For all her rhetoric after the “devastating” police inspectorate report on the West Midlands police force, the home secretary, Shabana Mahmood, lacks the power to sack the chief constable Craig Guildford over his force’s intelligence failures after it advocated for a ban on Israeli fans attending a football game in Birmingham in November 2025.
That power rests with Simon Foster, the police and crime commissioner (PCC) for the West Midlands. Here are the considerations for Foster ahead of his decision:
What are the most damaging parts of the police inspectorate’s findings?
Sir Andy Cooke, the chief inspector of constabulary and the former chief constable of Merseyside, concluded in his report that the force became convinced a ban on the Israeli fans was necessary, then through “confirmation bias” sought the evidence to justify it, too often getting the evidence wrong.
The small comfort for West Midlands police (WMP) is that this was not thought to be because of malice, antisemitism or political pressure.
HM Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) believes the force focused on Muslim concerns, by which it means those angered by Israeli attacks on Gaza and who believed Maccabi Tel Aviv should not be playing in Birmingham, and failed to properly consult local Jewish views.
The force did not properly appreciate a ban would raise suspicions of caving in to antisemitism.
Cooke said: “It focused on reducing the risk of short-term disorder and long-term damage to local community relations due to the presence of Maccabi Tel Aviv fans. It lacked the necessary foresight to recognise the long-term, global consequences.”
West Midlands police spoke to Dutch police who had dealt with disorder when Maccabi played in Amsterdam in 2024. Central to WMP’s case for a ban was a conclusion that the Dutch evidence painted Maccabi fans as the perpetrators of the trouble..
Material briefed orally and sent in writing to Birmingham’s safety advisory group contained errors overstating the blame on Maccabi fans in Amsterdam.
Mishandling of Dutch police information
Perhaps the clearest examples of what WMP got wrong was to do with what their Dutch counterparts told them during a virtual meeting on 1 October.
WMP wrongly told the safety advisory group that Dutch police required 5,000 officers to deal with trouble at the Amsterdam game. HMIC says WMP’s own records show the Dutch police told them 2,000 officers had been needed.
Officers also wrongly said that more than 200 Israeli fans who travelled to Amsterdam were linked to the Israeli Defense Forces. They also said that 500 to 600 Maccabi fans had “intentionally” targeted Muslim communities in Amsterdam. HMIC says there were clashes but Israeli fans “targeted individuals rather than residential communities”.
WMP also presented the safety advisory group with material that overstated incidents of Palestinian flags being torn down or set on fire in Amsterdam.
An incident WMP portrayed as Maccabi fans throwing Muslims into the water in Amsterdam was in fact an Israeli fan thrown in the water, a fact HMIC says British police knew about having read official Dutch reports.
Cooke said: “In its written communication, WMP portrayed the level of disorder at that fixture, and the part played by Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters, as greater than it really was.”
Cooke said all this gave the safety advisory group members “little or no option” but to ban Maccabi fans as the only way “to protect the public”.
What will MPs say and what is their role?
The home affairs committee has held two sets of public hearings at which Guildford performed poorly. It will produce a report that may well be more critical than HMIC’s.
Guildford, in a letter released by MPs on Tuesday, apologised for the inclusion in his force’s intelligence reports of a Maccabi match against West Ham that never took place. While not materially affecting the conclusions, it is symbolic of the failings and was found via AI. Cooke said one WMP officer described the error as “an AI hallucination”.
What will be the PCC’s approach?
Foster says he will study the reports. He is holding a public session where he will question Guildford on 27 January.
If Foster wants to dismiss Guildford he has to follow a legal process, as part of which he must consult the chief inspector of constabulary – Cooke.
Could Guildford keep his job?
As part of any process to oust Guildford, regard needs to be paid to his whole tenure since 2022 as chief constable. The force under Guildford has increased its crime clear-up rate from 3% to 15%, and its service to the public, measured by how quickly it answers emergency calls, has vastly improved.
Another factor for Foster to consider is who would replace Guildford. There is a shortage of capable chief constables and forces are struggling to fill top roles, with some having to bring former chiefs out of retirement.
HMIC says WMP’s errors meant it made “misleading statements” to justify the ban due to “carelessness rather than any deliberate distortion”.
Cooke’s report says the top of the force bears responsibility for these failings and the damage done.
“These shortcomings are symptomatic of a force not applying the necessary strategic oversight and not paying enough attention to important matters of detail, including at the most senior levels,” it adds.
