Theoz

Dammit. You got me. Not even a Wednesday fan. Just been waiting on here for this exact thread. And I’d have gotten away with it if it wasn’t for you pesky kids.

I explained earlier though appreciate it’s getting to be a long thread to read every comment. Being sprayed means you were there, it doesn’t mean you are guilty of any offence. Even if the police did a mass identification using this technology all it proves is that you were at the location at that point in time. If you have a mobile phone, have purchased a match ticket using your legitimate details or are captured on CCTV / video surveillance that can equally be used to prove the same thing. This gives a higher evidential quality of your presence - eg you can’t claim someone stole your phone, you can’t hide your face with a mask or you can’t give false details. The police still need to reach the same evidential bar that you have committed an offence.

I’ve done my best to explain how it works, what it’s used for and also what it doesn’t do. I have no affiliation to the police or the company that manufactures this. I simply wanted to inform and myth bust. If there’s anything I’ve said that’s not clear, ask away. Though I’m really intrigued by how you think this can be used to control you, by stealth or otherwise.

Neither. I’m an international man of mystery.

Or you could look at it that a small minority of “fans” cost the club thousands in paying for policing, divert resources away from stopping prolific offenders and clamping down on crime hot spots and cause genuine fans to be treated differently from other members of the public. I guess either viewpoint works. As with the minority of football “fans” there’s a minority of SYP officers who discredit the majority.

What happens is the police have a significantly enhanced chance of meeting the standard for a successful prosecution and the people who are attacked have a greater chance of receiving justice. For those innocent people inadvertently caught by the spray. They have the inconvenience of having a non-harmful substance on their skin or clothes for a few weeks that they’ll never know one way or other that it’s present or not.

That’s numberwang. Yes, exactly that. Calling it DNA spray leads to a lot of the mistrust around it. Bad naming. Good scientific invention.

In that scenario there is no realistic chance of any prosecution. You were there, so were thousands of other people. When used in a bank vault, slightly different metrics. Though when used as intended for the match, it supports a prosecution. On its own, it’s fairly worthless.

I refute any suggestion that I have ever been on the rubber dingy rapids.

Not trusting SYP - that’s good judgement. The whole purpose of the spray, why it’s described as DNA spray is that it links you to a specific location, date and time. It cannot be used to link you to another scene of crime. It’s designed to do the exact opposite of that.

Nope, again misunderstanding its purpose. It prevents someone saying “not me, weren’t there” as the presence of the spay proves beyond reasonable doubt you were. They’d still need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you had committed an offence. A combination of video footage, witness statements etc could support the latter. If you’re sprayed as an innocent bystander the likelihood is that video footage would identify you anyway. This is for those who wear masks or shake their heads vigorously to avoid detection.

Totally agree with you on having a healthy distrust of authority and the comments above about (a section) of SYP engaging in nothing more than thuggery. Just actually see this technology as being beneficial to counter both of those. Big fan of both science and technology. I humbly withdraw my accusations on your choice of headwear. Peace out.

Does the tinfoil not make your ears itch? All the spray does is prove you were in a particular location at a given time. Every other element of burden of proof that you committed a crime needs to apply. You may have noticed that certain sections of society figured out during Covid times that wearing a mask makes you harder to recognise. If the police had witnessed or held video evidence of a crime being committed by a mask wearing nerdowell, this spray can be used to prove who that was. Approximately 2% of the population have a skill known as super recognition. The police use those with this skill to review video footage. So basically, whilst you might be wearing a mask, you can still expect a knock on your door if you’re recognised. And if you’ve been sprayed, you can’t deny being present.

Not sure if you’ve misunderstood what this spray is / does. This isn’t collecting anyone’s DNA nor is it going to tag every fan. In the event of disorder, the spray is deployed at those involved. If - big if - they’re arrested in the following weeks the spray will still be present and detectable on their skin and clothes. The “DNA” part is that the spray is uniquely attributable to the event / date / time used and can be proven that the person was present. It’s not draconian, Orwellian or any other kind of Ian.

As satisfying as it would be, it’s purely wishful thinking. The EFL *could* waive the 25% rule though that would then apply to any unsecured creditor. Like a divorce, it’s better to pay up and not be the bitter ex. If we either didn’t pay him as an unsecured creditor or the EFL agreed that we didn’t have to pay all unsecured creditors 25% all that would achieve is having legal liabilities hanging over us for months if not years. He’s in for almost £120m in unsecured loans across the two companies and he paid £35m for us in the first place. Whatever the outcome, he’ll be substantially worse off. Meanwhile, for us, the future’s bright. The future’s blue and white.