We have received the below response (in blue) from Peter Dearden, Chief Inspector - MO6 Public Order Command Metropolitan Police following the Millwall game on September 13th. CI Dearden’s role is to oversee football and organisational learning. He was not the decision maker on the day but has sought responses from the match commander.
It is clear from the match commander’s comments that he sees the strategy of re-routing Charlton fans while Millwall went up Floyd Road as a success as “There was no disorder outside, no one injured outside and no risk groups coming together.”
However, there is no doubt in CAST’s view that such a strategy rewards anti-social behaviour, with the police confirming “they have a history of trying to break through police lines.” We understand that a similar strategy was used at Selhurst Park the following Tuesday.
We have asked for clarification about the response to the question about police vans driving through home fans which says: “They had to respond when Millwall broke down a gate post match”. Yet it is our understanding that police did not attend this incident because it was within the stadium. It is also contradicted by the later answer “SPS would not have assisted as it happened after the match and resources would have been deployed outside”. We haven’t received clarification regarding the gates concerned in each comment yet.
The reason given for the delay in communicating the decision to re-route home supporters until Friday was “Doing it too early would potentially provide time for risk groups to plan and circumvent.” No specific intelligence is offered to back this up and it would appear to be a poor risk assessment as the lack of clear and timely information was the root of many of the subsequent issues.
It is useful here to clarify the role of the Safety Advisory Group. (SAG). It meets three or four times a year and is chaired by the local authority. It is the vehicle through which the local authority gathers the strategic information they require to grant a safety licence to the club. It is not an operational group which discusses individual match arrangements – these are the subject of a meeting between the club and the police usually held on the Thursday before every Saturday home match. The police decision to re-route home fans for the Millwall game was confirmed to the club at this meeting despite what we understand was strong resistance from club staff. The decision was then relayed to the SAG which met immediately afterwards and where protestations made no impact on their decision.
Here is the Police response (in blue) in full:
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?
“The Match Commander reviewed previous plans for this fixture and the detour was utilised the previous time they played. He balanced the positives and negatives and decided due to a number of factors that this was the only viable option to keep fans apart. Separating fans inside a stadium works so this was replicated outside by keeping fans apart, being the rationale. He considered holding Millwall back which would often be the most sensible option, however when you apply use of force principals we know that this would result in Millwall fans being held for a longer period of time (due to reduced trains) and they have a history of being uncooperative in such situations. That would have meant planning to utilise greater force to hold them in a containment. By allowing Millwall to leave first supported BTP and the train company by getting just 3000 people away which is far quicker/safer than 20,000.
By the time Charlton supporters arrived at the station the majority of Millwall supporters had already left with no issues and no disorder on Floyd Rd (which would have undoubtedly happened with a mixture of fans) or at the station. The delay in allowing Charlton supporters access to the station was deemed necessary and proportionate in the circumstances to prevent serious disorder.”
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.
“The Match Commander considered this carefully however for the reasons mentioned above, safety of fans leaving and reducing the risk of disorder/police having to use force outweighed historic practices of home leaving before away. This is acknowledged as being somewhat against normal or previous practice but deemed entirely appropriate for the operational context of the day/time and result.”
Is diverting or holding back home supporters a general change in policing policy or just a decision taken for this fixture?
“Not a change in policy as there is no policy as such just precedent. A review of the National Decision Model with all the information available was conducted and reviewed at the time - this was the deemed the best/safest option which on reflection was deemed successful accepting the feedback, as there was no disorder and no collateral/non-risk supporters caught up in problems when risk groups come together which is sadly often the outcome.”
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?
“We communicated this after it went through our command channels. It was shared via the two clubs. We did not want to do it too early or before we had a full intelligence picture/prior to the SAG (Which sat on the Thursday and had the supporters trust present) Doing it too early would potentially provide time for risk groups to plan and circumvent.”
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.
“The match commander was not aware of any dangers. We can of course review and debrief if specifics are provided”
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?
“Signage would be useful and we can feed that back to the club”
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?
“It shouldn't have been and we apologise to those supporters in wheelchairs or using crutches. The match commander directed that we open Ransom - this was not done as quickly as he had wished which is regrettable.”
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?
“The match commander was not aware of any horse charges which requires his authority which he didn't give. Are we sure they were charging at crowds as oppose to moving through as a matter of course which can be intimidating nonetheless? Happy to look into that as a potential inappropriate use of force tactic. The match commander fully opened Ransom after a short time.”
Why was a large (and very predictable) bottleneck allowed to build up at the Charlton Lane level crossing?
“There is little we can do about this. This was deemed safer than permitting fans to mix near to the ground where you also get bottle necks. Happy to look at this going forward though to find solutions.”
Why was Charlton Lane itself not closed to traffic? At one point a vehicle was trapped by the crowd on the crossing.
“It was outside the Traffic Management Order but we will review”
We have also received reports of police vans being driven through crowds of home fans. Why was this allowed to happen?
“They had to respond to an emergency situation (crime in action) when Millwall broke down a gate post match.”
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.
“They circumvented the plan which we are reviewing. It was a small group and police responded swiftly with no significant issues"
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?
“This is an issue for the club primarily. The gate needs reinforcing or covering up. Whilst I believe SPS would have been a sensible and proportionate request for this fixture, the club decided not to make the request as per S25 Police Act. In hindsight, I think it fair that all parties agree that a small SPS police presence may have influenced the outcomes you have raised as concerns. SPS may not have assisted in this particular scenario, as it happened after the match and resources may have already been deployed outside. I am dealing with a member of public who witnessed this incident with his son who was traumatised by this behaviour.”
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.
“It was deemed far quicker and safer to get 3000 away than 20000 home fans. The time we would have had to hold Millwall inside the stadium would have been excessive and disproportionate with the train issues.
Whilst we will conduct a full and frank de-brief with the club acknowledging all the feedback and anecdotal negative experiences of the home supporters, we should also reflect on the positives for balance. There was no disorder outside, no one injured outside and no risk groups coming together. That was a success and the plan implemented deemed the safest way to achieve such an outcome. As you know, I am keen to learn from these rare high risk games going forward to make football in London safer for all.”
The whole issue of the management of the Millwall game is on the agenda for the Supporter Forum on October 16th. CAST has already published a draft set of recommendations to prevent a reoccurrence and will continue to liaise on these with the club, police and our fans.
Please let us have any further specific questions or comments via email to secretary@castrust.org so that they can be put to the club. CAST will be seeking information on the “full and frank debrief” promised by the club at the Supporter Forum.