Branded a criminal - Red Offender spray is rolled out at Canterbury's nightspots

Paul wrote:

As a serving door supervisor i cant believe some peoples mentality. If it is'nt a tough enough job already we have to deal with so called baristers and law students telling us if we so much as point it at an offender we are in breach of the law. How about the guy running at me with a bottle in his hand? I have been in some tight situations and i know it comes with the job but if i had the offender spray even as a deterant it surely is worth carrying. Bravo to Rightguard.

15 Jul 2010 8:09 PM

Report Abuse

Anon wrote:

I am a serving Police Officer. They are not illegal (in fact Redweb Offender ID is approved by ACPO). I'm shocked at the lack of knowledge displayed by so called legal professionals here. This stuff has been analysed by the Forensic Science Service and proven not to be a Prohibited Weapon under S.5 Firearms Act as it contains no noxious substance. It isn't an offensive weapon because it isn't made, adapted or intended for causing injury to the person as the act requires. If you used it as reasonable force in making an arrest you would be excused from an assault charge by virtue of S.3 Criminal Law Act 1967. If you used it in self defence, you would be excused from an assault charge by virtue of the common law. Likewise with criminal damage. I think it's a great idea. It makes for safer restraint (i.e the doorman might not have to punch a violent person before he can restrain him if he can distract him with this spray).

03 Jun 2010 10:10 PM

Report Abuse

Joe wrote:

BUT IT DOESNT CAUSE PHYSICAL HARM! And surely if this is deployed against a violent, drunk and some times high on drugs, person that is using or threatening violence, then it is infact an act of self defense, which, not just Door Supervisors, but each and everyone of us has a right to exercise.

Youre all overlooking the fact that Doormen (and women!) have no powers of arrest. We have no powers to detain yet we have to deal with violent situations involving alcohol/drugs and or weapons before the Police even get to the scene. Surely this is better than the 'Licensed Thugs' kicking ten shades out of someone whos waving a bottle around or trying to punch the Doorstaff and customers?! I know of at least 2 doorman that carry this and even have had it looked at by the City of London Police and was allowed to carry on as per usual.

If youre being attacked and throw a drink in someones face, how is it any different? If anything its more dangerous as the glass could slip from the hand or attacker could lunge forward and before you know it, the person being attacked would be facing a GBH charge?!

Look at it from the different side of the fence and not text from the book.

17 May 2010 12:46 PM

Report Abuse

Surinder wrote:

Hi Joe, I am a barrister and I can assure you that to carry an object of any kind with the intention of causing physical harm or damage to personal property i.e, clothing or anything else would be termed as a weapon and is most definitely a breach of the "Offences against the Person ACT 1861". This being a law that is still in full use. It would also constitute a breach of "Common Law" and "Civil Law" In my view anyone doing this after having this explained would be subject to a term of imprisonment.

17 May 2010 12:10 PM

Report Abuse

Joe wrote:

Prithpal,

Can I ask you to brush up on the Private Industry Security Act of 2001?

If we want to get into stereotyping about various industries, then how about the one of solicitors being as good as 'regulated daylight robbers??' How can charging £200ph + to do some reading and write some letters be fair??

Can I also ask Michael how he comes to the view of 'Hitlers?'

On numerous occasions, this spray has been deployed up and down the country and as yet not one Doorman has been 'convicted' for its use OR EVEN CARRYING IT. Prithpal, if you wish to try and drag up some case laws or something similar, id be very interested in seeing those.

There's the gauntlet, try and run it.

Not a bad comeback for a knuckle dragging, meat head, regulated, Hitler thug eh?!

17 May 2010 10:59 AM

Report Abuse

Mr. B. wrote:

To Prithpal - in the first instance,for a "solicitor", your spelling is poor to say the least; also, under Common Law, a person may use the minimum force necessary to defend themselves. I would guess that most Courts would hold use of a spray like this to be reasonable. Finally, you do display a rather unprofessional bias. Licensed thugs indeed! (No, I'm not a doorman)

17 May 2010 6:55 AM

Report Abuse

Hama Kavula wrote:

If you don't like the bouncers (sorry, doormen!)... Don't go to the clubs :)

16 May 2010 6:26 PM

Report Abuse

prithpal wrote:

JOE, I am a Solicitor & I have checked thoughourly. If You use this against anyone intentionly you will definitely be guilty at least of Common Assault or worse & if you mark their clothing Criminal Damage. I f you feel you need assistance then pay the Police for their services. Also I am of the view that most "Doormen" are just Licensed Thugs"

16 May 2010 8:58 AM

Report Abuse

Michael wrote:

Football clubs pay for police officers to be in attendance on match days why not make the nightclubs and pubs pay for police officers to be on the on the door of these premises, then we would not need little Hitlers painting people pink.

14 May 2010 10:40 PM

Report Abuse

Joe wrote:

To all of you that are shooting this down before its even used, remember this, us Door Supervisors have a very tough job. We are the first to respond to any type of violence in venues across the country. We dont have batons, we dont have CS spray, we dont have cuffs.

This spray has been about for years, its first inception was called 'Stoppa Red' and has been subject to police scrutiny. This product does not fall under Section 5 of the Firearms act. 'Bouncers' as youve reported, are now regulated by the government and as a result are scrutinised to the hilt. Harminda, ask your uncle to look further into it before 'accusing' users of this product being dragged before the courts for 'Assault'

http://www.stoppashop.co.uk/stoppa-red-media/Stoppa-Red-Legal-Information.pdf

14 May 2010 10:51 AM

Report Abuse

Martin wrote:

Be interesting to see what Kent Police have to say about the use of this spray.

14 May 2010 10:24 AM

Report Abuse

tt wrote:

So what happens when the spray falls on innocent people standing nearby. Why cant they detain them until the police arrive? I think Im correct in saying CS spray is classed as a firearm and a use of force. I dont think they've thought about this!

14 May 2010 10:08 AM

Report Abuse

Harminda wrote:

My uncle a solicitor says anyone other than the Police using this on people would be guilty of "Common Assault" and "Criminal Damage"

14 May 2010 9:51 AM

Report Abuse

Adrian wrote:

Are you kidding me.. Bouncers in Canterbury are already pis* takers. Alberry's for example has bouncers that constantly make trouble with innocent & highly passive people as they power trip. If they abuse this and start 'branding' myself or people I am with a trouble maker and even more importantly ruin clothes there will be more trouble than originated.

14 May 2010 8:49 AM

Report Abuse