As indicated in our 16th September letter to the club, CAST has today sent the following to the relevant Police authorities:

We are writing to you to express the concern of Charlton supporters and raise a number of questions about the way the match between Charlton and Millwall on 13th September was policed. We are available to answer any questions / discuss and can join an online meeting in the coming days as we are seeking a timely response to share with the fanbase.

Why was the decision taken to direct home supporters (20,000) on to a circuitous route down Charlton Lane and along Woolwich Road to Charlton Station rather than to hold 3,000 visiting supporters in the stadium for a period of time while home supporters dispersed?  Holding visiting supporters back after a game has been for years the tried and tested method when post-match trouble is anticipated. Charlton supporters are very used to being held in this way at Millwall's ground in the reverse fixture. No-one likes to be delayed like this but it means that inconvenience and delay is limited to a minority rather than impacting the majority. Is diverting or holding back home supporters a general change in policing policy or just a decision taken for this fixture?

A number of problems occurred as a direct result of this decision:

Why did the police only communicate the unusual and untried plan to interested parties on the social media channel X, which clearly would not reach the entire attending fanbase? Why did you only communicate the plan at virtually the last minute on Friday morning?

As a result of the police decision and the late communication of it there was complete confusion within the stadium and outside the ground after the game as dangerous bottlenecks developed of home supporters who were unaware of route closures.

Why was there a lack of repeated communication about the route and co-ordination of messaging with the club plus a lack of signposting/ proactive directing of fans after exiting the home areas?

It had been stated that supporters in wheelchairs or with crutches would be permitted to exit via Ransom Walk. Why was this initially prevented by officers?

We have heard reports of "police horses charging about dangerously after the game with batons drawn.” This seems to have been in an attempt to stop anyone at all accessing Ransom Walk. Subsequently, because of the large crowd building up at the entrance, we understand that everyone who wished to was let through. What is the logic in this?

Why was a large (and very predictable) bottleneck allowed to build up at the Charlton Lane level crossing?

Why was Charlton Lane itself not closed to traffic? At one point a vehicle was trapped by the crowd on the crossing.

We have also received reports of police vans being driven through crowds of home fans. Why was this allowed to happen?

We understand that a group of away supporters arrived at The Rose of Denmark looking for trouble after the game. Them arriving at the pub demonstrates that the policy of dispersing away fans first didn't work. By the time that "about forty police and seven vans" arrived at the pub the away fans had left.

In addition to the problems outside the stadium there was also a violent incident within the stadium when away fans broke through a security gate (number 21) and attacked at least one home supporter and provoked fear among older people, families and children leaving the Alan Curbishley Stand via the Lansdowne Mews exit. More home fans than normal chose to take this exit route due to the diversion. The gate was managed by two stewards only. We understand that throughout the match there was a police presence in front of the control room. Should there not have been some sort of presence at security gate 21 as well?

We appreciate that policing a match like this one is challenging but it seems to us that the high police presence at the game would have been much better deployed patrolling the away support of 3000 people than attempting to control 20,000 home supporters by compelling them on an unfamiliar and unclear route. The delay these home supporters were subjected to was considerably longer than the delay away supporters would have had if they had had to wait while home supporters dispersed by their normal routes.

We would be grateful for your timely reply on the matters we have raised.