not release this information.’
Link:- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1260271/Northumbria-Police-win-PR-award-handling-Hayley-Adamson-patrol-car-death.html
Friday, January 1, 2010
Northumbria Police Cover-Up McGartland's IRA Shooting
Marty McGartland says:- "Northumbria Police, its Yes officers, have been involved in a cover up for 11 years. Northumbria Police know who, within the IRA, shot me, where they can be found. However, Northumbria Police are turing a blind eye to attempted murder."
Marty has asked NP to carry out proper DNA screening, however, NP say they are not willing to do so. There are only a very small numbee of people, IRA members and those connected to it, who could have shot McGartland. However, why then are NP not doing more to arrest, charge those involved. McGartland also stated; "When I complain to Northumbria Police about its failings, failings of its (Yes Men) officers my complaints are simply white-washed. If I go to the IPCC its very same. The CPS have also been got to by Mi5."
Spokesmam for McGartland says; NP, State can not continue doing this for much longer. We will be demanding proper reviews of case papers, files.
Marty has asked NP to carry out proper DNA screening, however, NP say they are not willing to do so. There are only a very small numbee of people, IRA members and those connected to it, who could have shot McGartland. However, why then are NP not doing more to arrest, charge those involved. McGartland also stated; "When I complain to Northumbria Police about its failings, failings of its (Yes Men) officers my complaints are simply white-washed. If I go to the IPCC its very same. The CPS have also been got to by Mi5."
Spokesmam for McGartland says; NP, State can not continue doing this for much longer. We will be demanding proper reviews of case papers, files.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Martin McGartland Warns IRA Still A Threat
Ex-spy warns IRA still a threat
HUGE bomb twice size of Omagh device & designed to kill dozens is made safe in Ulster
Published: 10 Sep 2009
THE dark days of terrorism once again hang ominously over Northern Ireland after the discovery of a massive 600lb bomb in South Armagh. Believed to have been the work of dissident republicans, it was even bigger than the Real IRA device that killed 29 and injured hundreds in Omagh in 1998. Here, former spy Martin McGartland - who infiltrated the IRA in the 1980s for the British secret service - explains why he believes the terrorist cell behind the latest bomb must have been well organised.
THERE has been a suggestion from the police that the people behind this bomb do not have the sophistication, expertise or resources to carry out this kind of bombing. I disagree.
To be able to put a bomb like this together in the first place is one of the biggest hurdles they have to cross.
The fact they went to a vantage point to look for police or army patrols shows they have a lot more expertise than people are letting on.
The terrorists will go to a disused location, say a farm, and construct the bomb over about ten hours in the night.
The Sun
Shock ... Sun report on bomb find
It involves a big team of people. They will have four or five guys working inside building the bomb and three or four more outside patrolling the perimeter.
I have information from people I speak to that the police and Special Branch are greatly concerned that people from the IRA bomb teams from the 1980s and early 90s have moved across to current dissident republican groups.
My understanding is that the people behind the latest bomb are from a much smaller group. But in my opinion they are all linked to the IRA in some way.
If any of these splinter group become a serious embarrassment, the IRA will close them down.
The IRA are still active with punishment beatings and are making plenty of money from crime. They are still powerful. Bad things are going to continue to happen.
But, thankfully, it will never be like it was in the past when someone was being murdered every day.
These small groups have been recruiting people who are local criminals, which the IRA would not have done in the past. They are desperate for people to come on board.
Advertisement
I don't think they have much support.
I found people in the IRA to be macho, but they didn't want to go to prison and they would never blow themselves up like Muslim extremists. So it's a different threat than the one posed by Islamic terror.
I believe the security services might already have infiltrated these gangs.
I know that after those two young soldiers were murdered in March, the security services were working overtime to recruit people on the fringes of these dissident groups.
I used to get weapons and explosives from the IRA and take them to the Army to deactivate the firing systems. A lot of planning and effort goes into making a bomb. Bombs don't just get found, they don't just not go off.
This find could have come about as a result of an informer.
The security services are generally aware of who the main members of these groups are - they just have trouble finding enough evidence to bring them to court.
But I believe the Government will crack down on them before we return to the dark days of terror.
Martin's book Fifty Dead Men Walking, about his time as a spy, is out now.
Story Link:- http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/2629995/Ex-spy-Martin-McGartland-warns-IRA-is-still-a-threat.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin McGartland was Shot by the PIRA in June 1999. Northumbria Police, Mi5 and the CPS continue to cover up the McGartland case. No one has ever been charged for Martin's 1999 attempted murder. Follow Martin on Bebo; search for Martin 'Marty' McGartland.
HUGE bomb twice size of Omagh device & designed to kill dozens is made safe in Ulster
Published: 10 Sep 2009
THE dark days of terrorism once again hang ominously over Northern Ireland after the discovery of a massive 600lb bomb in South Armagh. Believed to have been the work of dissident republicans, it was even bigger than the Real IRA device that killed 29 and injured hundreds in Omagh in 1998. Here, former spy Martin McGartland - who infiltrated the IRA in the 1980s for the British secret service - explains why he believes the terrorist cell behind the latest bomb must have been well organised.
THERE has been a suggestion from the police that the people behind this bomb do not have the sophistication, expertise or resources to carry out this kind of bombing. I disagree.
To be able to put a bomb like this together in the first place is one of the biggest hurdles they have to cross.
The fact they went to a vantage point to look for police or army patrols shows they have a lot more expertise than people are letting on.
The terrorists will go to a disused location, say a farm, and construct the bomb over about ten hours in the night.
The Sun
Shock ... Sun report on bomb find
It involves a big team of people. They will have four or five guys working inside building the bomb and three or four more outside patrolling the perimeter.
I have information from people I speak to that the police and Special Branch are greatly concerned that people from the IRA bomb teams from the 1980s and early 90s have moved across to current dissident republican groups.
My understanding is that the people behind the latest bomb are from a much smaller group. But in my opinion they are all linked to the IRA in some way.
If any of these splinter group become a serious embarrassment, the IRA will close them down.
The IRA are still active with punishment beatings and are making plenty of money from crime. They are still powerful. Bad things are going to continue to happen.
But, thankfully, it will never be like it was in the past when someone was being murdered every day.
These small groups have been recruiting people who are local criminals, which the IRA would not have done in the past. They are desperate for people to come on board.
Advertisement
I don't think they have much support.
I found people in the IRA to be macho, but they didn't want to go to prison and they would never blow themselves up like Muslim extremists. So it's a different threat than the one posed by Islamic terror.
I believe the security services might already have infiltrated these gangs.
I know that after those two young soldiers were murdered in March, the security services were working overtime to recruit people on the fringes of these dissident groups.
I used to get weapons and explosives from the IRA and take them to the Army to deactivate the firing systems. A lot of planning and effort goes into making a bomb. Bombs don't just get found, they don't just not go off.
This find could have come about as a result of an informer.
The security services are generally aware of who the main members of these groups are - they just have trouble finding enough evidence to bring them to court.
But I believe the Government will crack down on them before we return to the dark days of terror.
Martin's book Fifty Dead Men Walking, about his time as a spy, is out now.
Story Link:- http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/2629995/Ex-spy-Martin-McGartland-warns-IRA-is-still-a-threat.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin McGartland was Shot by the PIRA in June 1999. Northumbria Police, Mi5 and the CPS continue to cover up the McGartland case. No one has ever been charged for Martin's 1999 attempted murder. Follow Martin on Bebo; search for Martin 'Marty' McGartland.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Cover-up claims turn railway battle between Sunderland supporters and police into a legal fight
Posted by; David Conn
Wednesday 26 August 2009 00.10 BST
The Guardian
Force is accused of holding back CCTV footage which may reveal how and why three fans were hospitalised
Sunderland supporters are continuing to dispute Northumbria police's account of an incident at Newcastle Central station this month, when police with dogs and wielding batons left several of their number injured, including three who required hospital treatment, two reportedly for serious head wounds.
A number of the fans, who were returning from Sunderland's pre-season friendly at Hearts on 8 August, have provided consistent accounts and statements to the Football Supporters' Federation alleging that the police action was unprovoked, brutal and excessive. These accounts have come from supporters who were on a train that left Edinburgh at 6:30pm bound for Sunderland and which was diverted to Newcastle. The supporters allege that their train was held at the station for 20-30 minutes before the doors were opened, and that they were then met by police with dogs and batons.
The fans' accounts say they were pushed from behind by one line of police but that officers in front pushed them back. Some fans admit they became frustrated, but all have denied that there was any violence until police officers allowed their dogs to begin biting supporters. Then fans describe police hitting them with batons. Several accounts, which the Guardian has seen, include very similar graphic descriptions of one man with blood spurting from his head after being hit with a baton, then collapsing and lying on the platform in a pool of blood. The supporters have also accused the police of failing to attend to the injured man for some minutes.
Northumbria police has emphatically denied that its actions were excessive. In a series of statements, the force has said its officers mounted an operation to deal with a section of around 40 Sunderland supporters who had arrived on an earlier train, intending, according to police intelligence, to have a pre-arranged fight with Newcastle fans. This section of fans, the police said: "Became violent towards officers who reacted to stop the situation from escalating further."
The police did say, in a later statement, that there was a second train, but stated there was no trouble at all or any action against the fans who came off it. Chief superintendent Neil Mackay described that train as having contained "around 400 genuine football supporters", and said: "These supporters were taken to the Metro station without incident."
That is bitterly contested by supporters who arrived on that second train, some of whom have described what followed as the most traumatic violence they have ever witnessed. The FSF has been advised not to publicise the names of fans who provided statements because of the possibility they might give evidence in future court actions, but has released some extracts. In one, a supporter claimed: "The police, for reasons best known to themselves, launched a vicious assault on some of our fans with their batons and let their dogs repeatedly bite some of the fans who had already received severe head wounds or were already lying prone on the ground as a result of being caught up in the melee the police had created."
The incident was referred automatically to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) because of the injuries sustained by members of the public. Last week Gary Garland, the IPCC commissioner for the North-east, cleared the police of any wrongdoing saying that having viewed "conclusive" CCTV footage, the action was justified.
"The video footage is conclusive that the police in this instance were subjected to a high level of violence by people intent on causing disorder," Garland stated. "In such circumstances the force the officers chose to deploy in defending their position and preventing a further escalation of disorder was understandable, proportionate and justifiable." He went on to praise the policemen's "professionalism and courage", saying it had prevented more serious disorder, and concluded that the IPCC will not be investigating.
"I appreciate for any innocent football supporters who may have been caught up in the trouble the incident would have been traumatic," Garland acknowledged. "However, it is clear a significant number of so-called supporters were intent on causing mayhem. There is no evidence whatsoever to support allegations that the police officers instigated the violence."
Malcolm Clarke, the FSF chairman, yesterday wrote formally to the IPPC calling for a "new thorough investigation", for the full CCTV footage to be released, and to lodge a formal complaint against Garland.
"The police and IPCC version of what happened completely conflicts with all the accounts from supporters," he said. "They have all stated independently that the police action was against people arriving on the second train, and that it was brutal. We do not believe the IPCC has fulfilled its duty by exonerating the police in glowing terms without even talking to witnesses, and we believe there should be a full independent investigation. We do not expect to see football supporters with serious head injuries from police batons." The IPPC has already issued a statement saying Garland stands by his decision.
Supporters caught up in the trouble have also complained bitterly about the police's public statements that followed the incident. Three days afterwards, on 11 August, the force's first press release focused on four police dogs; Earl, Cleo, Floyd and Diesel, which, it said, had been assaulted by "a section of around 40 Sunderland fans". This first statement did not mention a second train, nor a pre-arranged fight with Newcastle fans. Chief superintendent Graham Smith said: "Around 40 fans set upon the officers and dogs, kicking and punching them, and causing injuries to the dogs." After dealing in some detail with the dogs, whose injuries, it said, were not serious, the press release added: "During the disturbance, three Sunderland fans out of the group received hospital treatment. Their injuries are not thought to be serious."
In fact, according to the FSF, one of those in hospital was given 36 surgical staples to bind wounds in his head, while another lost seven pints of blood. Asked why the statement concentrated on the dogs before mentioning that three Sunderland fans had ended up in hospital, a spokeswoman said: "Our dogs were injured as a result of being attacked during the incident and we put out the press release to appeal for witnesses and information. The people who suffered injuries were part of the group who were involved in the attack on dogs and officers. Officers had no option but to respond." She added that officers had administered first aid to the injured people "as soon as they could".
Northumbria police has also released a brief video clip of fans milling around on the platform, and another apparently showing Newcastle supporters preparing to meet them. Neither, however, shows any violence, the police actions, or how the fans, or the dogs, sustained their injuries. A spokesman for the force said the full CCTV footage is not being released because it is being used in the ongoing criminal investigation. The police have not so far explained how the Sunderland fans ended up requiring hospital treatment.
No footage has emerged from any witnesses who independently captured what happened.
Two of the supporters who were treated are understood to be taking legal advice about a possible assault claim against the police and a challenge to the IPCC's decision not to supervise an investigation. Three members of the public have made complaints to the police. A spokeswoman for Northumbria police said an internal investigation is being conducted.
david.conn@guardian.co.uk
Link:- http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2009/aug/26/sunderland-fans-northumbria-police-dispute
==========================================================================
This Is the letter sent to the IPCC by the FSF's Michael Clarke:-
Text of Football Supporters Federation letter of complaint to the Home OfficeThe FSF's complaint against Commissioner Gary Garland concerning the incident at Newcastle Central station involving police and Sunderland fans.
By recorded delivery
Commission Secretariat
Independent Police Complaints Commission
90 High Holborn
London WC1V 6BH
Cc. M. Craik Esq
Chief Constable
Northumbria Police
Bryan Drew, UK Football Policing Unit
Home Office
25 August 2009
Formal complaint against Commissioner Gary Garland
Incident at Newcastle Central Station 8 August
I write on behalf of the Football Supporters Federation to lodge a formal complaint against Commissioner Gary Garland and to request a course of action in relation to the very serious incident involving Northumbria police and Sunderland football supporters at Newcastle Central Station, 8 August 2009.
Sunderland AFC played a pre-season friendly game in Edinburgh on 8 August to which some of their supporters travelled by train. At the stadium a Tannoy announcement was made to the effect that a train additional to the scheduled services, departing 18.30 hours, would take them directly to Sunderland.
Many supporters welcomed this because it was more convenient to be taken all the way to Sunderland. This included some supporters who had tickets for the 18.00hrs scheduled service but chose to wait for the special.
In fact, for whatever reason, the train terminated at Newcastle, not Sunderland. Upon arrival at Newcastle, the supporters were not allowed to disembark the train for a considerable period, estimated by them to be 15-20 minutes. When they did, they were met by police including dog handlers and armed with batons.
A very serious incident then ensued, which resulted in three supporters receiving serious head injuries from police batons requiring hospitalisation and a number of supporters suffering dog bites, in one case with quite serious wounds. One supporter required surgery. In all three cases of the baton injuries, they have continued to suffer adverse reactions. To our knowledge two of the supporters injured by batons have so far sought legal assistance.
The police issued a statement on 11 August which said, inter alia, "A section of around 40 fans set upon the officers and dogs, kicking and punching them, and causing injuries to the dogs" and that "the fans arrived at the station intent on violence".
The police position therefore is that some of the supporters launched an unprovoked attack on unmuzzled police dogs and officers armed with batons.
We have received accounts of this incident from supporters on that train, many of which are in writing. These were made independently by people most of whom did not know each other.
These accounts are startlingly different from the account given by the police. There are some common themes to these accounts which raise three particularly serious issues:
a.It is alleged by the supporters that police at the back were aggressively pushing fans forward towards the police at the front who were either not letting them come forward or were pushing them back. This caused squashing and some fans tripping over.
b.That, in this situation, two police officers allowed their dogs to start biting the supporters, and it was this which triggered the violent confrontation between the police and some of those supporters.
c.That the police failed to tend to the injured supporters on the floor or to quickly summon medical assistance, despite it being obvious that they had serious head injuries. For example, one supporter alleges that he was actually prevented by a police officer from rendering assistance despite telling the officer that he had extensive experience as a TA medic. The officer then failed to take the necessary action himself, despite being advised by the supporter what to do.
Northumbria police rightly referred this matter to the IPCC. We were expecting at the appropriate point to hand the written accounts we have received over to whoever the IPCC appointed to investigate this matter, subject of course to obtaining the permission of the supporters concerned.
We were therefore astonished when Commissioner Garland publicly announced within a very short time that he had concluded an examination of the video evidence on the basis of which he has completely exonerated the police from any blame for the incident and went as far as praising the courage of the police officers. He did so without examining any of the evidence from the supporters, let alone interviewing them. He announced that the IPCC is happy to let Northumbria police conduct their own investigation and that the IPCC will have no further involvement with the matter.
Our legal advice is that the IPCC does not have the option of having no further involvement, and that any investigation by the police must be either managed or supervised by the IPCC.
What is beyond doubt is that by publicly exonerating and praising the police in the way that he did, Commissioner Garland has prejudged and tainted any investigation by the professional standards department of Northumbria police. It is now clearly impossible for ourselves, any Sunderland supporter or indeed any member of the public to have any confidence in an investigation by the Northumbria force, because Mr Garland has already pronounced on the matter.
Indeed one supporter has already told us that he does not wish to proceed with his complaint because he has no confidence in the process and fears that he may be harassed by the police if he makes a complaint. In the light of Mr Garland's action, it is very difficult to present a counter-argument to that supporter.
We believe that because of his unprofessional action in what is an extremely serious matter, Mr Garland should resign as an IPCC commissioner. Regardless of whether he does so, we request that the IPCC appoint another commissioner from another area of the country who does not have a relationship with the Northumbria police to take over this matter and that if the investigation is undertaken by police officers, it should be done by officers from another police force. Nothing less can rescue the process from the situation created by Mr Garland.
There are some further matters which require investigation. First, the police said that they had intelligence that supporters from Sunderland travelling on that train had planned disorder with Newcastle United supporters in the City, and have told the media that this justified their presence on the station to meet that train, and their response to the supporters on it. No one, so far as I know, has questioned the appropriateness of a police presence on the station. That is not the issue.
I have no way of knowing the nature or reliability of any intelligence received by the police. However, what is clear is that the supporters on that train decided to travel on it in the belief that it was going to Sunderland not Newcastle. Any supporter planning disorder in Newcastle would have joined the normal scheduled service not this train. This inconsistency in the police version of events remains unexplained.
In a further statement issued on 17 August, the police now give a different version events from that previously put out by them. The statement says that the train from which supporters were not allowed to disembark for "20 mins" contained "several hundred genuine Sunderland supporters" (very different from "the fans arrived at the station intent on violence") and that "those passengers were taken to the Metro without incident"
Supporters who have given statements to us are crystal clear that they travelled on the special train, whose doors were kept closed for 15-20 minutes and that the incidents with the police occurred with supporters from that train. If the police are not even clear from which train this incident occurred, it is raises serious questions about the accuracy of their understanding of the situation. At the very least it underlines the case for a thorough, independent investigation into exactly what happened.
Second, the police issued a public statement saying that the injuries to the supporters "were not thought to be serious". This statement was untrue and the police had no basis for making it.
Third, the police issued a picture of one of the 'injured' police dogs being petted by a WPC. Such a blatant attempt to play upon public emotion rather than concentrating on a professional investigation of exactly what happened has only inflamed the situation in the eyes of Sunderland supporters and does the force no credit.
Fourth, a limited amount of CCTV footage has been released by the police. This is not helpful. If any footage was to be released, it should be all the footage available, unedited, and that is what should now occur. The public should not be invited to reach conclusions on small amounts of footage chosen by one of the parties involved.
Fifth, we aware that a 16-year old supporter was pulled out of the crowd at Sunderland's game with Chelsea and required to give their details to a camera, in connection with an investigation into this incident. We are advised that this is unlawful and request that the IPCC investigate this incident.
In conclusion, I would stress that the FSF is, and always has been, totally opposed to football-related violence and disorder, wherever it occurs and by whoever it is committed. We have a track record of working closely with the police and the Home and Foreign Offices at national and international levels on football policing issues.
I am also well aware that we have not seen the full CCTV of the incident at Newcastle, and we are certainly not drawing any conclusions at this stage about exactly what caused the incident or whether any offences may have been committed by either supporters and/or police officers or whether police officers breached their own guidelines.
It is however very clear that there is a huge gulf between the versions independently given by supporters and that given by the police and IPCC about the cause of this incident. Head injuries to football supporters caused by police batons are, fortunately, rare in this country, unlike some other countries, because most British police forces tend to be more skilled and experienced in managing situations than some of their foreign counterparts.
For that reason, when such a serious incident as this occurs, it is vital that it is thoroughly and professionally investigated and is seen to be so. If this does not occur then the confidence of football supporters, not only in Sunderland but nationally, in both the police and the IPCC will be seriously eroded, which is not in anyone's interest. And it will fuel the belief that there is in some police forces some institutionalised prejudice against football supporters as a whole. For that reason we request a new thorough investigation by the IPCC conducted by people from outside the north-east, and we lodge a formal complaint against Mr Garland.
The summary of the areas which we believe should be the subject of such an investigation are:
1. Whether the overall management and response of the police to the supporters disembarking from the football special was proportionate and appropriate to the situation and in line with police training and best practice.
2. The circumstances of the serious head injuries to three supporters and whether the use of batons by officers which caused them were justified and lawful.
3. Whether the use of batons, in particular their use on the head, was in line with police training.
4. Whether the use of dogs and their biting of supporters was in line with police training, and, specifically, whether allowing dogs to bite supporters triggered the disorder in this incident.
5. Whether it is true that the supporters were pushed forward from the back whilst officers at the front either did not allow them to move forward or pushed them back, and what role, if any, this played in the disorder.
6. Whether the police properly exercised a duty of care towards the seriously injured supporters and how long it took for them to summon medical assistance.
7. An explanation as to how the police could have intelligence that some people on that train were planning to cause disorder in Newcastle when the people on the train had boarded it in the belief that it was going to Sunderland?
8. Clarification, or otherwise, that the disorder occurred following disembarkation from the special train which was held for 20 minutes not a scheduled train.
9. The circumstances of the police issuing a statement that the injuries to the supporters were not serious.
10. The appropriateness of the use by the police of emotional PR material on the injuries to the dogs.
11. The appropriateness of issuing selective CCTV footage into the public domain.
12. The lawfulness of police actions in requiring supporters, including a minor, to answer questions in front of a camera at a subsequent football match.
(Dr) Malcolm Clarke FRSA, MIBC
Chair
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marty Says; "How can anyone ever trust Northumbria Police, it's cover-up after cover-up. Northumbria Police continue to protect IRA murders, bombers in my 1999 attempted murder case. Northumbria Police, if they wanted to, could arrest those who attempted to murder me. Northumbria Police know who they are and where to find them."
Wednesday 26 August 2009 00.10 BST
The Guardian
Force is accused of holding back CCTV footage which may reveal how and why three fans were hospitalised
Sunderland supporters are continuing to dispute Northumbria police's account of an incident at Newcastle Central station this month, when police with dogs and wielding batons left several of their number injured, including three who required hospital treatment, two reportedly for serious head wounds.
A number of the fans, who were returning from Sunderland's pre-season friendly at Hearts on 8 August, have provided consistent accounts and statements to the Football Supporters' Federation alleging that the police action was unprovoked, brutal and excessive. These accounts have come from supporters who were on a train that left Edinburgh at 6:30pm bound for Sunderland and which was diverted to Newcastle. The supporters allege that their train was held at the station for 20-30 minutes before the doors were opened, and that they were then met by police with dogs and batons.
The fans' accounts say they were pushed from behind by one line of police but that officers in front pushed them back. Some fans admit they became frustrated, but all have denied that there was any violence until police officers allowed their dogs to begin biting supporters. Then fans describe police hitting them with batons. Several accounts, which the Guardian has seen, include very similar graphic descriptions of one man with blood spurting from his head after being hit with a baton, then collapsing and lying on the platform in a pool of blood. The supporters have also accused the police of failing to attend to the injured man for some minutes.
Northumbria police has emphatically denied that its actions were excessive. In a series of statements, the force has said its officers mounted an operation to deal with a section of around 40 Sunderland supporters who had arrived on an earlier train, intending, according to police intelligence, to have a pre-arranged fight with Newcastle fans. This section of fans, the police said: "Became violent towards officers who reacted to stop the situation from escalating further."
The police did say, in a later statement, that there was a second train, but stated there was no trouble at all or any action against the fans who came off it. Chief superintendent Neil Mackay described that train as having contained "around 400 genuine football supporters", and said: "These supporters were taken to the Metro station without incident."
That is bitterly contested by supporters who arrived on that second train, some of whom have described what followed as the most traumatic violence they have ever witnessed. The FSF has been advised not to publicise the names of fans who provided statements because of the possibility they might give evidence in future court actions, but has released some extracts. In one, a supporter claimed: "The police, for reasons best known to themselves, launched a vicious assault on some of our fans with their batons and let their dogs repeatedly bite some of the fans who had already received severe head wounds or were already lying prone on the ground as a result of being caught up in the melee the police had created."
The incident was referred automatically to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) because of the injuries sustained by members of the public. Last week Gary Garland, the IPCC commissioner for the North-east, cleared the police of any wrongdoing saying that having viewed "conclusive" CCTV footage, the action was justified.
"The video footage is conclusive that the police in this instance were subjected to a high level of violence by people intent on causing disorder," Garland stated. "In such circumstances the force the officers chose to deploy in defending their position and preventing a further escalation of disorder was understandable, proportionate and justifiable." He went on to praise the policemen's "professionalism and courage", saying it had prevented more serious disorder, and concluded that the IPCC will not be investigating.
"I appreciate for any innocent football supporters who may have been caught up in the trouble the incident would have been traumatic," Garland acknowledged. "However, it is clear a significant number of so-called supporters were intent on causing mayhem. There is no evidence whatsoever to support allegations that the police officers instigated the violence."
Malcolm Clarke, the FSF chairman, yesterday wrote formally to the IPPC calling for a "new thorough investigation", for the full CCTV footage to be released, and to lodge a formal complaint against Garland.
"The police and IPCC version of what happened completely conflicts with all the accounts from supporters," he said. "They have all stated independently that the police action was against people arriving on the second train, and that it was brutal. We do not believe the IPCC has fulfilled its duty by exonerating the police in glowing terms without even talking to witnesses, and we believe there should be a full independent investigation. We do not expect to see football supporters with serious head injuries from police batons." The IPPC has already issued a statement saying Garland stands by his decision.
Supporters caught up in the trouble have also complained bitterly about the police's public statements that followed the incident. Three days afterwards, on 11 August, the force's first press release focused on four police dogs; Earl, Cleo, Floyd and Diesel, which, it said, had been assaulted by "a section of around 40 Sunderland fans". This first statement did not mention a second train, nor a pre-arranged fight with Newcastle fans. Chief superintendent Graham Smith said: "Around 40 fans set upon the officers and dogs, kicking and punching them, and causing injuries to the dogs." After dealing in some detail with the dogs, whose injuries, it said, were not serious, the press release added: "During the disturbance, three Sunderland fans out of the group received hospital treatment. Their injuries are not thought to be serious."
In fact, according to the FSF, one of those in hospital was given 36 surgical staples to bind wounds in his head, while another lost seven pints of blood. Asked why the statement concentrated on the dogs before mentioning that three Sunderland fans had ended up in hospital, a spokeswoman said: "Our dogs were injured as a result of being attacked during the incident and we put out the press release to appeal for witnesses and information. The people who suffered injuries were part of the group who were involved in the attack on dogs and officers. Officers had no option but to respond." She added that officers had administered first aid to the injured people "as soon as they could".
Northumbria police has also released a brief video clip of fans milling around on the platform, and another apparently showing Newcastle supporters preparing to meet them. Neither, however, shows any violence, the police actions, or how the fans, or the dogs, sustained their injuries. A spokesman for the force said the full CCTV footage is not being released because it is being used in the ongoing criminal investigation. The police have not so far explained how the Sunderland fans ended up requiring hospital treatment.
No footage has emerged from any witnesses who independently captured what happened.
Two of the supporters who were treated are understood to be taking legal advice about a possible assault claim against the police and a challenge to the IPCC's decision not to supervise an investigation. Three members of the public have made complaints to the police. A spokeswoman for Northumbria police said an internal investigation is being conducted.
david.conn@guardian.co.uk
Link:- http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2009/aug/26/sunderland-fans-northumbria-police-dispute
==========================================================================
This Is the letter sent to the IPCC by the FSF's Michael Clarke:-
Text of Football Supporters Federation letter of complaint to the Home OfficeThe FSF's complaint against Commissioner Gary Garland concerning the incident at Newcastle Central station involving police and Sunderland fans.
By recorded delivery
Commission Secretariat
Independent Police Complaints Commission
90 High Holborn
London WC1V 6BH
Cc. M. Craik Esq
Chief Constable
Northumbria Police
Bryan Drew, UK Football Policing Unit
Home Office
25 August 2009
Formal complaint against Commissioner Gary Garland
Incident at Newcastle Central Station 8 August
I write on behalf of the Football Supporters Federation to lodge a formal complaint against Commissioner Gary Garland and to request a course of action in relation to the very serious incident involving Northumbria police and Sunderland football supporters at Newcastle Central Station, 8 August 2009.
Sunderland AFC played a pre-season friendly game in Edinburgh on 8 August to which some of their supporters travelled by train. At the stadium a Tannoy announcement was made to the effect that a train additional to the scheduled services, departing 18.30 hours, would take them directly to Sunderland.
Many supporters welcomed this because it was more convenient to be taken all the way to Sunderland. This included some supporters who had tickets for the 18.00hrs scheduled service but chose to wait for the special.
In fact, for whatever reason, the train terminated at Newcastle, not Sunderland. Upon arrival at Newcastle, the supporters were not allowed to disembark the train for a considerable period, estimated by them to be 15-20 minutes. When they did, they were met by police including dog handlers and armed with batons.
A very serious incident then ensued, which resulted in three supporters receiving serious head injuries from police batons requiring hospitalisation and a number of supporters suffering dog bites, in one case with quite serious wounds. One supporter required surgery. In all three cases of the baton injuries, they have continued to suffer adverse reactions. To our knowledge two of the supporters injured by batons have so far sought legal assistance.
The police issued a statement on 11 August which said, inter alia, "A section of around 40 fans set upon the officers and dogs, kicking and punching them, and causing injuries to the dogs" and that "the fans arrived at the station intent on violence".
The police position therefore is that some of the supporters launched an unprovoked attack on unmuzzled police dogs and officers armed with batons.
We have received accounts of this incident from supporters on that train, many of which are in writing. These were made independently by people most of whom did not know each other.
These accounts are startlingly different from the account given by the police. There are some common themes to these accounts which raise three particularly serious issues:
a.It is alleged by the supporters that police at the back were aggressively pushing fans forward towards the police at the front who were either not letting them come forward or were pushing them back. This caused squashing and some fans tripping over.
b.That, in this situation, two police officers allowed their dogs to start biting the supporters, and it was this which triggered the violent confrontation between the police and some of those supporters.
c.That the police failed to tend to the injured supporters on the floor or to quickly summon medical assistance, despite it being obvious that they had serious head injuries. For example, one supporter alleges that he was actually prevented by a police officer from rendering assistance despite telling the officer that he had extensive experience as a TA medic. The officer then failed to take the necessary action himself, despite being advised by the supporter what to do.
Northumbria police rightly referred this matter to the IPCC. We were expecting at the appropriate point to hand the written accounts we have received over to whoever the IPCC appointed to investigate this matter, subject of course to obtaining the permission of the supporters concerned.
We were therefore astonished when Commissioner Garland publicly announced within a very short time that he had concluded an examination of the video evidence on the basis of which he has completely exonerated the police from any blame for the incident and went as far as praising the courage of the police officers. He did so without examining any of the evidence from the supporters, let alone interviewing them. He announced that the IPCC is happy to let Northumbria police conduct their own investigation and that the IPCC will have no further involvement with the matter.
Our legal advice is that the IPCC does not have the option of having no further involvement, and that any investigation by the police must be either managed or supervised by the IPCC.
What is beyond doubt is that by publicly exonerating and praising the police in the way that he did, Commissioner Garland has prejudged and tainted any investigation by the professional standards department of Northumbria police. It is now clearly impossible for ourselves, any Sunderland supporter or indeed any member of the public to have any confidence in an investigation by the Northumbria force, because Mr Garland has already pronounced on the matter.
Indeed one supporter has already told us that he does not wish to proceed with his complaint because he has no confidence in the process and fears that he may be harassed by the police if he makes a complaint. In the light of Mr Garland's action, it is very difficult to present a counter-argument to that supporter.
We believe that because of his unprofessional action in what is an extremely serious matter, Mr Garland should resign as an IPCC commissioner. Regardless of whether he does so, we request that the IPCC appoint another commissioner from another area of the country who does not have a relationship with the Northumbria police to take over this matter and that if the investigation is undertaken by police officers, it should be done by officers from another police force. Nothing less can rescue the process from the situation created by Mr Garland.
There are some further matters which require investigation. First, the police said that they had intelligence that supporters from Sunderland travelling on that train had planned disorder with Newcastle United supporters in the City, and have told the media that this justified their presence on the station to meet that train, and their response to the supporters on it. No one, so far as I know, has questioned the appropriateness of a police presence on the station. That is not the issue.
I have no way of knowing the nature or reliability of any intelligence received by the police. However, what is clear is that the supporters on that train decided to travel on it in the belief that it was going to Sunderland not Newcastle. Any supporter planning disorder in Newcastle would have joined the normal scheduled service not this train. This inconsistency in the police version of events remains unexplained.
In a further statement issued on 17 August, the police now give a different version events from that previously put out by them. The statement says that the train from which supporters were not allowed to disembark for "20 mins" contained "several hundred genuine Sunderland supporters" (very different from "the fans arrived at the station intent on violence") and that "those passengers were taken to the Metro without incident"
Supporters who have given statements to us are crystal clear that they travelled on the special train, whose doors were kept closed for 15-20 minutes and that the incidents with the police occurred with supporters from that train. If the police are not even clear from which train this incident occurred, it is raises serious questions about the accuracy of their understanding of the situation. At the very least it underlines the case for a thorough, independent investigation into exactly what happened.
Second, the police issued a public statement saying that the injuries to the supporters "were not thought to be serious". This statement was untrue and the police had no basis for making it.
Third, the police issued a picture of one of the 'injured' police dogs being petted by a WPC. Such a blatant attempt to play upon public emotion rather than concentrating on a professional investigation of exactly what happened has only inflamed the situation in the eyes of Sunderland supporters and does the force no credit.
Fourth, a limited amount of CCTV footage has been released by the police. This is not helpful. If any footage was to be released, it should be all the footage available, unedited, and that is what should now occur. The public should not be invited to reach conclusions on small amounts of footage chosen by one of the parties involved.
Fifth, we aware that a 16-year old supporter was pulled out of the crowd at Sunderland's game with Chelsea and required to give their details to a camera, in connection with an investigation into this incident. We are advised that this is unlawful and request that the IPCC investigate this incident.
In conclusion, I would stress that the FSF is, and always has been, totally opposed to football-related violence and disorder, wherever it occurs and by whoever it is committed. We have a track record of working closely with the police and the Home and Foreign Offices at national and international levels on football policing issues.
I am also well aware that we have not seen the full CCTV of the incident at Newcastle, and we are certainly not drawing any conclusions at this stage about exactly what caused the incident or whether any offences may have been committed by either supporters and/or police officers or whether police officers breached their own guidelines.
It is however very clear that there is a huge gulf between the versions independently given by supporters and that given by the police and IPCC about the cause of this incident. Head injuries to football supporters caused by police batons are, fortunately, rare in this country, unlike some other countries, because most British police forces tend to be more skilled and experienced in managing situations than some of their foreign counterparts.
For that reason, when such a serious incident as this occurs, it is vital that it is thoroughly and professionally investigated and is seen to be so. If this does not occur then the confidence of football supporters, not only in Sunderland but nationally, in both the police and the IPCC will be seriously eroded, which is not in anyone's interest. And it will fuel the belief that there is in some police forces some institutionalised prejudice against football supporters as a whole. For that reason we request a new thorough investigation by the IPCC conducted by people from outside the north-east, and we lodge a formal complaint against Mr Garland.
The summary of the areas which we believe should be the subject of such an investigation are:
1. Whether the overall management and response of the police to the supporters disembarking from the football special was proportionate and appropriate to the situation and in line with police training and best practice.
2. The circumstances of the serious head injuries to three supporters and whether the use of batons by officers which caused them were justified and lawful.
3. Whether the use of batons, in particular their use on the head, was in line with police training.
4. Whether the use of dogs and their biting of supporters was in line with police training, and, specifically, whether allowing dogs to bite supporters triggered the disorder in this incident.
5. Whether it is true that the supporters were pushed forward from the back whilst officers at the front either did not allow them to move forward or pushed them back, and what role, if any, this played in the disorder.
6. Whether the police properly exercised a duty of care towards the seriously injured supporters and how long it took for them to summon medical assistance.
7. An explanation as to how the police could have intelligence that some people on that train were planning to cause disorder in Newcastle when the people on the train had boarded it in the belief that it was going to Sunderland?
8. Clarification, or otherwise, that the disorder occurred following disembarkation from the special train which was held for 20 minutes not a scheduled train.
9. The circumstances of the police issuing a statement that the injuries to the supporters were not serious.
10. The appropriateness of the use by the police of emotional PR material on the injuries to the dogs.
11. The appropriateness of issuing selective CCTV footage into the public domain.
12. The lawfulness of police actions in requiring supporters, including a minor, to answer questions in front of a camera at a subsequent football match.
(Dr) Malcolm Clarke FRSA, MIBC
Chair
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marty Says; "How can anyone ever trust Northumbria Police, it's cover-up after cover-up. Northumbria Police continue to protect IRA murders, bombers in my 1999 attempted murder case. Northumbria Police, if they wanted to, could arrest those who attempted to murder me. Northumbria Police know who they are and where to find them."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)