This page will be updated weekly, bringing to the front information relating to crowd safety; video, news articles or research, that could get lost in the news updates.
Its been a while since we updated this page. We have been working away in the background and collecting lots of new resource material to use and share. So, let’s start here. This can also be found on a permanent basis here Referencing Various Page 1
This weeks focus – Policing at events
Professor of Sports Law, Manchester Metropolitan University
Senior Lecturer in Criminal Law, The University of Manchester
The Football Banning Order was the first Civil Preventive Order (CPO), predating the many similar measures that followed the election of New Labour to government in 1997 by 10 years. CPOs have been held by the domestic courts to be preventive rather than punitive measures that do not need to follow criminal procedures to be compliant with Arts.6 and 7 of the
European Convention on Human Rights. After three decades of amendment and imaginative application, however, the original CPO has evolved into a punitive measure that is rarely utilised against those who orchestrate football-related violence and goes far beyond what is necessary to prevent low-level football disorder. It will be argued that in order to avoid breaching Arts.6 and 7, the imposition of this evolved CPO – a ‘super-Football Banning Order’ – should be restricted by amendment of ss.14A and B Football Spectators Act 1989. Further, and of wider interest, its previously undocumented incremental evolution should serve as a warning of how other CPOs could evolve similarly punitive impacts on their recipients.
Crowd Flight in Response to Police Dispersal Techniques: A
Momentary Lapse of Reason?
University of Brighton
There has been much debate about the use of certain public order policing tactics in Britain in response to the disorder seen in recent years. This paper explored the use of an indiscriminate public order tactic that has received comparatively less attention, that of crowd dispersal techniques. More specifically, the use of police charges (either by mounted police or on foot) and subsequent collective flight was investigated. An interview study was conducted with 20 participants who experienced such charges at protests in English cities. Thematic analysis of the data found that although participants reported fear and initial crowd scattering, these instinctive responses were quickly replaced by more socialised reactions, such as co-operation with others and an increased sense of collective unity. Furthermore, participants reported greater determination to resist what
were considered as illegitimate attacks by the police. This increased collective unity was explained in terms of a shared sense of experience that was similar to that found in previous crowd behaviour research. It was concluded that rather than fragmenting crowds, the tactic of crowd dispersal can unite previously heterogeneous groups to resist further police charges and so may be counter-productive as a public order policing strategy.
JONAS HAVELUND, DEPARTMENT OF SPORT SCIENCE, AARHUS UNIVERSITY
JØRGEN ILUM, COMMISSIONER EAST JUTLAND POLICE, AARHUS
MORTEN ANKER JENSEN, INSPECTOR EAST JUTLAND POLICE, AARHUS
BENT PREBEN NIELSEN, ASSISTENT COMMISSIONER,EAST JUTLAND POLICE, AARHUS
KRISTIAN RASMUSSEN, DEPARTMENT OF SPORT SCIENCE, AARHUS UNIVERSITY
CLIFFORD STOTT, DR., DEPARTMENT OF SPORT SCIENCE, AARHUS UNIVERSITY AND SCHOOL OF PSYCHOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL
This article describes a training programme for the ‘Event Police’ developed through cooperation
between researchers at Aarhus University and East Jutland Police, Denmark. The Event Police
and the associated training programme is a research-based initiative. It is designed to enhance the
policing of major events and is an approach developed from the latest knowledge on the social
psychology of crowds and police good practice.
Chapter 10: Farewell to the Hooligan?
Modern Developments in Football Crowd Management
University of Manchester
University of Leeds
Football crowd disorder and violence continues to pose challenges to police, security personnel, and football organisations globally. However the football crowd is often misunderstood and in much of the world the emphasis on crowd control, zero-tolerance, and ‘show-of-force’ policing has not only failed to control the problem, but in many cases has exacerbated it. This chapter seeks to challenge some of the traditional views about football
crowds and their behaviour and the best ways to manage them. Based on a substantial base of qualitative European research, it proposes that in order to reduce the risk of serious violence and disorder, police and security bodies should seek to engage in positive interaction and dialogue with supporters to increase their legitimacy amongst crowd members and ensure that their own interventions do not lead to an escalation of incidents. Furthermore, police, security organisations and football bodies need to work with existing crowd science to ensure that the most effective methods of football crowd management are employed, measured and rigorously re-tested.
University of Liverpool, UK
Paul Hutchison University of Kent, UK
University of Sussex, UK
During the 1998 Football World Cup Finals in Fr ance, English supporters were, once again, involved in major incidents of collective ‘disorder’. Explanations for these incidents concentrated on the conflictual norms held by ‘hooligans’. In contrast, Scottish supporters attending the tournament displayed norms of non-violence, explained by the popular press in terms of the absence of ‘hooligans’. This study challenges this tendency to explain the presence or absence of ‘disorder’ in the context of football solely in terms of the presence or absence of ‘hooligan’ fans. Using data obtained from an ethnographic study of both Scottish and English supporters attending the tournament (N = 121), we examine the processes through which ordinarily ‘peaceful’ supporters would or would not become involved in collective conflict. In line with the Elaborated Social Identity
Model (ESIM ) of crowd behaviour, the analysis highlights the role of the
intergroup context. Where out-group activity was understood as illegitimate in in-group terms, in-group members rede ned their identity such that violent action toward out-group members came to be understood as legitimate. By contrast, where there was no out-group hostility, in-group members de ned themselves through an explicit contrast with the ‘hooligan’ supporters of rival teams. This analysis represents an advance on previous studies of crowd behaviour by demonstrating how the ESIM can account for not only the presence, but also the absence, of collective ‘disorder’.
Clifford Stott and Steve Reicher
Geoff Pearson and Arianna Sale
It has long been assumed that the problem of ‘football hooliganism’ is linked to levels of alcohol consumption by crowds of football supporters. As a result a number of laws and policing strategies have been developed that aim to reduce the amount of alcohol consumed by fans. This article is based primarily upon a 15-year ethnography of English football supporters and the effectiveness of social control policies upon them, and supported by interviews with police officials from the UK and Italy. Its conclusion is that alcohol restrictions are ineffective at reducing the level of drunkenness amongst fans, partly as a result of police under- enforcement. Furthermore, a by-product of a number of the restrictions is that the level of risk for violence between rival groups of fans is often increased. This article concludes that we need to revisit the use by police and football authorities
of alcohol controls to reduce crowd disorder and look to other methods of
reducing the problem of football hooliganism.
Public order and the rebalancing of football fans’ rights: Legal
problems with pre-emptive policing strategies and banning orders.
Prof Mark James, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne
Dr Geoff Pearson, Manchester University
The policing of football supporters in the UK is resource-intensive and expensive, with football crowds seen by many forces as inherently prone to misbehaviour, disorder and violence. As a result they are regularly subjected to high-profile, heavy-handed and intrusive policing strategies that are often designed with the imposition of a civil “banning order” on
supposed “risk supporters” in mind. This article analyses underlying assumptions about the nature and risk of football crowds and, drawing comparisons with the ways in which political protests are policed and applying jurisprudence from a series of high-profile protest cases,
questions the legality of dominant policing approaches to football crowds under both English public law principles and the European Convention on Human Rights. It concludes by proposing how strategies could be developed in a way that both protects the public and the rights of supporters who may on occasion associate with those suspected of engaging in football-related disorder.