 | Forum
Reply | Charlton crowd issues
at 18:23 27 Feb 2026
Further update - QPR response
I contacted QPR to ask whether their safety team's assessment actually covered the specific issues I raised in my complaint. Their response is significant.
QPR have confirmed that:
No formal assessment of the operation was made in an official capacity - their staff were just present to observe
The positive comments related specifically to searching (there were LOTS of drugs) and accessibility assistance inside the away end, not to external crowd management or turnstile ingress
The comments were made in private conversation on the night, not as a public statement
This matters because Charlton's response to my complaint used the QPR officers' commendation as a counter-argument, presenting it as though it was an independent evaluation that addressed my specific concerns about conditions at Entrance 4 between 19:30 and 20:00. QPR have now clarified it was informal observation about completely different aspects of the operation.
I have forwarded QPR's email to Charlton and asked that it be included in the evidence shared with the Met, SGSA, and SAG. It removes one of their key deflections and puts the record straight before the external reviews take place.
The SGSA ground assessment is still the main focus - that happens before the May SAG meeting and carries more weight than an internal review. |
| Forum
Reply | Charlton crowd issues
at 17:20 24 Feb 2026
I am an excellent complainer – Mrs E17 got a PCN the other day, and they're tying themselves in knots trying to justify it when they are, quite clearly, in the wrong. |
| Forum
Reply | Charlton crowd issues
at 12:11 24 Feb 2026
The FSA are copied in and aware of what's happening. We go to them first – there needs to be evidence of unsafe practice before approaching the Hillsborough Trust.
CAFC said:
"Also to add, this operation was monitored by visiting QPR safety staff, who observed all
on ingress and egress and emailed us to say what they thought was a good
operation given the issues caused by delayed trains. Your [sic] more than welcome to
contact the independently to confirm."
I pushed back on this:
The QPR safety officers' assessment
I note their commendation of the overall operation. That assessment relates to the operation as a whole and does not constitute a response to my specific complaint about conditions at a specific location during a specific window. The two assessments are not in contradiction and I would ask that the response not be framed as though they are.
I would expect the QPR Safety Team to be contacted again about their investigation but may forward the emails to them for information. |
| Forum
Reply | Charlton crowd issues
at 10:04 24 Feb 2026
I work in business and people consultancy with two decades of public sector experience in the fire service and local and central government. I understand the language they use to obfuscate and hide and spend most of my days working with senior managers. No specific crowd safety background, but I know how to read regulatory frameworks and how to ask questions that are hard to deflect.
Andybrat's comment is important. If other people experienced the same conditions and felt unsafe, that corroborates the account and makes it harder for Charlton to treat this as a one-off perception issue. |
| Forum
Reply | Do we not all want the same thing?
at 09:56 24 Feb 2026
I have this with my work.
People tell me they want to collaborate; collaboration is everything; collaboration breeds success. That makes a fatal assumption – we all want the same thing and an agreed way to get there. There are a million opinions about the what to achieve, let alone the how.
Cooperation is more realistic. We all want something slightly different from QPR - we call it success - and that's fine. The hymn sheet analogy only works if we're all singing the same song. We're not. Some want the play-offs, some want decent football, and some just want to stop losing to Blackburn. |
| Forum
Reply | Most irritating and mutable commentaror
at 12:23 23 Feb 2026
John Murray is the best by far for me.
I like McCoist - he calls it as he sees it.
Robyn Cowen is fine until someone scores, and the overexcitement does for me. |
| Forum
Reply | Charlton crowd issues
at 11:32 23 Feb 2026
Quick update for those following this.
I sent Charlton a follow-up after their initial response, attaching three photographs from the night that show the actual conditions at Entrance 4 during the 19:30-20:00 period. The images show a densely packed crowd with no queue structure, no lane separation, and no barriers. One image shows two uniformed police officers embedded in the crowd at the entrance pinch point with no visible stewards managing the approach.
I pushed back on their "no crushing" assertion, asked them to account for why no near-miss report was recorded given those conditions, and asked whether the decision not to delay kick-off at 19:25 included any review of external crowd management at the away end. I also asked for confirmation that the photographs would go to their Safety Advisory Group.
Their latest response: the next full SAG meeting is not until May (they had one the week of the QPR fixture), so the 26 February timeline I proposed is not achievable. However, the fixture will be discussed as part of a Met football policing debrief and an SGSA ground assessment that are happening between now and then. They have also offered independent contact from a SAG representative.
I have replied accepting the delay but asking for written confirmation that:
The photographs and the full text of my complaint are shared with the Met and SGSA
They clarify whether the SAG contact is in addition to, or instead of, written answers to my four specific questions
I get written responses by end of March, after the Met/SGSA reviews but before the May SAG
The SGSA ground assessment is potentially more significant than a standard SAG review, as they assess against the Green Guide and can make formal recommendations. Getting the photographs and complaint into that process is a better outcome than I expected.
Will update when I hear back. |
| Forum
Reply | In-laws
at 09:24 23 Feb 2026
FIL died 20+ years ago - had a heart attack in their hall one Sunday, and I tried but couldn't revive him. Seen my own Dad once in the last 25 years and my FIL was way more supportive.
MIL has dementia; she was a bookie manager for years and got clonked on the head in a raid. Almost certainly that was the cause and over the last 10 years has gotten worse. Now in a care home - she's lost memory, recognition and continence. Mobility and language are failing now. |
| Forum
Reply | Blackburn Reflection
at 00:12 15 Feb 2026
I can't think of a team that has had as many injuries as us through this season. In terms of subs, his choice was so limited - Smyth and Kolli were his only true attacking options in addition to the players he had on the pitch. We're missing Dembele, Obikwu, Burrell, Poku, and Chair. That's in addition to Larkeche, Clarke-Salter (bench fit), and Varane.
Even if only 4 of these were available, it'd provide some rotation; Kone needs a break, and we have little variety in attack. With a 3-game week coming up and a possible injury to Madsen, it's not going to be pretty. |
| Forum
Reply | Charlton crowd issues
at 22:59 12 Feb 2026
AGreed - I have copied in our supporter services in to my follow up and happy to take it to them after. Different problem though - CAFC need to respond to this first. |
| Forum
Reply | Charlton crowd issues
at 21:53 12 Feb 2026
I would agree but the review goes classic DARVO - Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender - about halfway through:
"QPR supporters arrived via two party boats. Large numbers intoxicated.
Numerous supporters were intoxicated, with CCTV evidence of Class A
drug use.
Enforcement activity included: 25 ejections for various things resulting in 9
arrests.
Multiple tailgaters jumping the turnstiles without tickets.
Additional response teams were deployed at the compound to filter
supporters towards the turnstiles."
They're saying that, as a QPR fan, the activities of other QPR fans made their job difficult.
Tough
I said back at them:
The closing section of your response covers intoxication, drug use, arrests, and tailgating. I understand why that context is relevant to your overall operational picture. It is not relevant to my complaint, which concerns queue management and steward conduct at a specific location during a specific period. I would ask that it not be read as a response to the substance of my concerns. [Post edited 12 Feb 21:54]
|
| Forum
Reply | Charlton crowd issues
at 21:33 12 Feb 2026
For those interested:
Charlton have responded to my formal complaint about the Jimmy Seed Stand ingress on 6 February.
The short version: they have acknowledged the issues, committed to specific actions, and confirmed the matter will go to their Safety Advisory Group. That is a better outcome than I expected at this stage.
What they accepted:
Crowd conditions during the 19:30 to 20:00 period were uncomfortable and movement became restricted
The steward responses I described ("you should have got here earlier" and "write in") did not meet their expected standards, and this has been addressed with the contractor
Further proactive measures could reasonably have been taken to manage crowd flow and the interface with traffic
What they are committing to:
Updating risk assessments and contingency planning for late ingress scenarios
Reviewing external queue and crowd-flow management at the Jimmy Seed Stand
Reinforcing steward training on communication and escalation
Reviewing how they communicate with supporters during disruption
Where I am pushing back:
Their response states there was "no crushing." That is a categorical denial that does not reflect what the photographs from that evening show. I have three images taken at Entrance 4 during that period. They show a densely packed crowd with no queue structure, no lane separation, and no barriers. One image shows police officers embedded inside the crowd at the entrance pinch point rather than managing the approach from outside it.
I have sent a further reply attaching those photographs, asking that they be included in the SAG review. I have also asked Charlton to account for why no near-miss report was recorded given the conditions documented and to explain specifically whether the decision not to delay kick-off at 19:25 included a review of external crowd management at the away end.
I am not escalating to the EFL or Independent Football Ombudsman at this point. If the SAG review is substantive and the committed actions are implemented, that is a reasonable outcome from a complaint process.
I will update when I hear back. [Post edited 12 Feb 21:45]
|
| Forum
Reply | PCN
at 17:09 12 Feb 2026
The bad news is that paying the £90 means the chance of challenging it is significantly reduced – probably 5% or less.
If there was a lack of signage for the congestion zone AND the parking area, you might have a claim. For example, if there are missing entry signs, obscured or vandalised signs, non-compliant sign designs, or a new restriction introduced without a legally required notice period, this may lead to confusion.
The bad news is that using the road for years, or a nurse telling you, your character, or frustration don't affect liability. |
| Forum
Reply | QPR being sued
at 16:25 12 Feb 2026
The club will have insurance to pay any claim, but a condition will have been that we defend; I'd guess a before-action offer might have been made accepting no liability beforehand, which has been rejected. |
| Forum
Reply | Half decent tv
at 23:17 11 Feb 2026
Mrs E17 is into Lincoln Lawyer.
The Best in Me on Netflix is pretty good – 4 episodes in, and it's pretty twisty. |
| | E17hoop
|
Site Scores| Prediction League: | 2 | | TOTAL: | 2 |
|
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
