Introduction: When English policing loses the plot
Every so often, a single decision exposes something much deeper about how power is used in England. The ban on Maccabi Tel Aviv fans at Aston Villa was one of those moments. It was not just a bad call about a football match; it raised fundamental questions about whether English policing can still be trusted to act fairly – especially when communities and politics pull in different directions.
At the heart of it sits a simple, stubborn question: Shouldn’t the police be unbiased without doubt when they apply English law, whether that is on a Birmingham street corner or outside Villa Park? This article looks at what the Maccabi scandal reveals about English policing today, how “intelligence” and lobbying warped the process, and what must change if forces in England are to earn back the public’s confidence.
English policing under the spotlight
The decision to classify the Aston Villa vs Maccabi Tel Aviv tie as “high risk” and to bar the Israeli club’s supporters came from West Midlands Police working through Birmingham’s Safety Advisory Group. On paper, that is exactly how English policing and local government are meant to operate: the local force, under English law, assessing risk and advising the local authority.
What actually happened was very different from the ideal:
- The force leaned on exaggerated or incorrect accounts of previous disorder abroad.
- A supposed match against West Ham – which never took place – appeared in the police report as if it were real.
- The Home Secretary, speaking under the authority of English law and Parliament, publicly said she had “no confidence” in the chief constable of West Midlands Police over the affair.
For anyone who cares about the history of policing in England, this is extraordinary. It is more than a PR problem; it is a sign that the basic checks and balances that should underpin English policing – evidence, impartiality, and honesty with Parliament – were not working when it mattered.
“Intelligence”, AI errors and English accountability
One of the most troubling findings from the official review was that West Midlands Police used Microsoft Copilot, an AI tool, which generated a fictional match between Maccabi Tel Aviv and West Ham. That hallucinated fixture, complete with invented “intelligence”, then helped justify a ban on real fans travelling to an English ground under English jurisdiction.
In an English context, where ministers answer to Parliament and chief constables answer to local Police and Crime Commissioners, that kind of error is not a technical glitch – it is a failure of accountability. Proper English policing should mean:
- No AI‑generated incident is treated as fact until it has been checked against real, primary records.
- Any report put before a council, a PCC or MPs is clearly labelled where AI has been used, so errors can be traced and challenged.
- Officers understand that “intelligence” is not magic; it is only as good as the human scrutiny applied to it.
The fact that the chief constable later had to apologise – twice – for misleading MPs about both the Jewish community’s support and the intelligence used shows how far this episode strayed from the standards expected of English policing. When Parliament cannot rely on a chief constable’s account, ordinary fans and communities have every reason to ask: Shouldn’t the police be unbiased without doubt and brutally honest when they restrict people’s rights?
Community pressure, English law and where the line is
Another core strand of this scandal involves who West Midlands Police and the Police and Crime Commissioner listened to. Reports suggest the force and PCC engaged closely with some local Islamist‑leaning and strongly anti‑Israel activists, while contact with the local Jewish community was patchier and often reactive. At the same time, threats by local youths and activists to arm themselves and attack Israeli players and fans were downplayed in formal reasoning.
In English law, everyone has the right to lobby, protest and argue their case. The problem comes when that lobbying is allowed to reshape policing priorities in a way that contradicts basic duties under English statute and common law:
- Police must prevent crime and protect those at risk.
- Police must enforce the law impartially, regardless of political or religious allegiance.
- Police and PCCs must not allow fear of one group to become a reason to restrict the rights of another.
Seen through that lens, the Maccabi case looks like a classic example of what some commentators call “communalism” in English civic life: organised groups competing for influence, and public authorities bending too far to whichever group they fear most. The real test of English policing is whether it can resist that pressure – listening to all sides, but enforcing one set of laws.
Antisemitism, Islamophobia and the “heckler’s veto” in England
English football has long struggled with bigotry, whether aimed at Jews, Muslims or other minorities. The review into the Maccabi decision found that West Midlands Police had effectively overstated the danger posed by the visiting fans and understated the danger they themselves faced from local extremists.
In practical terms, that amounts to something close to a “heckler’s veto” in an English setting:
- If there is a threat that some local extremists might attack a group (here, Jewish/Israeli fans), the simplest way to avoid disorder is to stop that group attending at all.
- Instead of arresting or controlling those making threats, authorities remove the potential victims from the scene.
From the standpoint of English policing tradition – where the law is meant to protect the vulnerable and restrain the violent – this turns everything upside down. It sends a message that if you threaten enough trouble, you may succeed in stopping people you dislike from exercising their lawful rights.
That is toxic for both Jewish and Muslim communities in England. Jews see police as too ready to “solve” antisemitism by hiding them from view; Muslims see another excuse for heavy‑handed operations at protests while extremists on either side slip through the net. English policing cannot be credible if it looks as though it is negotiating with threats instead of upholding the same standards for everyone.
What truly impartial English policing would look like
So what would it mean, in practice, to achieve the standard people instinctively expect when they say Shouldn’t the police be unbiased without doubt? In an English context, several changes are obvious from the Maccabi case.
- Transparent evidence hierarchies
- For any high‑risk fixture or demonstration, there should be a published explanation of what counted as hard evidence (previous arrests, verified foreign police reports) and what counted as unverified or activist input.
- English forces should be prepared to defend those distinctions in court, in council chambers and before select committees.
- Stronger safeguards on AI and data
- The College of Policing and HM Inspectorate could issue England‑wide standards on AI use in intelligence work, including mandatory human sign‑off and clear audit trails.
- Any “hallucinated” incident that makes it into a major decision should automatically trigger an internal misconduct and training review.
- Balanced community engagement
- PCCs and chief constables in England should publish regular breakdowns of which community and lobby groups they formally engage with on contentious issues, including those involving Israel, Palestine, antisemitism and Islamophobia.
- Engagement with any group criticised in official extremism work should be subject to extra scrutiny rather than quietly treated as business as usual.
- Independent scrutiny for high‑risk events
- For matches or protests flagged as potential flashpoints, a small independent panel including legal experts and representatives with different community backgrounds could review the policing plan before bans are confirmed.
- Their role would be to test assumptions, spot double standards and ask the same question the public is asking: is this proportionate under English law?
Done properly, this kind of approach would not weaken English policing; it would strengthen it. Forces that can show their workings, justify their evidence and demonstrate even‑handedness will find it easier to maintain order, even in the most sensitive situations.
Rebuilding trust in English policing after Maccabi
The fallout from the Maccabi fan‑ban has already gone beyond Birmingham. The Home Secretary has called for new powers to remove failing chief constables in England after stepping in over this case, something that had not happened in more than twenty years. MPs across parties have questioned how West Midlands Police was allowed to mislead them and sideline the local Jewish community while giving too much weight to unverified claims and extremist threats.
Rebuilding trust now requires more than a few carefully worded apologies:
- West Midlands Police needs to show, in public, exactly how it is changing its processes for intelligence, AI use and community consultation.
- Other English forces should treat this as a warning and review their own systems before a similar scandal lands on their doorstep.
- PCCs across England must remember that their legitimacy comes from applying English standards of fairness and transparency, not from placating whichever local lobby shouts loudest.
If there is a positive to draw from this mess, it is that the English public, Parliament and media have not simply shrugged and moved on. There has been real outrage, real scrutiny and real demands for change. That pressure needs to continue until English policing once again looks like what people assume it is: fair, factual, and – as the phrase keeps returning – unbiased without doubt.
Conclusion: Hold English policing to its own standard
The Maccabi scandal is not “just” about Israel, not “just” about football, and not “just” about one Midlands force. It is a test case for what English policing means in 2026: whether forces like West Midlands Police can be trusted to combine modern tools with age‑old principles of fairness, or whether those principles are being chipped away by convenience and politics.
If you care about the future of English policing, do not let this story fade. Ask your local PCC and MPs what safeguards are in place when AI is used in policing. Question how your force engages with different communities on contentious issues. And keep asking that stubborn, essential question: Shouldn’t the police be unbiased without doubt when they decide who gets to stand on an English terrace, hold an English protest, or walk through an English city in safety?
On England Then And Now News, this is exactly the kind of story that connects the country’s past traditions of law and liberty with the hard choices it faces now. Hold the system to its own promises – because if English policing cannot command trust, everything built on it starts to crack.
FAQs
1. Why is the Maccabi case so important for English policing?
Because it exposed how a major English force used flawed intelligence, including AI‑generated fiction, to justify restricting people’s rights – and then misled MPs about what had happened. It raised doubts about whether forces in England are meeting the standards of fairness and accuracy the public expects.
2. Did the review say the decision was antisemitic?
The review found that West Midlands Police overstated the threat from Maccabi fans and understated threats against them, and that the local Jewish community was not properly engaged. Many politicians and commentators argued that, in practice, the decision had an antisemitic effect even if that was not the stated intent.
3. How does this affect other police forces in England?
The Home Secretary used the case to argue for stronger powers over chief constables in England, highlighting that similar failures could happen elsewhere if systems for intelligence, AI and oversight are not tightened. Other forces are now under pressure to review their own practices.
4. What role did local activists play?
Evidence suggests West Midlands Police and the PCC took concerns from some Islamist‑aligned and strongly anti‑Israel activists seriously while giving less weight to threats aimed at Israeli fans and players. Critics say that skewed engagement contributed to a one‑sided picture that undermined impartial English policing.
5. What changes are being proposed?
Proposals include England‑wide standards on AI use, clearer powers for the Home Secretary to remove failing chief constables, stronger requirements to engage fairly with all affected communities, and more transparent evidence standards for high‑risk decisions. All are aimed at ensuring English policing is – and is seen to be – unbiased without doubt