UPDATED: Casey Review highlights issues regarding the management and responsibilities of the zones around Wembley Stadium that should be resolved

UPDATE 15,15 Friday: A Brent Council spokesperson said: "We welcome Baroness Casey's detailed and balanced report. This is not about a blame game, this is about learning lessons to ensure that the shocking scenes of EURO Sunday can never be repeated. We will work closely with partners, including the FA and Metropolitan Police, to take forward the recommendations."

The Casey Review published today LINK  finds that the arrival of large numbers of ticketless fans at Wembley on the day of the final was predictable. What was unexpected was the ferocity and scale of these efforts. The behaviour of those who may not have come to Wembley planning to get into the stadium but joined in, often violently, when it became apparent that this was possible, was particularly striking.

However, warning signs (involving earlier matches in the tournament) were not recognised as parts of a bigger picture of trouble looming. This was largely due to assumptions that trouble was more likely to flare after the game and across London. Brent Council were the exception to some degree, having flagged concerns in the days leading up to the final. On the day around 9am a Brent Council official flagged up that ticketless fans were queueing up at pubs near the stadium.

Chapter 4 of the Review  concludes that although action was stepped up for the final there was an absence of risk assessment for the occasion that Euro Sunday represented. This amounted to a collective failure by partners involved.

 

Summary of key findings (extracted from the Review) Highlighting mine.

The key findings of the Review are as follows:

• ●  The behaviour of a large minority of England supporters was not just disgraceful, it recklessly endangered lives
• ●  There were a series of crowd ‘near misses’ which could have led to significant injuries or even death
• ●  Planning and preparation for Euro Sunday was hampered by a set of unique conditions, including the ongoing need to manage the Covid-19 pandemic, which combined to create a ‘perfect storm’
• ●  Many of the events that unfolded were foreseeable, and, while there were many mitigating factors, there was a collective failure to plan for the worst case scenario
• ●  A loss of experienced stewards as a result of the pandemic left Wembley’s stewarding operation vulnerable when confronted with the most aggressive and disorderly crowd Wembley had ever seen
• ●  The absence of a fan zone or fan zones denied the police and other agencies a key crowd management tool and was potentially a very significant factor
• ●  There was insufficient enforcement of the ban on consuming alcohol on public transport in London
• ●  The policing of the final did not sufficiently mitigate the risk of ticketless fans with officers deployed too late in the day
• ●  There are a lack of enforcement mechanisms available to respond to and deter the kind of behaviour witnessed at Euro Sunday
• ●  Planning of the final did not match the ‘occasion’ that was Euro Sunday 
  

 

 

 Recommendations 

 

This Review makes 5 recommendations for national consideration and 3 specifically for the FA and Wembley and its partners. This Review has been conducted on behalf of the FA to look at their own responsibilities with regard to Euro Sunday.

 

We have considered the wider partnerships and the national context within which the event took place and taken the liberty of making some recommendations with that in mind. It should also be noted that while this Review is concerned with football there are many lessons that could be applied to the wider stadium and event industry. 

 

1. I recommend that the Government considers a new category for football matches of national significance 

 

The majority of partners treated the Euro final as another match albeit a significant one, rather than an event of national significance. As a result, the security arrangements surrounding the final were underpowered and public safety was not given the prominence it deserved. 

 

In the future, there should be a new category for football matches of national significance, with the SGSA, police, and other key partners setting out what steps should be taken for such matches. This could include:

• ●  A maximalist police (and other agencies with enforcement powers) resourcing and deployment plan
• ●  The establishment of a sterile area within Zone Ex which is restricted to ticket- holders
• ●  More robust governance arrangements including an independent checkpoint as part of the process
• ●  Enhanced enforcement of bans on alcohol consumption on public transport and in other designated public spaces 
  

 

The prospect of new legislation is welcome and timely as it gives the Government the opportunity to update the legal framework that governs spectator safety which has not been significantly reviewed since the Hillsborough tragedy. 

 

2. I recommend that the Government consider tasking the SGSA to work with the FA and the event industry to undertake a review of stewarding 

 

SGSA should undertake a review and research the current challenges faced by live sporting events in securing sufficient numbers of trained stewards and provide guidance to the sector on how public safety can be assured. 

 

A range of wider factors, including the pandemic (which prompted many experienced stewards to find new vocations) and global supply chain challenges, have created significant workforce challenges for the stewarding sector. It is important that the implications of these shortages are understood for the wider events sector. 

 

The SGSA should work with key partners (including the FA and United Kingdom Crowd Management Association (UKCMA)) to understand the particular factors in play here and their implications for the longer-term sustainability of the stewarding role at major sports events. That, in turn, should inform wider considerations within the Government and the sector itself. 

 

3. The SGSA, the events industry, the police and local government agree on a way forward on who is accountable for Zone Ex 

 

There should be clear accountability for public safety in Zone Ex. The question of who was responsible for public safety on Olympic Way was a contributing factor to the inability to deal with the disorder seen in the build-up to kick-off. The police and stadium operators have for many years contested the issue of who is responsible for safety and security in Zone Ex (the area of public space outside the stadium used by supporters) and the financing of it remains a contested issue. This should be resolved. 

 

The SGSA should review the provisions of the 1975 Safety of Sports Grounds Act, together with its oversight powers and any associated guidance for local authorities, to determine if they are still fit for purpose, particularly in relation to the control and management of Zone Ex. 

 

4. I ask that The FA - as the governing body that oversees football - lead a national campaign to bring about a sea-change in attitudes towards supporter behaviours 

 

The appalling behaviour of supporters on Euro Sunday should be a wake-up call for us all. For too long, the actions of a minority of England fans have been tolerated as a part of our national culture (albeit an embarrassing one), rather than confronted head-on. 

 

The FA and Wembley, working with others, should step up action on eradicating such behaviours from football, including:

• ●  refusing to allow entry to fans who arrive chanting foul abuse and/ or are clearly under the influence of alcohol and/ or drugs
• ●  stricter enforcement (with police support) against those behaving badly inside the stadium, with consideration being given to ejections also leading to an automatic exclusion and ban from all football grounds (not just Wembley)
• ●  more proactive engagement with the Football Safety Officers Association around intelligence-sharing, particularly with regards to fan behaviours
• ●  a considerable step-up action again to stamp out racism by the FA, Premier League and English Football League
• ● Appoint the Football Supporters Association (supported by the FA) to a leading role in working with fans and others to eradicate these behaviours 
  

 

5. I recommend that the Government consider strengthening the penalties for football-related disorder, particularly behaviours which recklessly endanger lives and these penalties should be well understood and robustly enforced 

 

The existing enforcement mechanisms available to the police and other enforcement officers do not offer enough deterrent against those determined to use the cover of football matches to commit criminal offences. Tailgating, for example, should become a criminal offence. Sanctions for those breaking into football stadiums and/ or recklessly endangering lives is weak. 

 

It is welcomed by the Review that the Prime Minister has committed to making it possible to obtain a football banning order against a person convicted of online racist offences. 

 

In light of expert advice provided to this Review by Daniel Greenberg CB, we recommend that the Home Office considers options for strengthening the legal framework surrounding football-related disorder, with a particular focus on addressing the weaknesses and gaps identified in this Review. Specifically, the Home Office should consider:

• ●  ensuring that the FBO regime to ensure drugs-related disorderly behaviour is treated in the same way as alcohol-related disorder
• ●  identifying a suitable legislative mechanism for deterring the practice of tailgating, such as through an expanded FBO regime or through the application of PNDs
• ●  identifying a suitable legislative mechanism for a new offence of endangering public safety in a stadium through reckless behaviour, such as interfering with emergency doors, triggering fire alarms or damaging barriers and other safety infrastructure, with penalties comparable to those for endangering the safety of an aircraft
• ●  Greater urgency to introduce the Online Safety Bill should be given as it is a real opportunity to stiffen penalties for racism and hate speech online

 

6. Recommendations specifically for the FA/Wembley and key partners

6.a The FA and Wembley should strengthen plans for safety both physical and human, ahead of any matches or events of significant risk. This should include but not be limited to:

• ●  The physical fences and means of separating and filtering unticketed fans from those with legitimate access.
• ●  Particular attention should be made to ensuring those entering through gates provided for wheelchair users and other more vulnerable members of society are not endangered by the reckless actions of others.
• ●  A staff survey of all those involved with security, stewarding and safety on Euro Sunday so the FA can be doubly sure their views are taken into any future changes
• ●  Security plans should be regularly peer reviewed by experienced safety and security professionals to ensure rigour
• ●  The incoming Chair of the FA should take steps to be sure that she and the FA Board have suitable oversight of safety and security at Wembley Stadium 
  

 

6.b. A more joined up approach between Wembley and the MPS is required to managing public safety on match-days, including joint tasking and debriefing of operational teams 

 

6.c The key partners represented on the Wembley SAG, most notably the MPS, the FA and Brent Council, need to make a concerted effort to proactively solicit and listen to each other’s concerns and avoid any single agency from becoming too dominant.

 

 CAROLYN DOWNS, BRENT COUNCIL CEO, RAISED CONCERNS AFTER THE GERMANY MATCH WITH THE MET POLICE MATCH COMMANDER AND CABINET COVID-19 TASK FORCE

 

EXTRACT:

A written submission from Brent Council to the Review indicates that as England progressed through the tournament, antisocial behaviour increased around the stadium. When England played Scotland, the council noticed ticketless fans gathering for the first time in the plaza at the end of Olympic Way. On the day of the following match, against the Czech Republic, the council issued 17 Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) for public urination, street drinking and littering near the stadium. 

 

The council’s concerns about fan behaviour inside and outside the stadium escalated significantly after England played Germany in the ‘round of 16’ with stadium capacity increased to 40,000. Some fans arrived in the morning without tickets and began drinking on Olympic Way outside the Co-op supermarket and Butlers convenience store. By the afternoon they were climbing on street furniture such as bins, benches and lamp posts, and throwing glass bottles in the air. The council subsequently issued 22 FPNs for public urination. 

 

“People were buying crates of beer. That’s something that I hadn't seen before at Wembley (football games).” - Sports Ground Safety Authority official 

 

Other ticketless fans gathered outside the White Horse pub and moved to the foot of the Spanish Steps during this match, prompting a Euro 2020 Fans Embassy representative to warn police there could be trouble unless this crowd was moved on. 

 

Brent officials were now concerned about off-licence sales to supporters who could not get into pubs and bars to watch matches due to Covid-19 restrictions. 

 

“We were concerned after the Scotland game but it was the Germany game that really worried us. People were openly saying they had no tickets. They were partying until 6pm. None of this is normal for Wembley.” - Brent Council official 

 

Brent Council chief executive Carolyn Downs was sufficiently concerned about the gathering of crowds around the White Horse and on Olympic Way to speak to the MPS Match Commander after the match and request they ensure officers move them on. In addition, Downs asked her staff to explore options to stop shops selling alcohol completely if England progressed in the tournament. Her team believed that they did not have that power and that it would be for the police to apply to a magistrates court. 

 

Downs was sufficiently concerned about the disorder surrounding the Germany game on 29 June to raise it not only with her own staff but with the Cabinet Office and MPS. 

 

On 30 June, a meeting of senior government officials was convened by the Cabinet Office’s Covid-19 Taskforce. The meeting’s purpose was solely Covid-19 related, and was not due to consider any other issues regarding the tournament. Downs, however, used the meeting to raise her concerns about fan behaviour outside Wembley when England had played Germany. Downs told the meeting that the atmosphere had been “toxic” and the council was unhappy about ticketless fans gathering by the stadium. The chief executive of the Sports Ground Safety Authority also expressed his concerns about fan behaviour, having witnessed “trampolining” on empty seats covered with UEFA branded tarpaulins. 

 

Though the MPS were not invited to this meeting, Downs repeated her views about the toxic atmosphere to a senior MPS officer later that day. 

 

The following day (1 July) the Wembley Safety Advisory Group (WSAG) met at the request of Downs to discuss Brent and the SGSA’s concerns ahead of the semi-final matches. Safety Advisory Groups (SAG) meet in order to consider events at a stadium or sports ground which present a significant public safety risk. Though advisory by nature, a SAG is typically chaired by the local council which issues a stadium with the safety certificate it needs in order to operate. Prior to the tournament, the Wembley SAG met on 18 March and 4 June to discuss tournament preparations. 

 

At this meeting it was clear that the MPS were angry not to have been invited to the Cabinet Office ‘challenge session’ on 30 June as a delivery partner. They had feedback from the Home Office which they believed questioned their operational independence. This was unfortunate as it set the tone for the WSAG on 1 July. 

 

A video recording of the 1 July WSAG, chaired by Brent Council’s Director of Community Safety and attended by officials from the FA, Wembley, the SGSA, the MPS and Brent, makes it clear there was shared concern that the levels of intoxication within the stadium had become unprecedented. 

 

An SGSA official present at England's game against Germany told the meeting they “had never seen behaviour like it...They were all drunk on the concourse, you know, there was beer going everywhere.” The official described persistent standing around the stadium as “dreadful”, and concluded that the prospect of similar behaviour if England reached the semi-finals, with a larger number of fans inside the stadium, was “really, really frightening”. 

 

A Brent Council official recounted intervening personally to prevent a drunken fan falling from the parapet of level 5 while celebrating an England goal. They concluded: “As for the drunkenness and spillage...I've been in the stadium for a number of years, and I haven't seen that kind of mess or behaviour.” 

 

Stadium records seen by the Review show that 56 people required medical treatment during the match against Germany, with people taken to hospital for drunkenness, injuries suffered when falling down steps, and heart problems. 

 

The Wembley officials agreed that fan behaviour had changed from before the pandemic, but described it as “jubilant”. One told the meeting: “I do think we do have to take into account we've never, ever faced anything on the back of a pandemic. And I definitely feel that there is a release that happened on that day.” 

 

The stadium promised to increase stewarding on level 5 in the semi-finals again by redeploying staff from outside the stadium following kick-off. Drinks per person were further reduced, from four pints to two.

However, the SGSA official expressed a preference for a total alcohol ban if England reached the semi-finals, to prevent fans injuring themselves seriously. They told the meeting: “I have never seen that behaviour at Wembley before. And, you know, there is no way you can deal with that behaviour.” 

 

When the meeting discussed fan behaviours outside the stadium, the MPS Silver Commander for Euro 2020 did not agree with the view that the atmosphere was toxic when England played Germany. Their information was that the England fans were “exuberant and happy'' and that the atmosphere was no different from other high stakes football matches at Wembley, such as a play off final. He concluded that the police were preparing for “more of the same” behaviour should England progress to the semi-finals. 

 

Nobody at the WSAG challenged the MPS’ position, despite the council and the SGSA having different opinions. 

 

Nor did anybody at the meeting attempt to reconcile the police view that there was nothing unusual about what was happening outside the stadium with the concerns strongly expressed about the unprecedented fan behaviour inside the stadium. 

 

The meeting concluded with an agreement to support the MPS Silver Commander in asking for a larger number of police officers for future matches. The MPS subsequently added in an extra TSG unit of 33 officers inside Wembley on top of the two TSG units. The MPS told the Review that this decision reflected concerns about the adequacy of stewarding within the stadium. 

 

The MPS told the Review that it debriefed after each match at Wembley, fed back to the WSAG and increased officer numbers there steadily through the tournament and tasked them to be more assertive in moving on fans who gathered outside the stadium.

 

People's Covid Inquiry accuses government of gross negligence

 

 From Keep Our NHS Public

The People’s Covid Inquiry has accused the Government of ‘misconduct in public office’ yesterday over its handling of the coronavirus pandemic which led to tens of thousands of avoidable deaths. Yesterday, on Wednesday 1 December, the People’s Covid Inquiryorganised by Keep Our NHS Public presented our finished report.  In the absence of a formal public inquiry into the pandemic, The People’s Covid Inquiry began in February 2021 and concluded it’s hearings in the summer. It covered all aspects of the government’s handling of the pandemic and heard testimony from a wide range of people and organisations. These included previous government advisors and key academics, as well as frontline workers and bereaved family members. The Inquiry was chaired by world renowned human rights barrister Michael Mansfield QC who, together with a panel of experts, have now delivered their findings and recommendations on all main aspects of the pandemic to date. KEY FINDINGS INCLUDE: 1. The depleted state of the NHS and other public services prior to the pandemic was a determining factor in poor outcomes and led to avoidable deaths. 2. The government was poorly prepared for the pandemic and moved too slowly, which led to avoidable death. 3. The government adopted the wrong strategy leading to loss of life and growing mistrust in its advice. 4. The government’s poor record on inequalities has put the most vulnerable at risk from illness and death from Covid-19. 5. Misconduct in public office: There has been dismal failure in the face of manifestly obvious risks.  The report received a huge amount of press interest just a section of which you can read by looking at the press page on our People's Covid Inquiry website.

People’s Covid Inquiry chair Michael Mansfield QC, said: This People’s Covid Inquiry report is unequivocal – dismal failure in the face of manifestly obvious risks…This Inquiry performed a much-needed and urgent public service when the nation was hit by a catastrophic pandemic coincident with an unprecedented period of democratic deficiency. It afforded an opportunity for the beleaguered citizen to be heard; for the victims to be addressed; for the frontline workers to be recognised; and for independent experts to be respected. When it mattered most and when lives could have been saved, the various postures adopted by government could not sustain scrutiny. It was plain to Keep Our NHS Public (the organisers of the People’s Covid Inquiry) that Government words were bloated hot air, hoping to delay and obfuscate. Within this narrative lies a theme of behaviour amounting to gross negligence by the Government, whether examined singularly or collectively. There were lives lost and lives devastated, which was foreseeable and preventable. From lack of preparation and coherent policy, unconscionable delay, through to preferred and wasteful procurement, to ministers themselves breaking the rules, the misconduct is earth-shattering.   Dr Tony O’Sullivan, Co-Chair of Keep Our NHS Public and retired Consultant Paediatrician, said:   We are proud that our Inquiry filled the deafening silence from Government and set out to learn the lessons that could save lives in this and future pandemics. We are shocked at the avoidable loss of tens of thousands of lives through the neglect of pandemic planning, the run down of the NHS, and the intense inequality in this country. We heard the pride of NHS, care and other frontline staff and we heard about their pain, exhaustion and moral injury. The level of government cronyism and resultant profiteering has been blatant and in plain sight. Our overall conclusion is that there has been misconduct in public office. This has to be addressed. If we ignore it, the country cannot learn the lessons from today to face the challenge of tomorrow.   The pandemic is not over, and despite previous improvements, infection rates and death tolls are once again rising. As winter approaches and the Omicron Variant takes hold, the government must act now or more avoidable deaths will occur. With political will and public support, there is no reason we can’t still emerge from the pandemic with an NHS that is not on the brink of collapse as it is now, but having learned lessons, gained experience, and seen proper investment in a publicly provided health-and-care service, in order to keep the nation safe as and when another crisis like this occurs. The Executive Summary and the Full Report of the People’s Covid Inquiry is available to download here.

LETTER: Who will provide advocacy for Brent's 50,000 disabled & elders?

 Dear Editor,

The government published their Social Care White Paper yesterday (1st December 2021) and identified the main problem facing elders & disabled people is in accessing advocacy,  information &  advice about what services are available at a local level.  To meet this need funding of £5,000,000 will be provided covering the first 3 years, to provide advocacy, advice & information which will be delivered by locally based organisations.

Two years ago exactly (end of November 2019) Brent Advocacy Concerns had to give up their office and at the time we were providing advocacy, information & advice to disabled people and elders in every Ward in Brent all for free. 

We leased our office at The Willesden Centre for Health & Care from NHS Property Services but we could not afford the rent.  We asked both Brent Council & Brent CCG to help us out financially but we were were not offered any help and the CCG even said there was no demand for advocacy and instead of funding us, they felt the money saved could be used in providing services that were in demand.

In over 30 years at our Willesden office we built up a team of advocates who were all disabled people and therefore were able to identify with other disabled people & elders looking for help.  e.g. I had both a BA degree and diploma in Health & Welfare, along with 28 years of providing advocacy support and most of my experience centred around Housing & Social Care, together with various Health issues.

After leaving our office we continued to provide services with disabled people contacting us by email, or over the phone but we realised we could not deliver the same level of service without an office, where we could see potential clients face to face.  So we decided to close down and we were removed from the Register of Charties last September (2021) after completing over 33 years of providing free services to Brent's disabled communities, along with Brent Elders.

It will be interesting to see who takes over from Brent Advocacy Concerns and whoever it is, will they continue to provide services for free including advocacy, information and advice to Brent's estimated 50,000 disabled & elders who are all potential clients?

From John Healy

Former trustee and volunteer advocate of Brent Advocacy Concerns (Charity Number 1001369).

The River Westbourne, a tale of two boroughs: Kilburn major flood incidents update

 Guest Post by David Walton

Previous posts have discussed the River Westbourne and its tributary the Malvern, which together form the borough boundary between City of Westminster and Brent in Kilburn  and which have a tendency to flood impact lives and homes both sides of this administrative, social and political divide.

 

City of Westminster's Finance, Smart City and City Management Policy Scrutiny Committee 30^th September 2021 published its Lead Local Flood Authority Section 19 Interim Flood Investigation Report findings. LINK This is based on what Westminster knows and disclaims any error in or omission from this report.

 

Report summary

 

The nearest rainfall gauge is at Putney Heath 8.5 km away and so it proved impossible to establish exactly how heavy the rainfall was on 12^th July, but it is estimated by Thames Water that more than the entire month's average rainfall fell in 1 hour*. Local sewers/rivers in this area were unable to cope. In Westminster approximately 230 properties were internal flood impacted with Kilburn Park Road (shared with Brent) needing to be evacuated. Underground lines closed due to flooding as was one primary school, three libraries and three community centres.

 

Thames Water reported that the rainfall on 12^th July was equivalent to a 1 in 300 year event. The second flooding on 25^th July in this same cross borough boundary area (this time a month's rainfall in 2 hours and another 1 in 300 year's event) is now subject to a second separate Section 19 Flood Investigation by the City of Westminster. The report states that the Environment Agency is not the responsible risk management authority for the 12^th July flood event.

 

The River Westbourne is report named as a combined sewer and it is described how in heavy rain it sewage discharges into the River Thames. The Kilburn sewer rivers were likely already at full capacity when heavy rains* started and tried to enter the network. The £22 million Maida Vale Flood Alleviation Defence is meant to deal only with a 1 in 30 year storm event/ not a 1 in 300 year one? The report states that the entire cross borough boundary flood area is Flood Zone 1 having an annual flooding probability of 0.1% from fluvial and tidal sources. There is however High Surface Water Flood Risk throughout this floods prone area.

 

Westminster is in 2021 trialling gully sensors to give real time information on silt level build-up in gullies, the aim being to clean gullies before surface water events. In the flood area these gullies were cleaned within 3 months of the event and were in effective condition for July 12^th event. (For the 25^th event many would have likely had blockages?)

 

Westminster Lead local Flood Authority interim recommendations are for

 

a) an increase in reliable rain gauges on site b) The LLFA to keep better records of past flood events for future reference c) to further optimise drainage maintenance d) wider catchment considerations (South Kilburn destroying all of its natural parkland flood defences) will be investigated by flood responsible agencies where the Regional Flood and Coastal Committee may be involved. e) Thames Water is organising meetings with LLFA's and its own Independent Review and these findings will inform the final S19 report. This process could take 6 months!

 

Thames Water reported that the July 12^th rainfall was more than the drainage "network was ever designed to cope with. To the best of our knowledge, our sewers and pumping stations performed as designed….." No system blockages were found either. The Northwest storm relief sewer was overloaded and a River Thames high tide prevented overflow flaps from opening.

 

"Where there is uncertainty over the cause of the incident and therefore responsibility for it, Thames Water needs to take action to support customers without concerns that in taking action we are wrongly accepting liability."

 

An Independent Flood Review has been commissioned by Thames Water, in a time scale which can meaningfully inform Thames Waters and other parties' plans (such as South Kilburns natural park flood defences all being destroyed upstream). Thames Water also now supports the Mayors 'Grow Back Greener' scheme to make sure that every Londoner lives within 10 minutes of a green space. So, extra funding for South Kilburn Public Open Space and Chippenham Gardens natural flood defence parks major upgrade works?

 

Westminster LLFA is attempting to be open about its struggles with its rivers and vales environment and climate change in this London boundary area and I would now expect Brent to follow this lead and to also seriously engage the issues to proactively protect Kilburn major Town lives and properties from escalating flood risk.

 

David Walton, FLASK (Flood Local Action South Kilburn

 

Thames Water Interim Report on July 12th events   LINK

London Fire Brigade Briefing on 'Major Incident' July 12th LINK