This story has been horribly misreported in the mainstream media. Suffice to say that the AI gaff was the very thinnest pretence for a politically motivated firing. The true reason being that West Midlands Police made the UK govt furious for suggesting that maybe Maccabi were violent thugs rather than persecuted victims, which goes against prevailing official narratives WRT Israel.
I'll share my opposing view point. Whilst Maccabi fans may contain hooligans, that's not really surprising for football fans. Fans travelling within Europe cause trouble all the time.
What is different, is that Maccabi fans were blocked from attending by the police/council when no other sets of fans are given the same treatment. Secondly, the police were aware of plans within the Birmingham Muslim community to attack said fans. Instead of coming down on these people planning violence, they decided to avoid the situation entirely.
Furthermore, they ignored evidence from the Amsterdam authorities who haven't said the Maccabi fans were as riotous as you claim. Using AI hallucinations was just the cherry on the cake.
The "media reporting" section of the article is particularly illuminating - a Zionist influence operation was in full swing afterwards to minimize the bad behavior of the Israeli fans.
Furthermore Maccabee fans have a reputation for hooliganism in Israel itself. So the West Midlands assessment was eminently reasonable.
The manufactured storm over the decision again showcases a broader pattern of insidious Zionist influence over Western institutions. The decision was lawyered to death in a manner only Israelis get the benefit of.
> The Amsterdam police made clear that among Maccabi supporters there were 500-800 ultras visiting the city in November 2024. Like other European ultra groups, these fans were organised and, on some occasions, seemed willing to fight. The Amsterdam police also stated that a lot of disorder in those days were the result of different groups provoking each other.
> At the same time, another development takes place - small groups of pro-Palestinian rioters actively search for individuals they perceive as Israeli, Jewish or Maccabi supporters. At 23:55pm, the first 'flash' attacks on Maccabi supporters begin at Dam Square. Several dozen violent incidents in the city centre follow. The pro-Palestinian rioters use various methods to reach their victims. Some move on foot, others use scooters or taxis to move quickly through the city. This makes it difficult for the police to intervene quickly and effectively. This proves to be a fundamentally different form of violence compared to earlier situations, which involved clashes between groups facing each other. From 1:24am onward, reports of attacks decrease, but fear among Jewish residents of Amsterdam and Israeli tourists remains high. Multiple reports come in of people feeling unsafe and not daring to leave their hotels.
The Macabbi ultras were violent and racist hooligans, as you said. But you can't excuse or leave out the behaviour of their opponents who went on a "Jew hunt" (their words!) and attacked random Jews or Israelis, unaffiliated with the football hooligans.
From your wiki link:
> Most of the people involved in the attacks on Maccabi fans were taxi drivers and youths on scooters,
So yes, if the people attacking the Maccabi fans are taxi drivers, yes, I'd expect to see taxi drivers getting beaten up right back.
> In the nights following the attacks, people thought to be Jewish continued to be targeted, including being forced out of taxis and ordered to show their passports to check if they were Israeli.
Didn't feel the need to mention this? Oh, sorry, random people being forced out of taxis to check if they're Israeli is just an overstatement by the media, "the second coming of Anne Frank", I forgot.
I followed this closely at the time. It was clear that Maccabi supporters were looking for a confrontation and were intimidating anyone with a Palestinian flag. They're kind of known for being massive racists[0].
A group of Maccabi Fanatics chased two men, beating one with a belt as he tried to escape in a taxi. After the police arrived, the group ran away, joining other Maccabi ultras, nearly all of whom wore black clothing instead of team colours, walking towards Rokin. This group of around 50 Maccabi supporters gathered in front of Villa Mokum, a squat where several Palestinian flags were displayed.
> Over the course of the night, police monitoring Telegram and WhatsApp began to detect “messages of aggression and threats toward Maccabi supporters,” according to a report produced afterward by city authorities. The vandalism of the taxi was “oil on the fire” in a community angered by the city’s decision to let the team play, said driver Mohamed Asri, 31, who was not working but watched the chat messages that night.
> At one point, a worker at Holland Casino tipped off a WhatsApp group that Maccabi fans were outside, according to screenshots of the messages obtained by The Post with usernames redacted. Police said there was a call for taxi drivers to mobilize, and cabs began to amass at the site.
> Maccabi fans ran inside the casino and security closed the doors behind them, according to casino spokesman Ilan Sluis. A bartender across the street said a group of about 50 people tried to break into the casino by rushing the doors for about 25 minutes.
> Kobi Itzajki, 34, a Maccabi fan, had just returned to a hotel when he received a message from a friend at the casino.
> “There’s an antisemitic event here,” read a 3:17 a.m. message, reviewed by The Post. “Turkish Muslims attacked Israelis who fled here. We’re locked inside the casino, bring the police.”
> Altercations took place in other parts of the city, too. A video posted online shortly after 3 a.m. shows a man struggling to swim in an icy canal and being forced to say “Free Palestine.”
> “TOMORROW AFTER THE GAME AT NIGHT PART 2 JEW HUNT,” someone wrote in a WhatsApp group just before 4 a.m.
No... This is again the trope that anti-genocide == antisemitism.
Might be the words of one person, but you find crazies everywhere. In this specific case, according to all the foltage I've seen, on one side you had a group celebrating the death of children while their country perpetrates a genocide, on the other you had people by and large talking about punishing that behaviour.
So I'm pretty sure their words were "Free Palestine".
> There was some planned coordination — among taxi drivers and other locals who used messaging apps to organize a show of force, with at least one chat referring to a “Jew hunt.” Those conversations took place after, and in many cases in response to, episodes the night before the match, when Maccabi supporters pulled down a Palestinian flag and damaged a taxi. Neither The Post nor Dutch investigators came across plans for orchestrated violence in the days ahead of the match.
> The Post found that the violence that unfolded was not one-sided. Israeli fans were harassed, chased and in some cases beaten. But video of one of the earliest post-match altercations, shared by multiple news organizations as an example of attacks on Israelis, in fact shows Maccabi supporters as the aggressors.
Both the racist hooligans, and locals, brought violence upon each other, and innocent people.
Neither side's provocations are justified. Neither side's violence is justified. Both groups harmed entirely innocent people.
Here are some quotes from a group of taxi drivers organising reciprocal violence. I'm highlighting them to show that the locals are not exclusively innocent people ravaged by ultras, they also rioted indiscriminately. The rest of the article goes into much further detail about the actions of all parties, and I recommend you read it in full.
> “TOMORROW AFTER THE GAME AT NIGHT PART 2 JEW HUNT,” someone wrote in a WhatsApp group just before 4 a.m.
> After the match, a Telegram group normally used by taxi drivers for traffic updates tracked the fans’ movements from the stadium to the central metro station. “Jews are arriving we are waiting for them brother be ready,” a group member posted at 11.33 p.m.
> At 11:45 p.m., Sektioui posted the first of a series of images and videos showing Cobra firecrackers, some of which are strapped to bottles labeled as paint thinner. Those firecrackers are illegal in the Netherlands, even without modifications to increase their explosive power.
> if the people attacking the Maccabi fans are taxi drivers, yes, I'd expect to see taxi drivers getting beaten up right back.
You have the causality backwards: maccabi fans started attacking taxis before the latter started retaliating.
> At the same time, another development takes place - small groups of pro-Palestinian rioters actively search for individuals they perceive as Israeli, Jewish or Maccabi supporters. At 23:55pm, the first 'flash' attacks on Maccabi supporters begin at Dam Square.
Didn't feel the need to mention the lead-up to this? Everything in the article that came before this line, maybe? Here are some excerpts:
> In the early morning of 7 November, at approximately 12:20am, the control room receives reports that a group of about 50 Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters are pulling a Palestinian flag off a building façade and obstructing traffic.
> Some of the supporters are wearing face coverings, shouting anti-Palestinian slogans, and harassing people.
> Of the group walking along the Rokin, several individuals remove their belts and use them to attack taxis. Scooter riders are also attacked with padlocks.
> The next day, around 12:15pm, the first [maccabi] supporters arrive, and the group quickly grows. They chant anti-Palestinian slogans.
> The fan walk begins around 17:30 at Dam Square. During the fan walk, supporters shout slogans in Hebrew. Afterwards, it appears that these include highly offensive, racist expressions. At the front walks a group wearing face coverings.
> Around midnight, Maccabi Tel Aviv rioters gather at Central Station and move towards the city centre. Along the way, they equip themselves with materials such as metal rods and stones. Stones are also thrown at taxis.
> Didn't feel the need to mention the lead-up to this?
It's mentioned in the GP post. I'm in no way hiding or excusing what the hooligans were up to, only noting that the GP made an extremely one-sided statement, whereas the Amsterdam police statement covers all the disorder, including confirming what the GP said.
> It sounds like maccabi rioters started it.
And if there were no opponents to them, then it would only be Maccabi hooligans being arrested. But instead they had opponents who were equally ready to riot and use violence, including against random people who the attackers simply felt were Jewish or Israeli.
I put it to you that the Maccabi hooligans were not the only thugs in Amsterdam that week.
> And if there were no opponents to them, then it would only be Maccabi hooligans being arrested. But instead they had opponents who were equally ready to riot and use violence, including against random people who the attackers simply felt were Jewish or Israeli.
If there were no maccabi fans rioting and assaulting people the attackers simply felt were Palestinian or Muslim, then it would be peace in the street. Indeed, the responding violence seems to have been a predictable result of the initiating maccabi rioter violence.
Put yourself in the same position: A lynch mob from outside your community marches through it, masked and clad in black so as to be unidentifiable. Some of their racist chants are threats against you, your community, your family, your children. Other racist chants celebrate an ongoing genocide of your family, friends, and people. They vandalize your community and attack members of it along the way. It would not be unreasonable or unprecedented for your community to respond by stomping this lynch mob into the gutters, or at least running it out of town.
As we don't live in the middle ages any more, it would be more than reasonable for the community to demand the riot police step in and arrest the provocators.
It would not be OK to plan a "jew hunt" on WhatsApp and perpetuate violence by performing a "flash mob attack" against not only against Maccabi hooligans, but also non-violent Maccabi fans, and also Jewish and Israeli people who aren't even visiting for the football. And completely random people who you just think look Jewish or Israeli.
No, that's not acceptable. That's retributive bullshit. An eye for an eye leaves us all blind.
The sibling comment answered perfectly, but I'll add that your advice sounds reasonable in a vacuum, but in reality this event happened one year after the start of genocide. The community had no reason to believe that the state would do anything, as the state allowed a genocidal country's genocide-celebrating citizens to travel to the community's city for a football match and the police didn't do anything while they were chanting death to arabs, hours before the locals took matters into their own hands.
After a year of international inaction in response to the genocide, the Amsterdam community acted quite reasonably, and to be honest quite commendably, by stomping the lynch mob into the gutter, as the sibling eloquently put.
> it would be more than reasonable for the community to demand the riot police step in and arrest the provocators.
Likewise, it would not be unreasonable or unprecedented for your community to respond by stomping this lynch mob into the gutters, or at least running it out of town.
The principle that intolerance should be tolerated is not universally held, and IMO is a bit privileged.
> And completely random people who you just think look Jewish or Israeli
That sounds like it came after the maccabi rioters started their campaign of violence against random people who they just thought looked Palestinian or Muslim.
Indiscriminate targeting of civilians is never ok under any circumstances, but unfortunately it still happens, and ethnic violence tends to beget ethnic violence.
Thank you for actually reading the article. I knew I would get many responses parroting the official narrative because that's what we're being spoonfed, but I'm glad some people are interested in understanding what really happened.
> > when no other sets of fans are given the same treatment
> This treatment is often doled out to clubs' fans. Even in Tel Aviv.
Sorry, what treatment are you talking about exactly? Your parent seems to be referring to the treatment of being "blocked from attending by the police/council". Is that what you mean is often doled out to clubs/fans?
Yes, that's the precise type of treatment I'm talking about: prevented from attending a football game due to security concerns or penalty for poor behavior.
It happens often enough in European football. Search "away fans ban uefa -maccabi" online. You can also look at official UEFA sites, but they often list partial bans (e.g., ban from a particular section of the stadium) in a way that I can't distinguish from complete bans.
According to the UEFA website you linked it looks like BSC Young Boys were the only other club to face a ban on Europa League away fans in 2025. Maccabi Tel Aviv doesn't appear there, of course, since despite UEFA having rules and punishments against fan violence, they didn't consider it appropriate to punish Maccabi. So I wonder how frequently a team is forbidden from taking away fans by the local police, despite not being sanctioned by UEFA.
The Tel Aviv police did see fit to call off a Maccabi game about 2 weeks after this furore. Admittedly, because of violence on the morning of the game, not because of concerns well in advance, but I think it's quite reasonable to say that such a prohibition is not some kind of outrageous outlier.
My general point is, if you think the surface level details of this case are indication of some outrageous singling out of Maccabi fans, then I think that's mostly due to ignorance (in the non-derogatory sense of lack of familiarity).
If you want to debate the details, that's a fine thing to do, and I'm aware of lots of those details too and would still generally find it quite plausible to desire an away fans ban for Maccabi in that case, but that's not the point I'm trying to make on HN right now.
> The Tel Aviv police did see fit to call off a Maccabi game about 2 weeks after this furore
I think you mean the match against Hapoel Tel Aviv, which happened before this furore. The Tel Aviv police naturally know and expect that there is often unrest at a derby match, let alone a derby match between teams who share a stadium. But why would there be particular reason to assume that there would be unrest at a match between fans from Tel Aviv and Birmingham who have no particular relation to each other? And even if there was, why not cancel the match or play it behind closed doors? Why punish Maccabi specifically?
My recollection is the Tel Aviv derby took place after this Aston Villa ban was announced or raised publicly as a possibility (my meaning of "the furore"), but before the eventual match (another valid definition). Regardless, the sequence of these events is immaterial.
As for a "particular reason"... the Amsterdam match! The report is a poor document, but it contains some valid reasoning, despite the outrageous AI hallucination and some legal linguistics errors (mistakenly saying "communities" themselves were targeted, instead of individuals from said communities).
Subsequently, after a Maccabi game in Stuttgart, UEFA gave Maccabi a (suspended) away fans ban. Is it really still in question whether it's plausible for a police force to say there are security concerns? https://archive.is/20251218110350/https://www.nytimes.com/at...
> As for a "particular reason"... the Amsterdam match!
A match that happened 12 months prior? Maccabi had played several away matches around Europe in that intervening period. Why should it have been a Birmingham team that saw fit to ban them?
> Subsequently, after a Maccabi game in Stuttgart, UEFA gave Maccabi a (suspended) away fans ban. Is it really still in question whether it's plausible for a police force to say there are security concerns?
It's not implausible! But bans of all away fans happens rarely.
> But why would there be particular reason to assume that there would be unrest at a match between fans from Tel Aviv and Birmingham who have no particular relation to each other?
Emphasis mine, but you said both in a connected statement, so I don't see the point in disputing anything about my quotation.
Edit: I see now have you've removed the dispute of my quotation as being inaccurate where you argued you said "particular relation" and not "particular reason" -- no worries, I've made similar mistakes before, so while I'll leave my above words, they don't matter anymore.
As for why Birmingham in particular, I don't see it as some kind of gotcha to say because there is a resident population in Birmingham that would be a likely target of racial/religious abuse by Maccabi fans, i.e., Muslim people, or even just "Arab" appearing people, or people showing Palestine solidarity. Amsterdam and Birmingham are similar in this regard (I lived in Amsterdam for years), in ways other cities may not be. I'm not clued into Stuttgart or the cities hosting other games, so I can't say if populations there are similar or not. Expecting a uniform approach from all cities would be ludicrous -- why mandate ignoring particularities?
I don't think this is a form of intolerance towards Maccabi fans, because the logic is identical to that of the Tel Aviv derby prohibition -- it's about preventing reasonably predictable confrontations that exceed some tolerance level.
> Edit: I see you removed disputing my quotation as being inaccurate, no worries, I've made similar mistakes before, so while I'll leave my above words, they don't matter anymore.
Yes, the mistake was entirely mine.
> As for why Birmingham in particular, I don't see it as some kind of gotcha to say because ...
Fine, that's a perfectly valid reason in itself, but the West Midlands police did keep quiet about that being the basis for the ban, only saying so (in far less detail than you) after the match had taken place: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqx3d5enx0xo, which in itself seems suspicious.
If your point is "hooliganism happens and is treated on a case-by-case basis, in some circumstances warranting bans" then my response would be to agree, though I still hold that such hooliganism is rare. This isn't the 1980s any more. Any further dispute is about the facts of the particular case, and what I've seen from the Commons committee which questioned the West Midlands police chief doesn't fill me with confidence that your interpretation is the correct one.
The background level of hooliganism is AFAIK a lot lower now than in the 80s/90s when I casually recall it being commonplace and less under control, yes, but that doesn't mean that Maccabi deserve to be treated as if they themselves rarely act as hooligans or racists, etc.
I have read quite a lot on the topic of what transpired in Amsterdam, what generally transpires at Maccabi games in Israel (in terms of genocidal chants, calling Israeli "left wing" club supporters "the whores of Arabs", etc., because they are in my view less racist against Palestinians or "Israeli Arabs"), the level of analysis done by the Birmingham police (a poor document, but to me there is clearly a reasonable argument in there, struggling to be expressed, but mired in unforced errors), etc. I think the standard of discourse by UK parliamentary commissions and debate in parliament, etc., has been very low, and not a sufficient basis to understand the relevant facts, even for a casual overview, never mind for detailed insight.
However, none of that is part of my original point, which is only to say, that banning away fans from a club like Maccabi is not notable, and on the surface level, anyone arguing that it smacks of discrimination is either ignorant or disingenuous. If one admits that there was plausible justification to prohibit Maccabi away fans, but in the particulars it was not justified, then fine, I disagree, but I don't wish to pursue the argument on HN.
For example, at any duel between Ajax and Feyenoord the away fans have been banned - since 2009. The Den Haag municipality banned away fans at ADO Den Haag - Ajax games for over 10 years. NAC - Willen II didn't allow away fans during the 2022 season. Fans misbehaved badly enough during N.E.C. - Vitesse games that they were threatened with a 10-year ban on away fans. Amsterdam banned the Italian fans at Ajax - SS Lazio in 2024, due to repeated antisemitism and racism. Lille didn't allow Ajax fans during their game last January. In 2023 the Amsterdam police seriously considered banning all away fans during all high-risk European games.
And that's just the first few results of a trivial search for a single country. I could probably find a hundred more without much effort.
They were banned because during a match in Amsterdam they shouted racist abuse, sang racist songs, did plenty of vandalism, threw an innocent member of the public into a river and assaulted Muslim taxi drivers.
Moreover, most of them have military training which makes the racist abuse, vandalism and assault that much more terrifying.
If an antisemitic football team was half that bad they'd be hauled off to prison never mind banned from football matches.
Barcelona vs Athletic Bilbao had no away fans. It happens a few times every year across Europe. If you’re only looking at UEFA matches you’ll find fewer, but it’s not that unheard of. Argentina had a 12 year ban on away fans recently lifted as well.
That list confirms that during 2025 there was one incidence of UEFA banning a Europa League team from bringing fans. There are nearly 200 matches in one season of Europa League, so it's rare, I think.
There are multiple “no away fans” bans in 2025 on that page. It is common-ish and contradicts your earlier claims of it not happening to anyone but Maccabi.
Just incredible how little people understand football on here, but confidently say things like this.
Here's an example from a few months ago where Italy suspended their EU obligations to free movement to prevent hooligans entering from Germany.[1] This is a far bigger response, which affected all Germans entering Italy, not just the football fans. This is a far bigger response and of questionable legality.
> Here's an example from a few months ago where Italy suspended their EU obligations to free movement to prevent hooligans entering from Germany
Are you sure that all away fans were banned? Doesn't look like it. It looks like they imposed controls to forbid the travel of particular people, which, as I said, often happens.
> Airlines operating Germany–Italy routes were asked to verify passenger identities against watch-lists before boarding
Yeah, bans are rare because hooliganism is rare. But in the instances of hooliganism, stadium bans are common! "Oh no, Maccabi fans are being targeted". No more than any other hooligans.
Ah, well that I agree with! I suspect the only remaining point of disagreement is whether the level of hooliganism of Maccabi fans warranted the ban. My guess, based on what I've seen from the evidence to the Commons committee is no, but I'm not particularly inclined to get into a debate about that.
My guess based on what I've seen from Amsterdam, is that there would have been clashes in Birmingham, just as there were clashes in Amsterdam. Without getting into who was at fault and who would have been at fault, we're all better off for having avoided the violence. This would be unfair if the Maccabi fans were entirely blameless, but based on the reports from Amsterdam, the Maccabi fans weren't.
Btw, you clearly don't know much about Maccabi. Here there are a decade ago, with their fans being investigated for racism by the Israeli FA (https://newisraelfund.org.uk/issue/kick-it-out-complaint-lea...). Is the Israeli FA anti-semitic too? They've also been banned from Israeli stadiums in the past for hooliganism.
It later transpired the real reason the Police wanted to ban the group:
"West Midlands Police did have "high confidence intelligence" that members of the local community in Birmingham were planning to arm themselves to attack Maccabi supporters."
Because the police didn't want to upset the "local community" (which is predominantly Muslim), they hunted around for reasons to ban them as that was easier than EG enforcing the law and stopping people getting attacked by mobs.
The local community near Aston Villa's grounds, Villa Park, is predominantly Muslim.
Take a look at this map of data from the 2011 census. The dark green lumps in the north-west (>70% Muslim) and the green lumps surrounding them (45%-70% Muslim) are Perry Barr. The whitish lump (0%-5% Muslim) immediately to the east of a dark green lump is Aston.
> But the decision has been welcomed by Ayoub Khan, the MP for Birmingham Perry Barr, the constituency where the match will take place. He organised a petition calling for the match to be either cancelled, relocated or held behind closed doors [...]
> Khan is one of the five independent MPs elected at the last election wholly or partly because of their outright opposition to Israel’s war in Gaza and his petition suggests that his opposition to the match going ahead is motivated as much by the desire to make a political point about Israel’s conduct as by concerns about the risk of violence. The petition cites three reasons why the match should not go ahead. One is the “track record of violence by Maccabi Tel Aviv fans”, but the others are the “ongoing genocide in Gaza” and the “wider European context”. The petition says:
> As Israel continues its assault on Gaza, killing thousands and devastating civilian infrastructure, sporting fixtures involving Israeli teams cannot be separated from the wider political context. Hosting such teams sends a message of normalisation and indifference to mass atrocities.
With this in mind, perhaps you can see there was as much a political and sectarian religious element to WMP's decision as there was a security element.
Maccabi fans were also found guilty by the UEFA governing body just in December of racist chants (referring to an Arab-Israeli as a "terrorist") in a separate episode:
The main European football association also found them guilty recently of anti-Arab racist chants and fined, gave them a "suspended one-match away fan ban":
After months of widespread protests across the UK, the police in West Midlands looked at multiple intelligence reports and concluded that protests and violence would be inevitable if the match went ahead and fans from Maccabi Tel Aviv were allowed to travel to Aston Villa's ground. Their advice was that away fans should not be granted tickets to the event.
The issues at the core of this decision are about alleged antisemitism rising in the UK, presumed violence of a group of fans with an uncertain intelligence picture, and how decisions were made with these analyses trading off against each other.
He resigned because of that process leading to the Home Secretary no longer having confidence in him.
I don't think the misleading of the select committee would have helped him, but he gave an answer based on all that he knew at that point in time, with the best of intentions. The fact he hadn't been briefed isn't his fault. The fact he leaned into a decision that had wide-ranging political ramifications without first opening up the discussion to more stakeholders is his fault, and it's why he's no longer in the job.
The body that made the recommendation, the "Safety and Advisory Board" met several times and changed their report multiple times. When it was finally released they redacted large parts of the decision making process including saying that:
* The police didn't want the match to go ahead (prior to any evidence for that)
* Two local Muslim councillors (Labour and Lib Dem) had been lobbying against it going ahead with one saying (quote) 'we are the voice of the people'
Additionally:
* They edited the report saying risk to local muslim residents went from Medium -> High
* They edited the report saying risk to fans travelling went from High -> Medium.
* They adjusted the number of police needed from 1200 -> 5000 in order to try and justify the decision.
When the full unredacted report was leaked, then they were put on the back foot and falsely threw out that they'd got the evidence (including of local muslim residents in Amsterdam being thrown in a river, which didn't happen) from a Dutch Police report, which wasn't true.
Anyone with a brain in the police should know that recommending cancellation or banning away fans from a Champion's League game is a major international news
story. The chief of police needs to be on top of the details and 100% sure that the evidence is there.
The Dutch police were a lot more fair-handed in giving intelligence to the WMP than you've been here.
They made clear that there were indiscriminate antisemitic attacks, and that WMP had made up claims that were not backed by what the Dutch police told them.
> a section of the Maccabi fan base was filmed engaging in violence in Amsterdam in 2024 and chanting anti-Palestinian racist abuse. That required WMP to contact their Dutch counterparts, who also informed them of the antisemitic violence by locals in Amsterdam, hunting down and kicking Maccabi supporters, leading to the only five convictions.
> Dutch police disputed the accuracy of how their Birmingham counterparts used information about the 2024 unrest in Amsterdam, with clear contradictions only able to be highlighted due to leaked WMP documents.
> WMP's intelligence assessment claimed that Maccabi fans apparently intentionally targeted Muslim communities in Amsterdam, but the Dutch force told me: "We did not see large groups of Maccabi's (fans) going into Muslim populated areas to target Muslims."
> Claims that Maccabi fans threw "innocent members of the public into the river" were also not endorsed by the Dutch.
Right next door to Aston Villa is Birmingham's Perry Bar ward, where they elected the independent MP Ayoub Khan, for what seems to be his support for the Palestinian side of the Israel-Palestine war.
The West Midlands police were keen to give the impression that they were even-handed and fair in banning Maccabi fans, claiming they consulted multiple faith communities in Birmingham, and besides Maccabi fans are rotters, look at what they did at this other match.
The other match did not exist. The Jewish community did not ask for the Maccabi fans to be banned. Those were lies.
> As the match was played last month, pro-Palestinian protesters, including Independent MP Ayoub Khan, gathered outside the stadium, waving flags and banners calling for an end to violence in Gaza.
In my view, the West Midlands police probably had partisan community leaders like Mr Khan tell them to keep Jewish/Israeli fans out of Birmingham or they'd cause a riot, and the police meekly went along with this, then concealed this true reason, and made up bullshit reasons for banning the fans... which they have been caught out on, because they used a chatbot that hallucinated falsehoods and they didn't even verify it before using it as justification to a Parliamentary select committee.
That is what is known as misleading Parliament. That's why the chief's position is untenable.
Im glad al shamie is dead, but do you condemn the Maccabi fans recorded on camera in Amsterdam repeatedly chanting "death to arabs" and "there are no more schools in gaza because we destroyed them?"
Do you condemn the army of an extremely racist state that committed what the UN describes as genocide?
> Do you condemn the Maccabi fans recorded on camera in Amsterdam repeatedly chanting "death to arabs" and "there are no more schools in gaza because we destroyed them?"
Yes, without question. Those are racist provocations. I also condemn all other violent acts those hooligans committed.
I further condemn their local opponents who made random attacks on unrelated Jewish and Israeli people. I hope you would do the same.
> Or the army of an ultra racist state that committed what the UN has described as genocide?
I take no side on the Israel-Palestine conflict. Israelis and Palestinians both have a right to exist, and to live in peace.
EDIT: Also, I want to add: A Jewish person in the UK != an Israeli citizen != the State of Israel and the IDF. If you're angry about Israel and Palestine, don't take it out on Jews in the UK. Don't assume Jews support Israel or the IDF, don't assume Muslims support Palestine or Hamas. Thanks.
> On 6 January, Guildford told MPs on the home affairs committee that officers had found this material through a Google search that did not involve use of AI functions. "We do not use AI," he said in evidence to MPs.
“I had understood and been advised that the match had been identified by way of a Google search in preparation for attending HAC. My belief that this was the case was honestly held and there was no intention to mislead the committee.”
I'm not sure I'd go that far, but they should at least be aware of the credibility of information sources they're using to making professional decisions upon. Your world gets very small if you can only gather information that you see with your own eyes, but they do need to validate things they "learn" from Google/FB/Reddit/Youtube/non-official sources. I was unimpressed by the chief's letter:
> In preparation for the force response to the HMICFRS inquiry into this matter, on Friday afternoon I became aware that the erroneous result concerning the West Ham v Maccabi Tel Aviv match arose as result of a use of Microsoft Co Pilot[sic]. Both ACC O’Hara and I had, up until Friday afternoon, understood that the West Ham match had only been identified through the use of Google.
My 3rd grader knows better than to do research based solely on a Google summary snippet, and even understands that just because a linked article under the search agrees with the search that this doesn't mean it's true.
I would have expected that if the chief's staff were investigating rumors of a riot in a stadium 3 hours away, they'd call their counterparts at the police station in that location to get police reports from the incident.
They have trivial access to those official reports. They shouldn't be reliant on journalists sensationalizing, and opining the events for their news articles. They shouldn't be reliant on a search engine that exists to sell ads for those news organizations. They certainly shouldn't trust "Co Pilot" to figure out what may or may not have happened! It seems obvious to me that the tool could happily generate a police report from whole cloth.
All comments seem to assume the officers lied about not using AI, but the article doesn't actually say that:
> officers had found this material through a Google search
> the erroneous result concerning the West Ham v Maccabi Tel Aviv match arose as result of a use of Microsoft Co Pilot
> his force used fictional output from Microsoft Copilot
What this says is that the material originates from Copilot.
I suppose you can read that and interpret that they lied about the Google search, but if you assume incompetence over malice, the more likely interpretation is that they didn't properly verify their source found through Google. It could have been the source of the source of their source that used Copilot, not the officers themselves.
The takeaway here is that even if you don't use AI tools and do things as you did before AI, you may still be basing your work on AI content.
A parallel may someone saying they don't use AI in their code because they don't use AI tools, but then it turns out that a dependency of a dependency is built by AI.
I worry the precedent is backwards, the source of the error suffers no repercussions.
In areas where we move away from humans doing work into humans checking the work of agents, we should be worried about an arrangement where the human is present only as an accountability sink for the mistakes of the agent.
It's not clear what happened from this news report.
His error in judgement may have been he hadn't investigated the problem sufficiently. Then falsely testified to the government. That's a big deal on its own.
The officer involved might have been fired or reprimanded, we don't know from that article.
An organisational administrator can stop their team using Copilot and tell them not to use other tools. If the officer had used tools after that then they should indeed be disciplined
A gen AI tool doesn't spontaneously open up and say "Hey, Maccabi Tel Aviv fans are hooligans". The intent is usually from the user. It's quite possible that the officer prompted the AI while in Word with something like "Help me write a reason we should ban these fans".
Probably? But across a large org, "a worker bee doing X cost the previous CEO his job" is a far stronger lesson than "a worker bee doing X cost him his job".
With both MS and Google pushing "AI" on everything, it's possible no one realized they're reading an "AI" summary and the Copilot branding was what was on Word.
Hey btw, how do "AI" summaries on Google search look? Exactly like honest [1] results, like they did with ads?
[1] If there are any honest results left on a Google search. My impression is everything is from content mills, be it "AI" or human slop.
Same. The fact that he stepped down harkens back to a time when officials took responsibility for their gaffs. Given the current pedigree of public officials, I'd rather that he stayed on, instead of being replaced by someone worse
I don't see a gloss for "cop out" that matches the one you give, and the only one I'm personally familiar with is most similar to sense 1, "perform in an insufficient, negligent, or superficial manner".†
And even there, I would think of the derived noun as being the basic vocabulary item, even if the etymology is the other way around.
That said, the sense I get from "Cop cops it after Copilot cops out" is 'this is using vocabulary I don't know, because it's British', not 'how is it possible to put the words together this way?'. It looks like a fairly normal sentence using exotic vocabulary.
† As a separate issue, I don't think the gloss you give can be correct here, because the thing that's supposed to have copped out is Copilot, and what it did was to produce false statements, not surrender before a fight.
If we want to rephrase this headline to avoid any use of the token "cop(s)", it looks something like "Policeman gets in trouble after Copilot screws up" to me.
This story has been horribly misreported in the mainstream media. Suffice to say that the AI gaff was the very thinnest pretence for a politically motivated firing. The true reason being that West Midlands Police made the UK govt furious for suggesting that maybe Maccabi were violent thugs rather than persecuted victims, which goes against prevailing official narratives WRT Israel.
I have only found one news source that actual tells the story properly (warning, long read): https://whispering.media/the-maccabi-gospel/
I'll share my opposing view point. Whilst Maccabi fans may contain hooligans, that's not really surprising for football fans. Fans travelling within Europe cause trouble all the time.
What is different, is that Maccabi fans were blocked from attending by the police/council when no other sets of fans are given the same treatment. Secondly, the police were aware of plans within the Birmingham Muslim community to attack said fans. Instead of coming down on these people planning violence, they decided to avoid the situation entirely.
Furthermore, they ignored evidence from the Amsterdam authorities who haven't said the Maccabi fans were as riotous as you claim. Using AI hallucinations was just the cherry on the cake.
Maccabee fans in Amsterdam - indulged in racist chants like "Death to Arabs" and "There are no more babies in Gaza" (because they're dead)
- Beat an Arab taxi driver
- Tore a Palestinian flag from a woman's balcony and attempted to break in to the apartment.
After they FAFOd and got their asses handed to them the media treated them like the second coming of Anne Frank.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2024_Amsterdam_riots.
The "media reporting" section of the article is particularly illuminating - a Zionist influence operation was in full swing afterwards to minimize the bad behavior of the Israeli fans.
Furthermore Maccabee fans have a reputation for hooliganism in Israel itself. So the West Midlands assessment was eminently reasonable.
The manufactured storm over the decision again showcases a broader pattern of insidious Zionist influence over Western institutions. The decision was lawyered to death in a manner only Israelis get the benefit of.
You kinda forgot to mention the organised pro-Palestinian rioters, so let's add them back into your narrative.
https://news.sky.com/story/statement-by-the-amsterdam-police...
> The Amsterdam police made clear that among Maccabi supporters there were 500-800 ultras visiting the city in November 2024. Like other European ultra groups, these fans were organised and, on some occasions, seemed willing to fight. The Amsterdam police also stated that a lot of disorder in those days were the result of different groups provoking each other.
> At the same time, another development takes place - small groups of pro-Palestinian rioters actively search for individuals they perceive as Israeli, Jewish or Maccabi supporters. At 23:55pm, the first 'flash' attacks on Maccabi supporters begin at Dam Square. Several dozen violent incidents in the city centre follow. The pro-Palestinian rioters use various methods to reach their victims. Some move on foot, others use scooters or taxis to move quickly through the city. This makes it difficult for the police to intervene quickly and effectively. This proves to be a fundamentally different form of violence compared to earlier situations, which involved clashes between groups facing each other. From 1:24am onward, reports of attacks decrease, but fear among Jewish residents of Amsterdam and Israeli tourists remains high. Multiple reports come in of people feeling unsafe and not daring to leave their hotels.
The Macabbi ultras were violent and racist hooligans, as you said. But you can't excuse or leave out the behaviour of their opponents who went on a "Jew hunt" (their words!) and attacked random Jews or Israelis, unaffiliated with the football hooligans.
From your wiki link:
> Most of the people involved in the attacks on Maccabi fans were taxi drivers and youths on scooters,
So yes, if the people attacking the Maccabi fans are taxi drivers, yes, I'd expect to see taxi drivers getting beaten up right back.
> In the nights following the attacks, people thought to be Jewish continued to be targeted, including being forced out of taxis and ordered to show their passports to check if they were Israeli.
Didn't feel the need to mention this? Oh, sorry, random people being forced out of taxis to check if they're Israeli is just an overstatement by the media, "the second coming of Anne Frank", I forgot.
I followed this closely at the time. It was clear that Maccabi supporters were looking for a confrontation and were intimidating anyone with a Palestinian flag. They're kind of known for being massive racists[0].
A group of Maccabi Fanatics chased two men, beating one with a belt as he tried to escape in a taxi. After the police arrived, the group ran away, joining other Maccabi ultras, nearly all of whom wore black clothing instead of team colours, walking towards Rokin. This group of around 50 Maccabi supporters gathered in front of Villa Mokum, a squat where several Palestinian flags were displayed.
Why not mention this?
0 - https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/47336888/maccabi-tel-...
What part of "The Macabbi ultras were violent and racist hooligans" did you miss?
Also, why not mention what happened after?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2024/12/18/ams...
> Over the course of the night, police monitoring Telegram and WhatsApp began to detect “messages of aggression and threats toward Maccabi supporters,” according to a report produced afterward by city authorities. The vandalism of the taxi was “oil on the fire” in a community angered by the city’s decision to let the team play, said driver Mohamed Asri, 31, who was not working but watched the chat messages that night.
> At one point, a worker at Holland Casino tipped off a WhatsApp group that Maccabi fans were outside, according to screenshots of the messages obtained by The Post with usernames redacted. Police said there was a call for taxi drivers to mobilize, and cabs began to amass at the site.
> Maccabi fans ran inside the casino and security closed the doors behind them, according to casino spokesman Ilan Sluis. A bartender across the street said a group of about 50 people tried to break into the casino by rushing the doors for about 25 minutes.
> Kobi Itzajki, 34, a Maccabi fan, had just returned to a hotel when he received a message from a friend at the casino.
> “There’s an antisemitic event here,” read a 3:17 a.m. message, reviewed by The Post. “Turkish Muslims attacked Israelis who fled here. We’re locked inside the casino, bring the police.”
> Altercations took place in other parts of the city, too. A video posted online shortly after 3 a.m. shows a man struggling to swim in an icy canal and being forced to say “Free Palestine.”
> “TOMORROW AFTER THE GAME AT NIGHT PART 2 JEW HUNT,” someone wrote in a WhatsApp group just before 4 a.m.
... and so it goes on. Please read all of it.
> their words!
No... This is again the trope that anti-genocide == antisemitism.
Might be the words of one person, but you find crazies everywhere. In this specific case, according to all the foltage I've seen, on one side you had a group celebrating the death of children while their country perpetrates a genocide, on the other you had people by and large talking about punishing that behaviour.
So I'm pretty sure their words were "Free Palestine".
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2024/12/18/ams...
> There was some planned coordination — among taxi drivers and other locals who used messaging apps to organize a show of force, with at least one chat referring to a “Jew hunt.” Those conversations took place after, and in many cases in response to, episodes the night before the match, when Maccabi supporters pulled down a Palestinian flag and damaged a taxi. Neither The Post nor Dutch investigators came across plans for orchestrated violence in the days ahead of the match.
> The Post found that the violence that unfolded was not one-sided. Israeli fans were harassed, chased and in some cases beaten. But video of one of the earliest post-match altercations, shared by multiple news organizations as an example of attacks on Israelis, in fact shows Maccabi supporters as the aggressors.
Both the racist hooligans, and locals, brought violence upon each other, and innocent people.
Neither side's provocations are justified. Neither side's violence is justified. Both groups harmed entirely innocent people.
Here are some quotes from a group of taxi drivers organising reciprocal violence. I'm highlighting them to show that the locals are not exclusively innocent people ravaged by ultras, they also rioted indiscriminately. The rest of the article goes into much further detail about the actions of all parties, and I recommend you read it in full.
> “TOMORROW AFTER THE GAME AT NIGHT PART 2 JEW HUNT,” someone wrote in a WhatsApp group just before 4 a.m.
> After the match, a Telegram group normally used by taxi drivers for traffic updates tracked the fans’ movements from the stadium to the central metro station. “Jews are arriving we are waiting for them brother be ready,” a group member posted at 11.33 p.m.
> At 11:45 p.m., Sektioui posted the first of a series of images and videos showing Cobra firecrackers, some of which are strapped to bottles labeled as paint thinner. Those firecrackers are illegal in the Netherlands, even without modifications to increase their explosive power.
> if the people attacking the Maccabi fans are taxi drivers, yes, I'd expect to see taxi drivers getting beaten up right back.
You have the causality backwards: maccabi fans started attacking taxis before the latter started retaliating.
> At the same time, another development takes place - small groups of pro-Palestinian rioters actively search for individuals they perceive as Israeli, Jewish or Maccabi supporters. At 23:55pm, the first 'flash' attacks on Maccabi supporters begin at Dam Square.
Didn't feel the need to mention the lead-up to this? Everything in the article that came before this line, maybe? Here are some excerpts:
> In the early morning of 7 November, at approximately 12:20am, the control room receives reports that a group of about 50 Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters are pulling a Palestinian flag off a building façade and obstructing traffic.
> Some of the supporters are wearing face coverings, shouting anti-Palestinian slogans, and harassing people.
> Of the group walking along the Rokin, several individuals remove their belts and use them to attack taxis. Scooter riders are also attacked with padlocks.
> The next day, around 12:15pm, the first [maccabi] supporters arrive, and the group quickly grows. They chant anti-Palestinian slogans.
> The fan walk begins around 17:30 at Dam Square. During the fan walk, supporters shout slogans in Hebrew. Afterwards, it appears that these include highly offensive, racist expressions. At the front walks a group wearing face coverings.
> Around midnight, Maccabi Tel Aviv rioters gather at Central Station and move towards the city centre. Along the way, they equip themselves with materials such as metal rods and stones. Stones are also thrown at taxis.
It sounds like maccabi rioters started it.
> Didn't feel the need to mention the lead-up to this?
It's mentioned in the GP post. I'm in no way hiding or excusing what the hooligans were up to, only noting that the GP made an extremely one-sided statement, whereas the Amsterdam police statement covers all the disorder, including confirming what the GP said.
> It sounds like maccabi rioters started it.
And if there were no opponents to them, then it would only be Maccabi hooligans being arrested. But instead they had opponents who were equally ready to riot and use violence, including against random people who the attackers simply felt were Jewish or Israeli.
I put it to you that the Maccabi hooligans were not the only thugs in Amsterdam that week.
> And if there were no opponents to them, then it would only be Maccabi hooligans being arrested. But instead they had opponents who were equally ready to riot and use violence, including against random people who the attackers simply felt were Jewish or Israeli.
If there were no maccabi fans rioting and assaulting people the attackers simply felt were Palestinian or Muslim, then it would be peace in the street. Indeed, the responding violence seems to have been a predictable result of the initiating maccabi rioter violence.
Put yourself in the same position: A lynch mob from outside your community marches through it, masked and clad in black so as to be unidentifiable. Some of their racist chants are threats against you, your community, your family, your children. Other racist chants celebrate an ongoing genocide of your family, friends, and people. They vandalize your community and attack members of it along the way. It would not be unreasonable or unprecedented for your community to respond by stomping this lynch mob into the gutters, or at least running it out of town.
As we don't live in the middle ages any more, it would be more than reasonable for the community to demand the riot police step in and arrest the provocators.
It would not be OK to plan a "jew hunt" on WhatsApp and perpetuate violence by performing a "flash mob attack" against not only against Maccabi hooligans, but also non-violent Maccabi fans, and also Jewish and Israeli people who aren't even visiting for the football. And completely random people who you just think look Jewish or Israeli.
No, that's not acceptable. That's retributive bullshit. An eye for an eye leaves us all blind.
The sibling comment answered perfectly, but I'll add that your advice sounds reasonable in a vacuum, but in reality this event happened one year after the start of genocide. The community had no reason to believe that the state would do anything, as the state allowed a genocidal country's genocide-celebrating citizens to travel to the community's city for a football match and the police didn't do anything while they were chanting death to arabs, hours before the locals took matters into their own hands.
After a year of international inaction in response to the genocide, the Amsterdam community acted quite reasonably, and to be honest quite commendably, by stomping the lynch mob into the gutter, as the sibling eloquently put.
> it would be more than reasonable for the community to demand the riot police step in and arrest the provocators.
Likewise, it would not be unreasonable or unprecedented for your community to respond by stomping this lynch mob into the gutters, or at least running it out of town.
The principle that intolerance should be tolerated is not universally held, and IMO is a bit privileged.
> And completely random people who you just think look Jewish or Israeli
That sounds like it came after the maccabi rioters started their campaign of violence against random people who they just thought looked Palestinian or Muslim.
Indiscriminate targeting of civilians is never ok under any circumstances, but unfortunately it still happens, and ethnic violence tends to beget ethnic violence.
[dead]
Thank you for actually reading the article. I knew I would get many responses parroting the official narrative because that's what we're being spoonfed, but I'm glad some people are interested in understanding what really happened.
> when no other sets of fans are given the same treatment
This treatment is often doled out to clubs' fans. Even in Tel Aviv.
> > when no other sets of fans are given the same treatment
> This treatment is often doled out to clubs' fans. Even in Tel Aviv.
Sorry, what treatment are you talking about exactly? Your parent seems to be referring to the treatment of being "blocked from attending by the police/council". Is that what you mean is often doled out to clubs/fans?
Yes, that's the precise type of treatment I'm talking about: prevented from attending a football game due to security concerns or penalty for poor behavior.
Individual fans are frequently banned. How many other occasions can you name where no away fans were permitted at a game?
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/15326456/rangers-shoc...
It happens often enough in European football. Search "away fans ban uefa -maccabi" online. You can also look at official UEFA sites, but they often list partial bans (e.g., ban from a particular section of the stadium) in a way that I can't distinguish from complete bans.
https://www.uefa.com/running-competitions/disciplinary/stadi...
According to the UEFA website you linked it looks like BSC Young Boys were the only other club to face a ban on Europa League away fans in 2025. Maccabi Tel Aviv doesn't appear there, of course, since despite UEFA having rules and punishments against fan violence, they didn't consider it appropriate to punish Maccabi. So I wonder how frequently a team is forbidden from taking away fans by the local police, despite not being sanctioned by UEFA.
The Tel Aviv police did see fit to call off a Maccabi game about 2 weeks after this furore. Admittedly, because of violence on the morning of the game, not because of concerns well in advance, but I think it's quite reasonable to say that such a prohibition is not some kind of outrageous outlier.
My general point is, if you think the surface level details of this case are indication of some outrageous singling out of Maccabi fans, then I think that's mostly due to ignorance (in the non-derogatory sense of lack of familiarity).
If you want to debate the details, that's a fine thing to do, and I'm aware of lots of those details too and would still generally find it quite plausible to desire an away fans ban for Maccabi in that case, but that's not the point I'm trying to make on HN right now.
> The Tel Aviv police did see fit to call off a Maccabi game about 2 weeks after this furore
I think you mean the match against Hapoel Tel Aviv, which happened before this furore. The Tel Aviv police naturally know and expect that there is often unrest at a derby match, let alone a derby match between teams who share a stadium. But why would there be particular reason to assume that there would be unrest at a match between fans from Tel Aviv and Birmingham who have no particular relation to each other? And even if there was, why not cancel the match or play it behind closed doors? Why punish Maccabi specifically?
My recollection is the Tel Aviv derby took place after this Aston Villa ban was announced or raised publicly as a possibility (my meaning of "the furore"), but before the eventual match (another valid definition). Regardless, the sequence of these events is immaterial.
As for a "particular reason"... the Amsterdam match! The report is a poor document, but it contains some valid reasoning, despite the outrageous AI hallucination and some legal linguistics errors (mistakenly saying "communities" themselves were targeted, instead of individuals from said communities).
Subsequently, after a Maccabi game in Stuttgart, UEFA gave Maccabi a (suspended) away fans ban. Is it really still in question whether it's plausible for a police force to say there are security concerns? https://archive.is/20251218110350/https://www.nytimes.com/at...
> As for a "particular reason"... the Amsterdam match!
A match that happened 12 months prior? Maccabi had played several away matches around Europe in that intervening period. Why should it have been a Birmingham team that saw fit to ban them?
> Subsequently, after a Maccabi game in Stuttgart, UEFA gave Maccabi a (suspended) away fans ban. Is it really still in question whether it's plausible for a police force to say there are security concerns?
It's not implausible! But bans of all away fans happens rarely.
> But why would there be particular reason to assume that there would be unrest at a match between fans from Tel Aviv and Birmingham who have no particular relation to each other?
Emphasis mine, but you said both in a connected statement, so I don't see the point in disputing anything about my quotation.
Edit: I see now have you've removed the dispute of my quotation as being inaccurate where you argued you said "particular relation" and not "particular reason" -- no worries, I've made similar mistakes before, so while I'll leave my above words, they don't matter anymore.
As for why Birmingham in particular, I don't see it as some kind of gotcha to say because there is a resident population in Birmingham that would be a likely target of racial/religious abuse by Maccabi fans, i.e., Muslim people, or even just "Arab" appearing people, or people showing Palestine solidarity. Amsterdam and Birmingham are similar in this regard (I lived in Amsterdam for years), in ways other cities may not be. I'm not clued into Stuttgart or the cities hosting other games, so I can't say if populations there are similar or not. Expecting a uniform approach from all cities would be ludicrous -- why mandate ignoring particularities?
I don't think this is a form of intolerance towards Maccabi fans, because the logic is identical to that of the Tel Aviv derby prohibition -- it's about preventing reasonably predictable confrontations that exceed some tolerance level.
> Edit: I see you removed disputing my quotation as being inaccurate, no worries, I've made similar mistakes before, so while I'll leave my above words, they don't matter anymore.
Yes, the mistake was entirely mine.
> As for why Birmingham in particular, I don't see it as some kind of gotcha to say because ...
Fine, that's a perfectly valid reason in itself, but the West Midlands police did keep quiet about that being the basis for the ban, only saying so (in far less detail than you) after the match had taken place: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqx3d5enx0xo, which in itself seems suspicious.
If your point is "hooliganism happens and is treated on a case-by-case basis, in some circumstances warranting bans" then my response would be to agree, though I still hold that such hooliganism is rare. This isn't the 1980s any more. Any further dispute is about the facts of the particular case, and what I've seen from the Commons committee which questioned the West Midlands police chief doesn't fill me with confidence that your interpretation is the correct one.
The background level of hooliganism is AFAIK a lot lower now than in the 80s/90s when I casually recall it being commonplace and less under control, yes, but that doesn't mean that Maccabi deserve to be treated as if they themselves rarely act as hooligans or racists, etc.
I have read quite a lot on the topic of what transpired in Amsterdam, what generally transpires at Maccabi games in Israel (in terms of genocidal chants, calling Israeli "left wing" club supporters "the whores of Arabs", etc., because they are in my view less racist against Palestinians or "Israeli Arabs"), the level of analysis done by the Birmingham police (a poor document, but to me there is clearly a reasonable argument in there, struggling to be expressed, but mired in unforced errors), etc. I think the standard of discourse by UK parliamentary commissions and debate in parliament, etc., has been very low, and not a sufficient basis to understand the relevant facts, even for a casual overview, never mind for detailed insight.
However, none of that is part of my original point, which is only to say, that banning away fans from a club like Maccabi is not notable, and on the surface level, anyone arguing that it smacks of discrimination is either ignorant or disingenuous. If one admits that there was plausible justification to prohibit Maccabi away fans, but in the particulars it was not justified, then fine, I disagree, but I don't wish to pursue the argument on HN.
This happens all. the. time.
For example, at any duel between Ajax and Feyenoord the away fans have been banned - since 2009. The Den Haag municipality banned away fans at ADO Den Haag - Ajax games for over 10 years. NAC - Willen II didn't allow away fans during the 2022 season. Fans misbehaved badly enough during N.E.C. - Vitesse games that they were threatened with a 10-year ban on away fans. Amsterdam banned the Italian fans at Ajax - SS Lazio in 2024, due to repeated antisemitism and racism. Lille didn't allow Ajax fans during their game last January. In 2023 the Amsterdam police seriously considered banning all away fans during all high-risk European games.
And that's just the first few results of a trivial search for a single country. I could probably find a hundred more without much effort.
They were banned because during a match in Amsterdam they shouted racist abuse, sang racist songs, did plenty of vandalism, threw an innocent member of the public into a river and assaulted Muslim taxi drivers.
Moreover, most of them have military training which makes the racist abuse, vandalism and assault that much more terrifying.
If an antisemitic football team was half that bad they'd be hauled off to prison never mind banned from football matches.
Yup, Amsterdam is looking to ban future participation of Maccabi fans as a result:
https://www.trtworld.com/article/86ebbfd8eada
> If an antisemitic football team was half that bad they'd be hauled off to prison never mind banned from football matches.
Individuals are often banned from football matches. Banning a team from bringing any supporters is rare.
Barcelona vs Athletic Bilbao had no away fans. It happens a few times every year across Europe. If you’re only looking at UEFA matches you’ll find fewer, but it’s not that unheard of. Argentina had a 12 year ban on away fans recently lifted as well.
> Individuals are often banned from football matches. Banning a team from bringing any supporters is rare.
Completely wrong - here is a list of recent stadium bans for various football fans:
https://www.uefa.com/running-competitions/disciplinary/stadi...
Stadium bans arent uncommon, but bans from the UK authorities are essentially unheard of.
That list confirms that during 2025 there was one incidence of UEFA banning a Europa League team from bringing fans. There are nearly 200 matches in one season of Europa League, so it's rare, I think.
There are multiple “no away fans” bans in 2025 on that page. It is common-ish and contradicts your earlier claims of it not happening to anyone but Maccabi.
Just incredible how little people understand football on here, but confidently say things like this.
Here's an example from a few months ago where Italy suspended their EU obligations to free movement to prevent hooligans entering from Germany.[1] This is a far bigger response, which affected all Germans entering Italy, not just the football fans. This is a far bigger response and of questionable legality.
[1] - https://www.visahq.com/news/2025-11-04/de/italys-one-day-bor...
> Here's an example from a few months ago where Italy suspended their EU obligations to free movement to prevent hooligans entering from Germany
Are you sure that all away fans were banned? Doesn't look like it. It looks like they imposed controls to forbid the travel of particular people, which, as I said, often happens.
> Airlines operating Germany–Italy routes were asked to verify passenger identities against watch-lists before boarding
The same club has since been banned from bringing any supporters for 2 games. https://en.eintracht.de/news/uefa-spricht-strafen-aus-eintra...
This is a very common punishment for clubs that have hooligans for fans. Like Eintract. Like Maccabi.
Right, as you can see here: https://www.uefa.com/running-competitions/disciplinary/stadi...
It also looks like a UEFA ban is rare not common. One incidence in 2025 for Europa League matches.
Yeah, bans are rare because hooliganism is rare. But in the instances of hooliganism, stadium bans are common! "Oh no, Maccabi fans are being targeted". No more than any other hooligans.
Ah, well that I agree with! I suspect the only remaining point of disagreement is whether the level of hooliganism of Maccabi fans warranted the ban. My guess, based on what I've seen from the evidence to the Commons committee is no, but I'm not particularly inclined to get into a debate about that.
My guess based on what I've seen from Amsterdam, is that there would have been clashes in Birmingham, just as there were clashes in Amsterdam. Without getting into who was at fault and who would have been at fault, we're all better off for having avoided the violence. This would be unfair if the Maccabi fans were entirely blameless, but based on the reports from Amsterdam, the Maccabi fans weren't.
Btw, you clearly don't know much about Maccabi. Here there are a decade ago, with their fans being investigated for racism by the Israeli FA (https://newisraelfund.org.uk/issue/kick-it-out-complaint-lea...). Is the Israeli FA anti-semitic too? They've also been banned from Israeli stadiums in the past for hooliganism.
> you clearly don't know much about Maccabi
I know nothing about Maccabi, but nothing I've said relies on "good behaviour" on the part of of Maccabi fans.
The level of racist violence we saw in Amsterdam is also quite rare.
It used to be more common in the 90s iirc.
Are you sure? For example, you said Maccabi Tel Aviv fans
> threw an innocent member of the public into a river
whereas the BBC says
> It was, in fact, a Maccabi fan who was found in the river
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2xnzye903o
OP is sharing facts, not 'view points'.
It later transpired the real reason the Police wanted to ban the group:
"West Midlands Police did have "high confidence intelligence" that members of the local community in Birmingham were planning to arm themselves to attack Maccabi supporters."
https://news.sky.com/story/ai-evidence-a-fake-match-and-misl...
And yet the SAB downgraded the risk to fans from High to Medium in their report...
Well, that's not accurate either.
Because the police didn't want to upset the "local community" (which is predominantly Muslim), they hunted around for reasons to ban them as that was easier than EG enforcing the law and stopping people getting attacked by mobs.
It's just more two tier policing in the UK.
Do you mean the West Midlands is predominantly muslim?
The local community near Aston Villa's grounds, Villa Park, is predominantly Muslim.
Take a look at this map of data from the 2011 census. The dark green lumps in the north-west (>70% Muslim) and the green lumps surrounding them (45%-70% Muslim) are Perry Barr. The whitish lump (0%-5% Muslim) immediately to the east of a dark green lump is Aston.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Islam_Birmingham_201...
May I introduce you to the local MP?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2025/oct/17/keir-s...
> But the decision has been welcomed by Ayoub Khan, the MP for Birmingham Perry Barr, the constituency where the match will take place. He organised a petition calling for the match to be either cancelled, relocated or held behind closed doors [...]
> Khan is one of the five independent MPs elected at the last election wholly or partly because of their outright opposition to Israel’s war in Gaza and his petition suggests that his opposition to the match going ahead is motivated as much by the desire to make a political point about Israel’s conduct as by concerns about the risk of violence. The petition cites three reasons why the match should not go ahead. One is the “track record of violence by Maccabi Tel Aviv fans”, but the others are the “ongoing genocide in Gaza” and the “wider European context”. The petition says:
> As Israel continues its assault on Gaza, killing thousands and devastating civilian infrastructure, sporting fixtures involving Israeli teams cannot be separated from the wider political context. Hosting such teams sends a message of normalisation and indifference to mass atrocities.
With this in mind, perhaps you can see there was as much a political and sectarian religious element to WMP's decision as there was a security element.
I don't know the make up of all of the West Midlands, sorry.
You say the local community is predominantly muslim.
What do you consider local to Aston Villa's ground?
I don't understand what you are asking. You said the local community is predominantly muslim. What did you mean by that?
Maccabi fans were also found guilty by the UEFA governing body just in December of racist chants (referring to an Arab-Israeli as a "terrorist") in a separate episode:
https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/47336888/maccabi-tel-...
And their fans did a racist rampage again Palestinian Arabs just the other day:
https://www.newarab.com/news/maccabi-fans-attack-palestinian...
Maccabi Tel Aviv have been travelling to Europa League away matches every few weeks:
https://www.uefa.com/uefaeuropaleague/clubs/57477--m-tel-avi...
Why is it only Birmingham that saw fit to ban them?
> Why is it only Birmingham that saw fit to ban them?
Huh? Amsterdam is also looking to ban them:
https://www.trtworld.com/article/86ebbfd8eada
The main European football association also found them guilty recently of anti-Arab racist chants and fined, gave them a "suspended one-match away fan ban":
https://news.sky.com/story/maccabi-tel-aviv-fc-given-fan-ban...
> Why is it only Birmingham that saw fit to ban them?
It's a complete mystery...
Talk about a misleading headline.
After months of widespread protests across the UK, the police in West Midlands looked at multiple intelligence reports and concluded that protests and violence would be inevitable if the match went ahead and fans from Maccabi Tel Aviv were allowed to travel to Aston Villa's ground. Their advice was that away fans should not be granted tickets to the event.
The issues at the core of this decision are about alleged antisemitism rising in the UK, presumed violence of a group of fans with an uncertain intelligence picture, and how decisions were made with these analyses trading off against each other.
He resigned because of that process leading to the Home Secretary no longer having confidence in him.
I don't think the misleading of the select committee would have helped him, but he gave an answer based on all that he knew at that point in time, with the best of intentions. The fact he hadn't been briefed isn't his fault. The fact he leaned into a decision that had wide-ranging political ramifications without first opening up the discussion to more stakeholders is his fault, and it's why he's no longer in the job.
> He resigned because of that process leading to the Home Secretary no longer having confidence in him.
Not according to the news reports. They say e.g. he "blamed what he described as the "political and media frenzy" for his decision to step down."
Come on, that's not the full story at all.
The body that made the recommendation, the "Safety and Advisory Board" met several times and changed their report multiple times. When it was finally released they redacted large parts of the decision making process including saying that:
* The police didn't want the match to go ahead (prior to any evidence for that)
* Two local Muslim councillors (Labour and Lib Dem) had been lobbying against it going ahead with one saying (quote) 'we are the voice of the people'
Additionally:
* They edited the report saying risk to local muslim residents went from Medium -> High
* They edited the report saying risk to fans travelling went from High -> Medium.
* They adjusted the number of police needed from 1200 -> 5000 in order to try and justify the decision.
When the full unredacted report was leaked, then they were put on the back foot and falsely threw out that they'd got the evidence (including of local muslim residents in Amsterdam being thrown in a river, which didn't happen) from a Dutch Police report, which wasn't true.
Anyone with a brain in the police should know that recommending cancellation or banning away fans from a Champion's League game is a major international news story. The chief of police needs to be on top of the details and 100% sure that the evidence is there.
The evidence was there. They committed plenty of violence and were loudly and openly racist during their match in Amsterdam.
It was pretty telling that this news story hyperfocused on the one AI image and didnt even address all of the actual evidence. Classic PR move.
The Dutch police were a lot more fair-handed in giving intelligence to the WMP than you've been here.
They made clear that there were indiscriminate antisemitic attacks, and that WMP had made up claims that were not backed by what the Dutch police told them.
https://news.sky.com/story/ai-evidence-a-fake-match-and-misl...
> a section of the Maccabi fan base was filmed engaging in violence in Amsterdam in 2024 and chanting anti-Palestinian racist abuse. That required WMP to contact their Dutch counterparts, who also informed them of the antisemitic violence by locals in Amsterdam, hunting down and kicking Maccabi supporters, leading to the only five convictions.
> Dutch police disputed the accuracy of how their Birmingham counterparts used information about the 2024 unrest in Amsterdam, with clear contradictions only able to be highlighted due to leaked WMP documents.
> WMP's intelligence assessment claimed that Maccabi fans apparently intentionally targeted Muslim communities in Amsterdam, but the Dutch force told me: "We did not see large groups of Maccabi's (fans) going into Muslim populated areas to target Muslims."
> Claims that Maccabi fans threw "innocent members of the public into the river" were also not endorsed by the Dutch.
> Talk about a misleading headline.
Something I always expect from TheRegister.
>>that protests and violence would be inevitable
God forbid they enforce the law.
FYI: there is a growth of sectarian and antisemitic behaviour in the UK.
Last year, a man named Jihad Al-Shamie attacked a Manchester synagogue on Yom Kippur and killed two congregants before he could be stopped.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd63p1djgd7o
Antisemitic attacks have increased. Jews do not feel safe in Birmingham.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpvdxrr0mxpo
Right next door to Aston Villa is Birmingham's Perry Bar ward, where they elected the independent MP Ayoub Khan, for what seems to be his support for the Palestinian side of the Israel-Palestine war.
The West Midlands police were keen to give the impression that they were even-handed and fair in banning Maccabi fans, claiming they consulted multiple faith communities in Birmingham, and besides Maccabi fans are rotters, look at what they did at this other match.
The other match did not exist. The Jewish community did not ask for the Maccabi fans to be banned. Those were lies.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c98ng15qmy9o
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cev82g41vpdo
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdxw2nv6vzzo
> As the match was played last month, pro-Palestinian protesters, including Independent MP Ayoub Khan, gathered outside the stadium, waving flags and banners calling for an end to violence in Gaza.
In my view, the West Midlands police probably had partisan community leaders like Mr Khan tell them to keep Jewish/Israeli fans out of Birmingham or they'd cause a riot, and the police meekly went along with this, then concealed this true reason, and made up bullshit reasons for banning the fans... which they have been caught out on, because they used a chatbot that hallucinated falsehoods and they didn't even verify it before using it as justification to a Parliamentary select committee.
That is what is known as misleading Parliament. That's why the chief's position is untenable.
Im glad al shamie is dead, but do you condemn the Maccabi fans recorded on camera in Amsterdam repeatedly chanting "death to arabs" and "there are no more schools in gaza because we destroyed them?"
Do you condemn the army of an extremely racist state that committed what the UN describes as genocide?
> Do you condemn the Maccabi fans recorded on camera in Amsterdam repeatedly chanting "death to arabs" and "there are no more schools in gaza because we destroyed them?"
Yes, without question. Those are racist provocations. I also condemn all other violent acts those hooligans committed.
I further condemn their local opponents who made random attacks on unrelated Jewish and Israeli people. I hope you would do the same.
> Or the army of an ultra racist state that committed what the UN has described as genocide?
I take no side on the Israel-Palestine conflict. Israelis and Palestinians both have a right to exist, and to live in peace.
EDIT: Also, I want to add: A Jewish person in the UK != an Israeli citizen != the State of Israel and the IDF. If you're angry about Israel and Palestine, don't take it out on Jews in the UK. Don't assume Jews support Israel or the IDF, don't assume Muslims support Palestine or Hamas. Thanks.
> there is a growth of sectarian and antisemitic behaviour in the UK.
Gaza.
It wasn't because of the AI hallucinations but the intent of the document the hallucinations appeared in.
And the fact that he initially blatantly lied about AI being used
There were multiple failings.
We do not know he lied.
> On 6 January, Guildford told MPs on the home affairs committee that officers had found this material through a Google search that did not involve use of AI functions. "We do not use AI," he said in evidence to MPs.
Yes, he lied to MPs.
That requires but fails to show intent to deceive.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jan/14/west-midland...
“I had understood and been advised that the match had been identified by way of a Google search in preparation for attending HAC. My belief that this was the case was honestly held and there was no intention to mislead the committee.”
The police should be banned from using AI in any form
the police should also be banned from using google, reddit and youtube.
I'm not sure I'd go that far, but they should at least be aware of the credibility of information sources they're using to making professional decisions upon. Your world gets very small if you can only gather information that you see with your own eyes, but they do need to validate things they "learn" from Google/FB/Reddit/Youtube/non-official sources. I was unimpressed by the chief's letter:
> In preparation for the force response to the HMICFRS inquiry into this matter, on Friday afternoon I became aware that the erroneous result concerning the West Ham v Maccabi Tel Aviv match arose as result of a use of Microsoft Co Pilot[sic]. Both ACC O’Hara and I had, up until Friday afternoon, understood that the West Ham match had only been identified through the use of Google.
My 3rd grader knows better than to do research based solely on a Google summary snippet, and even understands that just because a linked article under the search agrees with the search that this doesn't mean it's true.
I would have expected that if the chief's staff were investigating rumors of a riot in a stadium 3 hours away, they'd call their counterparts at the police station in that location to get police reports from the incident.
They have trivial access to those official reports. They shouldn't be reliant on journalists sensationalizing, and opining the events for their news articles. They shouldn't be reliant on a search engine that exists to sell ads for those news organizations. They certainly shouldn't trust "Co Pilot" to figure out what may or may not have happened! It seems obvious to me that the tool could happily generate a police report from whole cloth.
Yes
this is true of many fields.
True.
The judiciary are using it too: https://www.scottishlegal.com/articles/overwhelming-support-...
The Judiciary's New Clothes
everyone else too
Just wait till the UK police decide to outsource social media Wrong Think detection to LLM's.
They are likely already doing it
All comments seem to assume the officers lied about not using AI, but the article doesn't actually say that:
> officers had found this material through a Google search
> the erroneous result concerning the West Ham v Maccabi Tel Aviv match arose as result of a use of Microsoft Co Pilot
> his force used fictional output from Microsoft Copilot
What this says is that the material originates from Copilot.
I suppose you can read that and interpret that they lied about the Google search, but if you assume incompetence over malice, the more likely interpretation is that they didn't properly verify their source found through Google. It could have been the source of the source of their source that used Copilot, not the officers themselves.
The takeaway here is that even if you don't use AI tools and do things as you did before AI, you may still be basing your work on AI content.
A parallel may someone saying they don't use AI in their code because they don't use AI tools, but then it turns out that a dependency of a dependency is built by AI.
That police “intelligence” relies on a google search rather than internal records or in exchange with other precincts and databases is ridiculous.
A wonderful precedent. Now if only it could be applied to other professions, and lower-profile cases...
Agreed. All humans need to learn to fact-check their sources. Especially those in decision-making roles.
"Trust but verify', very often equals 'fuck it, I'll do it myself'.
I worry the precedent is backwards, the source of the error suffers no repercussions.
In areas where we move away from humans doing work into humans checking the work of agents, we should be worried about an arrangement where the human is present only as an accountability sink for the mistakes of the agent.
It's not clear what happened from this news report.
His error in judgement may have been he hadn't investigated the problem sufficiently. Then falsely testified to the government. That's a big deal on its own.
The officer involved might have been fired or reprimanded, we don't know from that article.
But the cop who generated the report is still on staff and free to do more idiotic things in the future?
An organisational administrator can stop their team using Copilot and tell them not to use other tools. If the officer had used tools after that then they should indeed be disciplined
A gen AI tool doesn't spontaneously open up and say "Hey, Maccabi Tel Aviv fans are hooligans". The intent is usually from the user. It's quite possible that the officer prompted the AI while in Word with something like "Help me write a reason we should ban these fans".
> stop their team using Copilot
> If the officer had used tools after
They didn't use tools. They did a Google search and assumed the results didn't originate from an AI tool.
The lesson from the article is that even if you don't use AI tools, AI content may still creep into your investigation.
They specifically used Copilot according to the article.
It doesn't say they used Copilot. It says they used output *from* Copilot.
> his force used fictional output from Microsoft Copilot
That doesn't mean they used Copilot; it only means that the content originates from Copilot. They apparently got it from Google search result:
> officers had found this material through a Google search
And apparently that source either used Copilot or the source of their source used Copilot, etc.
Probably? But across a large org, "a worker bee doing X cost the previous CEO his job" is a far stronger lesson than "a worker bee doing X cost him his job".
It’s a strong message to senior management to insert proper oversight.
It’s not a strong message to line employees to use their brains.
I'd say the exact opposite, "doing this will get YOU fired" is the strongest possible message.
I'd rather that the cops who actually used the AI slop had been reprimanded, and the chief had been kept...
I wonder if this was one of those Google AI "summaries" that people are so happy to trust.
> I wonder if this was one of those Google AI "summaries" that people are so happy to trust.
"Microsoft Co Pilot" (sic) is being called out as the tool that was used.
Does Microsoft have anything similar to Google's AI summaries on Bing or inside other Microsoft products, like Windows?
With both MS and Google pushing "AI" on everything, it's possible no one realized they're reading an "AI" summary and the Copilot branding was what was on Word.
Hey btw, how do "AI" summaries on Google search look? Exactly like honest [1] results, like they did with ads?
[1] If there are any honest results left on a Google search. My impression is everything is from content mills, be it "AI" or human slop.
Same. The fact that he stepped down harkens back to a time when officials took responsibility for their gaffs. Given the current pedigree of public officials, I'd rather that he stayed on, instead of being replaced by someone worse
Is it just me (English as a second language but very fluent) or is this extremely hard to read? Does this even grammar?
If you're referring to the headline in the article, it's slang. To "cop out" means you are giving up without a fight.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cop_it
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cop_out
I don't see a gloss for "cop out" that matches the one you give, and the only one I'm personally familiar with is most similar to sense 1, "perform in an insufficient, negligent, or superficial manner".†
And even there, I would think of the derived noun as being the basic vocabulary item, even if the etymology is the other way around.
That said, the sense I get from "Cop cops it after Copilot cops out" is 'this is using vocabulary I don't know, because it's British', not 'how is it possible to put the words together this way?'. It looks like a fairly normal sentence using exotic vocabulary.
† As a separate issue, I don't think the gloss you give can be correct here, because the thing that's supposed to have copped out is Copilot, and what it did was to produce false statements, not surrender before a fight.
If we want to rephrase this headline to avoid any use of the token "cop(s)", it looks something like "Policeman gets in trouble after Copilot screws up" to me.
The Register tends to use a lot of puns/colloquialisms etc
It's a British tradition. I was certain there would be a wikipedia page on that, but I can't find anything.
[flagged]