Notes from the latest Independent Advisory Group meeting
The policing of football in London is relevant to us all. The Independent Advisory Group (IAG) has productive face-to-face meetings between supporter representatives and the Met’s C.I. Pete Dearden and his team. Last month’s meeting focused on policing of the Euros and the new VAWG initiative to protect women and girls at football. Your FST representatives are Sue Couch and Ian Clarke, who gained fascinating insights to share about the laws and policies that affect us as fans. Read our article on the meeting here. Words by Sue Couch.
Attending were representatives of London supporter groups including West Ham, Millwall, Crystal Palace and Charlton with Sue Couch and Ian Clarke from the Fulham Supporters’ Trust, as well as Vicky Goodfellow, FSA caseworker. Chief Inspector Pete Dearden and his colleague, Inspector Louise Smith, represented the Met. CI Dearden took over from Simon Brooker who has retired from the police and is now a consultant in Premier League matchday safety.
We used to see several Dedicated Football Officers (DFOs) at these meetings in the early days but not so much recently. However, all members know how to contact their club’s DFO, and we are encouraged to do so. The chain of communication to senior officers and decision makers in the policing of football begins at grass roots – the supporters themselves, fan representatives in groups like this, and DFOs – successful policing depends on these relationships. Fulham’s DFO is Tony Delamo – say hello the next time you see him at home or away.
These IAG meetings are led, and the agenda chosen, by the supporter reps. All IAGs are meant to work that way, with the experts there to listen, provide information, and ultimately take feedback into account when deciding policy. We supporters are the experts in our own experience, which makes the encounter mutually beneficial. The police answer questions as fully as possible, and the exchanges are cordial and candid.
Two topics dominated this meeting:
- Policing and safety of supporters during the Euros, in Germany and at home.
- Safety and protection of woman and girls at football.
Safety of the public, and football supporters in particular, is the main concern of the police football unit. It’s fair to say that their responsibilities and the limitations of those responsibilities are not always fully understood by fans.
Matters arising from the previous meeting included crowd safety at railway stations and the use of facial recognition technology.
Some railway stations in London experience considerable congestion after football and may at times be closed due to overcrowding. The issue arises partly over ownership of responsibility for crowd management between British Transport Police and Network Rail. The train companies themselves are not responsible for safety at stations and Network Rail would want money to pay for any improvements.
Facial recognition technology has not been used since the Arsenal v Tottenham fixture last season. Its benefits are debatable compared to the cost and resources needed. The first time it was used at football it identified amongst others a man who was wanted for rape, which is the level of criminality that can be argued justifies its use and the resources required. People have many misconceptions about the technology and its use in policing, but we should rest assured facial recognition isn’t being used to track us down for minor offences like failing to pay a parking fine; the police are looking for more serious offenders. Facial recognition must be used with care and in line with Human Rights Legislation. CI Dearden emphasised that it isn’t the blunt instrument that people fear. Because images need to be uploaded beforehand it is extremely time consuming and therefore costly and there are no plans to use it at football matches any time soon.
Euro 2024: We were eager to hear feedback from the policing perspective.
Police officers from all over the country attended this tournament, including a contingency from London. A risk assessment was conducted each day. Although 77 arrests were made overall, England fans were generally well behaved. While videos of some negative incidents appeared on social media, some were from years gone by.
At Heathrow airport, travelling fans who may have had Football Banning Orders (FBOs) were monitored but this monitoring did not take place at any other London airports. Of those fans with FBOs, 99% (1719 fans) had surrendered their passports voluntarily and the police followed up on those who had not done so. (A total of 250 new FBOs were issued last season.)
Fans from rival clubs were not seen fighting each other in Germany. Inroads have been made against the hooligan behaviour of years gone by, though there are still men in their 50’s and 60’s who resurrect it from time to time. Of more concern now are the ‘ultra’ type groups. These are younger fans, more likely be intoxicated with Class A drugs and wanting to celebrate with pyros (more on these later).
Over in Europe, the issuing of ‘on the spot’ fines by local police means that arrests might not be made, in which case UK officers are unable to follow up incidents. It can mean that rogue fans escape justice, and this is a source of frustration. On the other hand, the presence of UK cops significantly prevented disorder in, for example, the square where Turkish and English fans had both gathered. Our police were able to advise and assist by anticipating potential trouble and steering the two groups apart. The difference in police tactics and methods of crowd control are very much highlighted during events like the Euros.
We heard from one member who went to most matches in Germany that there were issues and difficulties with transport, and he was worried by the Security Forces rather than the police. He is going to bring more detail to the next meeting.
Back home, depressingly, statistics showed reports of domestic violence increased by 20% when England were playing and by 32% when England lose.
In London, 900 police were on duty for the final. There were some issues early in the evening at Leicester Square where eight arrests were made. There were no reports of use of pyrotechnics or any large-scale disorder. 15,000 ballots were available to fans for an event at the O2 Arena. This passed without incident. Somewhat surprisingly, a higher number of incidents were reported in Derby and Norwich than in Central London. The £5m allocated to preventing chaos and ensuring a licensing plan was in place seems to have been money well spent.
A plan that had taken months of work was in place in case the English team had won. A parade was scheduled for the Tuesday and would have involved 2,000 police officers as well as 4,000 stewards. There would have been an open top bus parade and a fly-by from the Red Arrows (for a mere £10,000 – the standard Red Arrows fee).
CI Dearden strongly recommended the Netflix documentary on the Euro 2020 final at Wembley, ‘The Final: Attack on Wembley’. I took his advice and watched. It is a real eye-opener, revealing how an event can escalate out of control and defeat safety plans, due to unforeseen behaviour by large numbers and different groups of people. It seems miraculous that nobody died that day. The film also makes clear that not all crowd management is the responsibility of the police. Arenas and stadia have their own health and safety policies and procedures that are implemented by their own staff. Security arrangements are the responsibility of the organisers, e.g. Wembley Stadium. Police have to step in when Events Organisers’ plans fail. Contrary to a common misconception they are not there to police the event.
Because of what took place in July 2021 huge changes have been made in crowd management and stewarding practice in and around Wembley, resulting in a safer and more pleasant experience for everyone.
Planning for Euro 2028 has already begun, with Wembley and Tottenham stadia to be used, and public safety as the number one priority.
Aside from extreme situations caused by incidents caused by intoxication, over-exuberance, overcrowding, etc, the risk of a terrorist attack is ever-present and a constant priority when planning the policing of large-scale events. It was noted that Martyn’s Law was mentioned in the King’s Speech on17th July as part of the programme of legislation the Government intends to pursue. Martyn’s Law will require premises to fulfil necessary but proportionate steps, according to their capacity, to help keep the public safe. It is named in tribute to Martyn Hett who was killed alongside twenty-one others in the Manchester Arena attack in 2017.
(Interesting fact – ‘Tailgating’ through turnstiles is covered by The Fraud Act).
Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) is an issue of huge importance and the police are pushing hard to improve the safety of females with the VAWG programme which is being given as much focus by the police as last season’s drugs initiative. The VAWG programme should engage us all in calling out and refusing to tolerate misogynistic and violent behaviour towards female fans of all ages.
CI Dearden highlighted the groundbreaking work done by DFOs at Brentford and West Ham, which is being rolled out at other clubs, where booths have been put in place prior to matches and the DFOs have reached out to fan groups to raise awareness and signpost fans to where further support is available.
Sometimes there is reluctance from the clubs themselves, who do not want to highlight this type of behaviour in case it reflects badly on them. Unfortunately, misogyny and violent behaviour towards women and girls is a societal /cultural issue, not necessarily one that just relates to football and so we should all encourage women and girls to reach out and speak up when they feel threatened or unsafe. The police are going to tackle this issue head on.
Premier League DFOs and safety officers are aware of the importance of this ongoing programme The Football Spotters Conference on 18th July was to be focused on it.
There is now a VAWG team implementing VAWG strategy as they did for drugs last season and there is, or should be, a VAWG team for each football club.
The team will be actively looking for suspects who are there to target women and girls.There is special concern about the safety of hospitality and reception staff who are being physically and verbally abused and who are too afraid to speak out, feeling they must put up with it. CI Dearden highlighted a serious incident that took place in the hospitality section of a premier league club and reiterated the importance of reporting misogyny, hate crime etc to prevent such behaviour and ensure women and girls feel safe at football – including while travelling to and from the match. Verbal and other hate crimes are still happening in public, often unchallenged.It is understood that most male fans don’t pose a threat, but the minority who do cause lasting harm, so we can each play a part in standing up against them.
The aim is to increase awareness and encourage women to report incidents. In some cases, when incidents are reported, local police or other linked organisations do not pursue incidents even if harassment or abuse continues. When this happens it should be reported to the club DFO who should then escalate it to CI Dearden.
We were advised that success will first appear to be a worsening of the situation, because the additional work will result in more arrests, which will highlight the problem.
Trusts and Supporters’ Groups can spread the message to our members, and we can, and should, tell our DFOs of any problems or incidents related to the issue. It need not be only the most serious incidents that deserve to be reported, but smaller and more insidious events that make women and girls feel unsafe or uncomfortable. We can help to change the culture, as has happened with other forms of discrimination and abuse. When we look back to even a couple of decades ago, what seemed acceptable and was commonplace then is no longer okay – for example, homophobic and racist abuse disguised as banter. The Met are fully committed to the VAWG strategy and we as individuals and as a Trust can help to make a difference.
Questions were raised about the pyrotechnics at Champions League Final in Wembley in June. Their use is illegal in this country though they are commonly seen and tolerated in Europe. Pyros are dangerous, and while they are apparently accepted in some countries, they remain illegal here with zero tolerance shown by police.
How did pyrotechnics get into Wembley? Pyros are not detected by wands. None were sighted on the march to the stadium. Pat down searches don’t always find pyros, which can be hidden in unlikely places and smuggled inside flags etc. A large flag was taken into Wembley stadium prior to the game, and pyros may have been rolled up inside the flag or taken into the ground some other way. Legislation needs updating so that it is an offence to have pyrotechnics at a game by closing a current loophole that means they can be on the concourse.
There was a large push on drugs last season, leading to a higher number of Football Banning Orders being issued due to a change in the law over FBOs. Use of drugs tends to lead to a higher incidence of crime. You will sometimes see trained drugs dogs at matches, but there is a lack of funding from clubs to pay for these. Supporter groups could lobby clubs to spend more on detection of class A drugs, which would target a minority of fans but could improve matchdays for everyone else. Ideally, stewards should be monitoring fan behaviour at home games to identify any pockets of antisocial behaviour and ensuring the club deal with it.
The meeting ended at 8.20pm with the next scheduled to take place in September.
We would welcome any questions or issues raised by the topics above or anything related to the policing of football.
