It is inadvertently revealing about policing standards in this country that the UK’s football police lead Mark Roberts would describe a two decade-long campaign for safe standing – based on statistical, anecdotal and scientific research – as a “headlong rush”. There’s something of the Abraham Lincoln in that accusation: better to be silent than speak and remove all doubt. Twenty years, guys? Come on now, aren’t you moving a little fast?
Football’s Safe Standing campaign became a national movement as long ago as 2001. In 2004, the Football Supporters’ Federation launched their Stand Up Sit Down strategy. It was once a campaign founded upon optimism rather than expectation, a mission to convince the game, the police, governing bodies that the conversation should even take place. Data disproved the misgivings that, in part, were seeded by the lies of South Yorkshire Police, government ministers and sections of the media post-Hillsborough. The conclusion of Lord Justice Taylor’s report that “standing accommodation is not intrinsically unsafe” got lost in the noise.
For that reason, change was slow to come to English football. Standing areas are already commonplace in Germany’s Bundesliga and there are similar examples in Austria, Switzerland, Hungary, Belgium, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, USA and Australia. In 2016, Celtic became the first British club to install rail seating but it was not until 2018 that Shrewsbury Town were the first in England.
But progress has finally come. Supporters are set to be permitted to stand from 1 January. Tottenham, Manchester United, Manchester City, Chelsea and Cardiff City have all applied for a licence and the expectation is that others will follow from the start of next season. It was only a matter of time before backlash would come. The hope is that it would at least have avoided gross inaccuracies and slurs.
In a report by The Times on Thursday morning, Roberts accused Celtic supporters of bullying each other in the standing section of Parkhead. Not only is that disputed by anecdotal evidence collected by i, the general theme of the criticism is antithetical to the opinion of Alan Murray, Roberts’ equivalent for Police Scotland. Murray describes rail seating as a step forward towards greater safety and behaviour rather than a step away from it. If there were any issues, Murray believes that they are easier to solve in safe standing areas than seated sections.
Roberts’ greatest fear appears to be that English football might recreate the ultra culture of continental Europe – he says as much. It is true that there are unpleasant aspects of that culture in certain parts of Europe, but they are typically a reflection of society within those countries, particularly the rise of right-wing populism. To reject ultra culture wholesale is to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Cheap ticketing, passion for the sport, reciprocal loyalty to a team, people actually expressing their love for watching football; these are not in need of sanitisation.
It is a giant – and unhelpful – leap to equate safe standing with the vexatious elements of that culture. Roberts’ claim that football grounds are safe environments now and his insinuation that safe standing puts that at risk does not tally with the data. Geoff Pearson is researcher on Policing, Human Rights, Football Crowds, Sports Law, and Ethnography who has been working on safe standing for 25 years.
“The research demonstrates that the introduction of rails into areas where persistent standing is already taking place made those areas safer in terms of preventing progressive crowd collapse and injuries,” Pearson tells i. “We found no evidence that the introduction of rails into those areas increased the problematic behaviours such as racism, consumption of alcohol or missile-throwing.
“The research team spoke extensively to the Police. It wasn’t just a case of observing and speaking to fans. It was speaking to the people that manage those areas and they were all of that view. Hence the report that it would improve safety and not increase disorder.”
But you also can’t have it both ways. Every year we hear that disorder and violence at football matches is on the rise (and Roberts himself namechecks the European Championship final at Wembley). If that’s true, it surely suggests that the status quo is failing and improvements are needed. In that scenario, scientific research that identifies a safer approach should be welcomed, not lambasted.
Underneath it all sits a perceived disdain not for safe standing, but for football supporters. Roberts’ rejection of ultra culture en masse is based not on evidence but demonising myths about fans that have existed for decades and which never really go away. The UK’s police lead on football placing himself in direct opposition to passionate fan culture – using the word “ultra” as a slur – is an unhelpful backwards step.
It would be inaccurate – and just as unhelpful – to suggest that football supporters are all blameless. As in every section of every culture in every society, there exists a minority whose behaviour is unacceptable. But to link that minority to the implementation of safe standing is at best misguided and at worst a willful misinterpretation of the vast research and underlying ambition of those who have campaigned tirelessly for its introduction. We should expect better from those in positions of foremost responsibility.
from Football – inews.co.uk https://ift.tt/2YlEtdq
Post a Comment