A Home Affairs Select Committee hearing on the Maccabi Tel Aviv ban exposed something far more troubling than a policing decision, a city struggling to explain itself when intimidation starts to work.
I agree that's a very fair comment and sharp observation. I imagine that the reports from the Dutch police was via a discussion between a WMs officer and Dutch equivalent. The Dutch police now say that what is claimed was said, wasn't so said. So, presumably without the Dutch police available the conversation can go no further.
Mike : A very thorough and thought provoking article. What I still find disturbing is the intelligence the Chief Constable say he received from the Dutch Police about the Tel Aviv Maccabi fans' behaviour seems at odds with statements the Dutch Police made themselves after the ban was announced. I'm surprised that the MP's haven't pursued this point further.
In Point 2: 'The Head of the Football Unit had an online meeting with the Dutch Police on the 1st October 2025. Subsequent to that meeting, the WMP Gold and Silver Commanders were briefed, and the Head of the Football Unit (id’d as CI Wilkinson) sent an email which contained notes that reflected the discussions that took place during the meeting.'
Note the official Amsterdam Police input was very different.
In Point 5: 'On 18th September 2025, an email from the Head of the Football Unit was sent to UKFPU requesting they provide contact details for the Dutch Police commanders involved in the Ajax v Maccabi fixture in order to arrange a meeting....On 22nd September 2025, an email was received from UKFPU NFIP providing contact details for the Dutch Commanders. The actual meeting was on 1st October 2025, hardly a rapid process.
Point 6: 'On 8 October 2025, a Teams call was held with the WMP Chief Constable, the Home Secretary, HMICFRS, and other Metropolitan Chiefs to discuss police protest powers. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Chief Constable updated the Home Secretary regarding the upcoming fixture. The Chief Constable outlined that MTA fans may be prohibited from attending; however this decision would rest with the SAG.
WMP are aware that later the same day, an email from the Home Office to UKFPU confirmed
that the Chief Constable had briefed the Home Secretary regarding the potential ban of away
fans: “We’ve heard that the West Midlands Chief briefed the Home Sec earlier that a condition
of the match going ahead may be to ban away fans.” UKFPU confirmed to the Home Office
that the SAG had met, but no decision had been made. However, the working assumption
remained that away fans would be banned.'
This is a puzzle. I would expect any such call would be recorded, certainly a written record taken by a civil servant. So, the Home Office thought CC had decided no away fans.
Thank you for the question, it is a good point, and one I have tried to follow closely.
That said, I think a number of important aspects have been skated over. Indeed the whole thing appears a bit of mess, let's impact that.
For example, the Safety Advisory Group (SAG) is purely advisory to the City Council, rather than a decision-making body in its own right, if you're ever been to a SAG these people making far reaching decisions is frankly a worry . As set out here:
If you look at the Parliamentary documents, there are also some strange notable inconsistencies.
At Point 2, it states that the Head of the Football Unit held an online meeting with the Dutch Police on 1 October 2025, after which WMP Gold and Silver Commanders were briefed, and an email was circulated reflecting the discussion. However, the official Amsterdam Police input appears to have been materially different from the way it was later characterised. Not Good
At Point 5, the timeline itself is revealing. The initial request for Dutch Police contact details was sent on 18 September 2025. Those details were only received on 22 September, and the actual meeting did not take place until 1 October. That is hardly a rapid or urgent process. A worry
Point 6 raises further questions. On 8 October 2025, a Teams call took place involving the WMP Chief Constable, the Home Secretary, HMICFRS, and other Chief Constables. Following that call, the Home Office understood that a condition of the match going ahead might be a ban on away fans, based on what the Chief Constable had briefed. Yet UKFPU later confirmed that while the SAG had met, no decision had in fact been made, even though the working assumption remained that away fans would be banned.
That is the puzzle. One would reasonably expect a call of that nature to be recorded, or at the very least for a clear written note to exist from a civil servant. Yet the Home Office appears to have believed that a decision had effectively been taken, when formally it had not.
That gap between process, assumption, and authority is what I find difficult to reconcile. It's a mess
I agree that's a very fair comment and sharp observation. I imagine that the reports from the Dutch police was via a discussion between a WMs officer and Dutch equivalent. The Dutch police now say that what is claimed was said, wasn't so said. So, presumably without the Dutch police available the conversation can go no further.
Mike : A very thorough and thought provoking article. What I still find disturbing is the intelligence the Chief Constable say he received from the Dutch Police about the Tel Aviv Maccabi fans' behaviour seems at odds with statements the Dutch Police made themselves after the ban was announced. I'm surprised that the MP's haven't pursued this point further.
I have tried to follow this matter. Quite a few aspects have been skated over. For example the SAG (Safety Advisory Group) is purely advisory to the city council. See: https://www.birmingham.gov.uk/downloads/download/6697/safety_advisory_group
If you check the documents: https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/50893/documents/281812/default/
In Point 2: 'The Head of the Football Unit had an online meeting with the Dutch Police on the 1st October 2025. Subsequent to that meeting, the WMP Gold and Silver Commanders were briefed, and the Head of the Football Unit (id’d as CI Wilkinson) sent an email which contained notes that reflected the discussions that took place during the meeting.'
Note the official Amsterdam Police input was very different.
In Point 5: 'On 18th September 2025, an email from the Head of the Football Unit was sent to UKFPU requesting they provide contact details for the Dutch Police commanders involved in the Ajax v Maccabi fixture in order to arrange a meeting....On 22nd September 2025, an email was received from UKFPU NFIP providing contact details for the Dutch Commanders. The actual meeting was on 1st October 2025, hardly a rapid process.
Point 6: 'On 8 October 2025, a Teams call was held with the WMP Chief Constable, the Home Secretary, HMICFRS, and other Metropolitan Chiefs to discuss police protest powers. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Chief Constable updated the Home Secretary regarding the upcoming fixture. The Chief Constable outlined that MTA fans may be prohibited from attending; however this decision would rest with the SAG.
WMP are aware that later the same day, an email from the Home Office to UKFPU confirmed
that the Chief Constable had briefed the Home Secretary regarding the potential ban of away
fans: “We’ve heard that the West Midlands Chief briefed the Home Sec earlier that a condition
of the match going ahead may be to ban away fans.” UKFPU confirmed to the Home Office
that the SAG had met, but no decision had been made. However, the working assumption
remained that away fans would be banned.'
This is a puzzle. I would expect any such call would be recorded, certainly a written record taken by a civil servant. So, the Home Office thought CC had decided no away fans.
Thank you for the question, it is a good point, and one I have tried to follow closely.
That said, I think a number of important aspects have been skated over. Indeed the whole thing appears a bit of mess, let's impact that.
For example, the Safety Advisory Group (SAG) is purely advisory to the City Council, rather than a decision-making body in its own right, if you're ever been to a SAG these people making far reaching decisions is frankly a worry . As set out here:
https://www.birmingham.gov.uk/downloads/download/6697/safety_advisory_group
If you look at the Parliamentary documents, there are also some strange notable inconsistencies.
At Point 2, it states that the Head of the Football Unit held an online meeting with the Dutch Police on 1 October 2025, after which WMP Gold and Silver Commanders were briefed, and an email was circulated reflecting the discussion. However, the official Amsterdam Police input appears to have been materially different from the way it was later characterised. Not Good
At Point 5, the timeline itself is revealing. The initial request for Dutch Police contact details was sent on 18 September 2025. Those details were only received on 22 September, and the actual meeting did not take place until 1 October. That is hardly a rapid or urgent process. A worry
Point 6 raises further questions. On 8 October 2025, a Teams call took place involving the WMP Chief Constable, the Home Secretary, HMICFRS, and other Chief Constables. Following that call, the Home Office understood that a condition of the match going ahead might be a ban on away fans, based on what the Chief Constable had briefed. Yet UKFPU later confirmed that while the SAG had met, no decision had in fact been made, even though the working assumption remained that away fans would be banned.
That is the puzzle. One would reasonably expect a call of that nature to be recorded, or at the very least for a clear written note to exist from a civil servant. Yet the Home Office appears to have believed that a decision had effectively been taken, when formally it had not.
That gap between process, assumption, and authority is what I find difficult to reconcile. It's a mess