Child fans 'used as flare mules'

[davieG]

Children as young as eight are being used as "mules" to smuggle flares and smoke bombs into Premier League matches, according to new research.

A survey found a third of supporters have been directly affected by pyrotechnics at a stadium and that 86% are concerned for their safety.

Use or possession of such devices in grounds can lead to bans or prison, and an education drive has been launched.

Policing minister Damian Green has said  "someone could get killed".

Clubs involved in three or more incidents with flares in 2013-14

5: Everton, Manchester United, Wigan Athletic

4: Liverpool, Manchester City, Sheffield United

3: Bradford City, Bristol City, Burnley, Charlton Athletic, Leeds United, Mansfield Town, Nottingham Forest, Oldham Athletic

Source: UK Football Policing Unit

In the first three months of this season, there were 96 pyrotechnic incidents across the Premier League, Football League, Football Conference and domestic cup competitions.

For the whole of 2012-13 that figure was 172, a steep increase from 72 during the previous campaign and just eight a year earlier.

Last season saw 71 arrests for 'possession of a firework/flare at a sporting event', an increase of 154% on the 2011-12 season.

The Premier League-commissioned survey of 1,635 supporters found more than half of fans had witnessed pyrotechnics at a match, 24% had had their view obscured, 10% had suffered from smoke inhalation and 2% had been affected by heat from a flare.

"It's the biggest concern we've got among fans at the moment," Cathy Long, head of supporter services at the Premier League, told BBC Sport.

"There have been incidents across the world where people have had bad injuries or died. We've been lucky that our leagues haven't had such major issues yet, but we want to stop that from happening."

The pitch at Falkirk was damaged by a flare thrown in Saturday's Scottish Cup tie with Rangers

A worrying trend exposed by the research was of children being used as "mules" to bring pyrotechnics into grounds on behalf of others.

It claims that at one Premier League match last season, an eight-year-old entered the stadium with pyrotechnics in his rucksack and was seen passing them to members of an adult group who let them off.

"A lot of supporters may be unaware that the use or possession of pyrotechnics is actually illegal and the ultimate sanction is prison," said Football Supporters' Federation caseworker Amanda Jacks.

Two-thirds of parents said increased use of pyrotechnics was putting them off bringing their children, a feeling Ruth Maddocks can relate to.

Her eight-year-old son James was in the Everton section at Liverpool last season, but missed the action after being struck by a smoke bomb.

"It was before the game and the players had all just come out on to the pitch," she told BBC Sport.

"Everyone was standing up so my son was standing on the chair. My husband just heard James saying 'ouch!' and on the back of his neck he could see a really big red mark but ash still burning away at his skin.

"My husband flicked it off and then took James to be treated by St John Ambulance, who put some gel on it and a plaster. He came back to the seat but it was such a shake-up for him he couldn't stay."

More commonly associated with overseas football stadiums, the use of pyrotechnics is a relatively new phenomenon in English football.

"The European influence is very, very strong," Jacks added. "I've no doubt people think pyro creates a better atmosphere and enhances supporting their team. Whether or not that's true, it's illegal. They might end up seeing Christmas inside a cell."

Offenders jailed and banned

November 2013: A Manchester United fan who set off a smoke bomb during the match at West Bromwich Albion - Sir Alex Ferguson's last game in charge - was given a two-month jail term, suspended for 12 months, and banned from all football grounds for three years.

February 2013: Two Chelsea fans were jailed for 28 days and given six-year football banning orders for taking smoke bombs into a match at Swansea City.

January 2013: An Exeter City fan was jailed for two months and given a six-year banning order for attempting to take a smoke bomb into a match at Torquay United.

August 2012: An Oxford United fan was jailed for two months and given a six-year banning order for taking a smoke bomb into a match at Plymouth Argyle.

In October, Fifa began disciplinary proceedings against the England and Poland Football Associations after flares, which burn at temperatures of 1,600C (the melting point of steel) were lit during a World Cup qualifier at Wembley.

Earlier that month, assistant referee David Bryan was hit by a flare during a match between Aston Villa and Tottenham at Villa Park.

A 15-year-old boy suffered lung damage from a smoke bomb thrown during Villa's trip to Wigan in May, and in February a 14-year-old boy was killed by a flare  thrown during a match in Bolivia.

A man whose father was killed by a flare at a World Cup qualifier between Wales and Romania in 1993 says "nothing has been learnt" from the tragedy, while the Scottish FA hopes to eradicate their use following two incidents last Saturday.

"These people don't care about the consequences - they think it's a laugh," said Dave Lewis, head of security at Everton.

"It's not a laugh and the consequences are dire."

The government-backed campaign aims to tackle the problem with pyrotechnic detection dogs, amnesty bins, an advertising campaign and improved camera surveillance and body searches.

[Trav Le Bleu]

Poor kids, I hope the police let them off.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry.

[Guest MattP]

A survey found a third of supporters have been directly affected by pyrotechnics at a stadium and that 86% are concerned for their safety.

 

To say I'm dubious about these figures is an understatement.

 

 

The Premier League-commissioned survey of 1,635 supporters found more than half of fans had witnessed pyrotechnics at a match, 24% had had their view obscured, 10% had suffered from smoke inhalation and 2% had been affected by heat from a flare.

 

So two thirds have been affected but 'more than half' had witnessed....interesting way of writing it.

 

November 2013: A Manchester United fan who set off a smoke bomb during the match at West Bromwich Albion - Sir Alex Ferguson's last game in charge - was given a two-month jail term, suspended for 12 months, and banned from all football grounds for three years.

February 2013: Two Chelsea fans were jailed for 28 days and given six-year football banning orders for taking smoke bombs into a match at Swansea City.

January 2013: An Exeter City fan was jailed for two months and given a six-year banning order for attempting to take a smoke bomb into a match at Torquay United.

August 2012: An Oxford United fan was jailed for two months and given a six-year banning order for taking a smoke bomb into a match at Plymouth Argyle.

 

Talk about a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

 

Why does everywhere seem to manage fine with flares except us? Have British people got some weird special allergy to these things?

[Dan]

A third affected and 86% concerned at safety not even worth a comment.

[Harry - LCFC]

I'd be a bit concerned if one went off in a semi-wooden stand and it might be dangerous to someone with asthma or some other condition but otherwise I don't take issue with them at all.

 

I've had a few go off right next to me, they smell awful but it's all fun and games because you've just scored!

 

EDIT: Also, I've only seen one flare go off before - It's usually smoke bombs which are quite different aren't they?

[Trumpet]

My favourite part was the "24% have had obstructed views" bit. As if they actually give a shit whether us, thuggish, loutish football fan types can see the game.

[Guest MattP]

I'd be a bit concerned if one went off in a semi-wooden stand and it might be dangerous to someone with asthma or some other condition but otherwise I don't take issue with them at all.

 

Weird one.

 

I'm classed as chronic asthmatic but they don't affect me at all. Sure others may be different of course. The cold over the winter in the ground hurts my breathing far more than a flare.

 

Again though, why is it different here to abroad? You can't tell me German asthmatics all stay away from football stadiums.

[Corky]

My favourite part was the "24% have had obstructed views" bit. As if they actually give a shit whether us, thuggish, loutish football fan types can see the game.

 

If it affects families and corporate types they care.

[Freeman's Wharfer]

The use of children as 'mules' is bad but I think since this whole issue has come to attention a major point has been missed... the biggest danger is people not knowing how to react around these things.

 

Almost every case/occasion that is cited is followed by "after a flare was thrown" or "after being hit by a smoke bomb" etc. They can be used perfectly safely if they're not chucked. If the potential to throw them makes them unsafe then so are every other object taken into a football ground that are sizable and hard. Throwing a mobile phone at football could kill someone, for example.

 

But what makes people chuck them?

 

The idea that they're somehow unsafe (even if just a simple smokebomb, designed to let off smoke), or because those letting them off know that if they're identified as having done so they will get a prison sentence so they throw them away from where they are stood. If people did something so simple as moving 5 yards away from where the device is and let it finish then no-one is likely to get hurt.

 

Similarly, if people were allowed to take flares into grounds then they would be able to hold them until they burn out rather than having to let them go and burn on the floor. How many times in European football do you see an ultra stood holding a lit flare?! He can do so because the police aren't going to pick him out on CCTV and pile in to arrest him.

 

It's like with the guy at Villa Park who chucked the smoke bomb which hit the linesman. My bet would be that he wasn't a malicious hooligan wanting to hurt a linesman he had no reason to want to hurt, but instead that it was let off or dropped on the floor in front of him and he panicked, picked it up, and threw it to the biggest open space he had available (the pitch). If people were educated that if one of these things is let off near you just move away from it then this wouldn't be such a major problem. Instead it's nasty, dangerous smoke bombs let off and thrown by the evil.

[Trumpet]

The law:

 

"A person over the age of 18 cannot legally be arrested for being in possession of a firework, flare or smoke bomb, other than when entering or attempting to enter a football match."

 

Would they therefore be allowed to be set off outside of the ground?

[davieG]

Irrespective of the rights and wrongs I really can't see the point of them, how does letting a flare/firework off support your team, fans should concentrate on vocally supporting their team and watching the game.

[Dan]

The use of children as 'mules' is bad but I think since this whole issue has come to attention a major point has been missed... the biggest danger is people not knowing how to react around these things.

 

Almost every case/occasion that is cited is followed by "after a flare was thrown" or "after being hit by a smoke bomb" etc. They can be used perfectly safely if they're not chucked. If the potential to throw them makes them unsafe then so are every other object taken into a football ground that are sizable and hard. Throwing a mobile phone at football could kill someone, for example.

 

But what makes people chuck them?

 

The idea that they're somehow unsafe (even if just a simple smokebomb, designed to let off smoke), or because those letting them off know that if they're identified as having done so they will get a prison sentence so they throw them away from where they are stood. If people did something so simple as moving 5 yards away from where the device is and let it finish then no-one is likely to get hurt.

 

Similarly, if people were allowed to take flares into grounds then they would be able to hold them until they burn out rather than having to let them go and burn on the floor. How many times in European football do you see an ultra stood holding a lit flare?! He can do so because the police aren't going to pick him out on CCTV and pile in to arrest him.

 

It's like with the guy at Villa Park who chucked the smoke bomb which hit the linesman. My bet would be that he wasn't a malicious hooligan wanting to hurt a linesman he had no reason to want to hurt, but instead that it was let off or dropped on the floor in front of him and he panicked, picked it up, and threw it to the biggest open space he had available (the pitch). If people were educated that if one of these things is let off near you just move away from it then this wouldn't be such a major problem. Instead it's nasty, dangerous smoke bombs let off and thrown by the evil.

 

Very good post.

 

I think the last paragraph isn't right though. Watching what happened, it'd be some co-incidence that it was thrown right in the direction of the linesman - it was thrown at a bit of an angle.

[Trav Le Bleu]

 so they throw them away from where they are stood.

 

Surely only ninjas throw smoke bombs where they are stood?

[C-man]

To say I'm dubious about these figures is an understatement.

So two thirds have been affected but 'more than half' had witnessed....interesting way of writing it.

Talk about a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Why does everywhere seem to manage fine with flares except us? Have British people got some weird special allergy to these things?

The figures themselves are questionable but what makes me want to scream is that they are happy to publish these types of stats when it suits them but when the stats concern safe standing - which are even more conclusive - they stick their hands over their ears and pretend they're not listening.

Personally I am neither for nor against pyro, but looking at it objectively, the cons massively outweigh the pros. The only positive I can think of is that they look good, but only when done en mass. The occasional one is a bit of a waste of time and effort to be fair.

I'm sure they are just a sign of rebellion - that fans are fed up with the shoddy treatment they continue to receive from their clubs, the league and the police.

If they opened their eyes they'd probably find out that safe standing would actually lead to fewer incidents with pyro.

[Jimothy]

Today's Fiver.

A BLIGHT ON ONE OUT OF EVERY 14 OR 15 FOOTBALL MATCHES

The priorities of football governing bodies conducting studies into Stuff That Is Wrong With English Football appear to be so skewed they have decided to ignore the serious problems on their own doorsteps – over-priced tickets, lack of atmosphere, greedy owners, ridiculous kick-off times etc, and so on – in favour of hysterical handwringing about the presence of fireworks in football grounds, a Fiver study has revealed.

A survey commissioned by the Premier League has revealed that actual mules have been serving as "eight-year-olds" to smuggle flares and smoke bombs into games on behalf of older fans. The survey also stated that, in the first three months of this season alone, there were 96 pyrotechnic incidents across the Premier League, Football League, Football conference and domestic cup competitions: a worrying epidemic that, according to the Fiver's fairly rough calculations, could be blighting as many as one in every 14 or 15 football matches.

Earlier this season, Tottenham's 2-0 win over Aston Villa was overshadowed when linesman David Bryan was struck on the back of the neck by a smoke bomb thrown by some dunderheaded imbecile at Villa Park. Two men were arrested in connection with the incident, in which Bryan was so badly injured that he required no medical treatment whatsoever and was able to continue running the line. Although fireworks are illegal in football grounds, devices such as coins and pyrotechnic devices known as "cigarette lighters", which regularly cause far more damage when hurled at players or officials, remain inexplicably welcome.

"There have been incidents across the world where people have had bad injuries or died," said a spokeswoman, speaking about the Premier League's apparent determination to remove every last bit of atmosphere from what is actually supposed to be an enjoyable day out. She then went on to provide a detailed breakdown of the number of people who have been hurt or killed by flares or smoke bombs at Premier League grounds: "We've been lucky that our leagues haven't had such major issues yet," she said. "But we want to stop that from happening."

At this point, your buzz-killing Fiver feels compelled to point out that in December 2003, Wolves fan Denise Butler suffered a bad laceration to her face after being hit by a firework prior to a Premier League game between her team and Newcastle at Molineux. The offending firework veered off course into the Billy Wright stand from the pitch, where it was part of a licenced and presumably Premier League-sanctioned pre-match pyrotechnics display. And the predictably over-the-top reaction from the victim's outraged husband? "It was just an unfortunate accident," said Martyn Butler, whose wife was released from hospital after treatment and two nights under observation. "It is just one of those things."