From HDM Q: Why has the Huddersfield Town v Hull City match been given the top security category when there is no history of violence from City fans travelling to West Yorkshire? Last year, there were just 14 arrests â both home and away in all competitions â among Tigers' fans, none of which were for alcohol offences? A: This game was categorised as a Category C at the start of the season, with an early kick-off time in place as a risk-reduction measure, which meant no additional restrictions were put in place. The increased risk came following the change in kick-off time for television purposes, which was requested by Huddersfield following pressure from the Football League and Sky TV. Experience shows us when late kick-offs occur, fans stay in city centres for longer, both before and after matches. This increases the risk of disorder before and after the game. We fully accept the majority of fans attending will be decent and law-abiding people who want to enjoy the day safely. Sadly, experience shows us it only takes a few small outbreaks of disorder fuelled by alcohol to spark wider problems, which would cause significant policing issues on already stretched Saturday nights. Q: Have problems in the past with fans from other Hull sports clubs played a part in the decision (Hull FC fans pulled down the goalposts at Huddersfield's stadium in 2000)? A: In considering the levels of risk, the Commander, and to a lesser degree the clubs, look at a number of different sources of information and intelligence. They use their experience and exercise their professional judgment. It is not a simple case of just looking at any incidents between the two clubs or other previous sporting events involving both communities in isolation. The fixture has not been singled out in any way and we treat each one on its own merits. Q: What intelligence have you received to suggest there will be problems? A: We would not discuss specific match intelligence for operational reasons but a full risk assessment is carried out on a match-by-match basis, and is always based on the information we receive for each individual game. Q: Do you distinguish football fans from members of the public? A: The generic answer is "no" â the safety of all is paramount and that is what we are all working to ensure. We are required by law to put plans in place to ensure public safety, and the public of West Yorkshire rightly expect us to do so. In operational situations, we always try to distinguish different groups of supporters on the ground in an effort to maximise their safety. Q: West Yorkshire Police lost an appeal overturning a previous court ruling that said Leeds United was not responsible for paying for policing streets and car parks near the Elland Road stadium. If the appeal had gone in the force's favour, would you still have implemented these restrictions? A: The Leeds United ruling has played no part whatsoever in the decisions taken to categorise this fixture. Decisions are taken on a match-by-match basis, and the key factor in this game was the later kick-off, which increases the risk for disorder before, during and after the match. Q: Have you been surprised by the response from supporters about the restrictions, and can you understand why they are angry? A: Let me be perfectly clear. There have never been any intended or unintended slurs upon either group of fans, Hull or Huddersfield. Our position is very clear in that we want fans to come and watch the game in a safe environment. I would go further in reassuring you that West Yorkshire Police fully understand and have openly stated that the vast majority of football supporters from every club in the land are law-abiding. Q: There is going to be a protest march and hundreds of Hull City fans are planning to go to Huddersfield anyway, making their own way there, and staying in the city centre. Does that make the sanctions to go to the game pretty pointless? Are the restrictions in place to keep sets of supporters apart and, if so, what about Huddersfield and Hull City fans marching together before the match? A: There were no sanctions. These were restrictions agreed jointly and in good faith by the clubs to help protect public safety and to allow this game to go ahead safely, which is what all parties want, at the end of the day. We have been approached by an individual from Huddersfield who seeks to publicly demonstrate and we have offered him our advice and support. We very much want supporters to come to the stadium and watch what should be a good game of football. Q: Do you recognise the damage done here insofar as the actions seem to have alienated many people who would ordinarily support the police. How do you expect to repair the damage? A: We do recognise the strength of feeling this game has aroused and this is precisely why we listened, met the clubs and jointly negotiated modifications to the risk-reduction measures. This has resulted in requests for ticket numbers to be increased and modifications to the transport arrangements for Hull fans. We fully recognise some fans are not happy with the arrangements and, in an ideal world, there would be no restrictions on football matches. The measures have not been put in place lightly, but they are necessary to reduce the risk. Football fixtures carry a varied level of risk and we would support a greater level of advance debate by all interested parties in order to plan ahead at the start of the season to achieve outcomes that are mutually beneficial and minimise risk. To this end, we have remained engaged with the Football Supporters Federation throughout. Finally, we would reiterate that the vast majority of football supporters are decent, law-abiding citizens. It's not us it's the clubs, sky tv, drunkards and the churches fault (if it wasn't for Easter) and half of the force being on holiday or in prison we would be fine, seems to be the answer. **** me I'm a moderate man but this stinks.
Just further proof if further proof was indeed needed, just how clueless WYP actually are. I pity the folks of that area.
CAMPAIGN: 10 Questions West Yorkshire Police must answer CAMPAIGN: 10 Questions West Yorkshire Police must answer West Yorkshire Police have failed to respond to our letter, failed to respond to our Freedom Of Information requests within the 20 day agreed timecales and ultimately failed to relinquish their draconian restrictions on travelling arrangements for the live televised match between Huddersfield Town and Hull City this Saturday tea-time - a 5.20pm kick off - despite condemnation from supporters groups and Hull City Football Club. News Image 10 Questions Ten questions for West Yorkshire Police to answer about Huddersfield Town v Hull City this Saturday. 1. In a recent letter to Clive Betts MP, WYP Assistant Chief Constable Craig Guildford said the match was given Category C status at the start of the season and the kick-off time was 'brought forward accordingly'. WYP has admitted that it did not write to fixture compilers in the summer – as many other forces routinely do – to request this (or any other) match did not kick off late. If WYP had such a big concern about the kick-off time, why did they not write this letter, which would have influenced Sky? 2. When the late kick off was announced by Sky, WYP recategorised the match as C IR. In the letter, Mr Guildford says: “In considering the level of risk, the commander...looks at a number of different sources of information and intelligence, they use their experience and exercise their professional judgement...” Several fans’ groups have repeatedly asked WYP to expand on what these sources are and what the judgement is based on, but WYP has not responded adequately. Can they please do so? 3. Huddersfield Town haven’t played Hull City at home since September 2005. Did WYP use intelligence gathered on that day – or on any previous matches – to set the C IR match category for this latest game? 4. In his letter, Mr Guildford says: “It is not a simple case of just looking at any incidents between the two clubs in isolation.” If that is the case, what else does WYP look at and wouldn’t you have expected other forces to have used their “professional judgement” when also looking at these other things? WYP is the only force to have set a Hull City match as a category C IR. 5. Isn’t it actually the case that there is no intelligence to justify the C IR category and that WYP set this category to make a political point after it lost a court case concerning who foots the bill for police resources outside stadia? 6. Does WYP admit there is a clear contradiction in enforcing ‘bubble’ conditions, yet restricting the away fans' ticket allocation? Surely, if WYP is going to extreme lengths to be in full control of the zones away fans occupy, then it does not matter what the allocation is? 7. Under licensing law, pub licensees are trusted to exercise a responsible admittance policy. Why has WYP been putting pressure on scores of licensees not to admit Hull City fans on Saturday? 8. In hindsight, does WYP regret the poor way that it has handled this issue, both in terms of poor decision making and poor communication with fans’ groups and that its actions have served to alienate fans and mobilise them to protest and boycott rather than convince them of the need for the C IR category and the need to abide by restrictions? 9. Does WYP pledge to write to fans’ groups’ representatives for a post-match briefing and pledge to meet them in advance of future games to ensure it can make a case for high categorisations of matches? 10. Given the pressure broadcasters have put on Huddersfield Town to put at least one high-profile home match on TV with a late kick off this decision, do you commit to speaking with broadcasters, football officials and fixture compilers ahead of future seasons to ensure we do not get a repeat of this issue or at least can address it in a better way?
They are not listening. They are taking the piss with these mealy-mouthed answers, pretending to address the issues but in reality, flicking the Vs. They are a rogue police force, full of arrogant and contemptuous officers. I hope lots of their officers get badly and painfully injured in the course of their duty.
I'm guessing that all the other discussions that have clearly taken place around those emails didn't include "council employees who are members of the council’s safety advisory group," Mealy Mouthed cowards. They should at least have the courage to show the decision making process. The email chain itself shows there are other emails to be shared. If they're being truthful, they have nothing to hide.
It just gets worse and worse, this guy would make a good politician. Is this a guide on how to avoid the real issue? Thing is what can we really do now? This issue will just get brushed under the carpet.
I doubt it. It'll be happening more and more if people accept it. South Yorkshire police have refused a kick off change for our game with Barnsley.
It's a lesson in giving a full answer without giving a full answer. I like the 10 questions posted by DMD. It is now up to the FSF to use cross-club lobbying to follow this practice to a stage where it's use must be justifiable. Good behaviour and 3 points are all that matter tomorrow. What is it about Yorkshire police forces?
The WYP have won this one and hold all the trumps in these matters. Procrastinators, bullshitters and downright liars. They have talked and talked and here we are no further on. They always knew they could get away with it by adopting these tactics, and they have done. Utter scum.
What i want to know is how Dibble n Wibble got to the ranks of where there are now ? If they are the best the WYP can promote ? WYP = Not Fit For Purpose. FACT.
At which point the argument moves way above the heads of the police. There'll be a clear example of police abusing their powers to infringe civil liberties. Political and legal action can and will be taken to have the ability to do this again removed from the current numpties no matter how long it takes.
